The Law 430 years later did not...

[Jay Ross]

The Cross of Christ is the New Covenant.

The Cross of Christ changed the process by which mankind is now able to gain redemption and establish His relationship with God as an individual. The only change to Salvation Covenant was the process by which it can be obtained as per Daniel 9:24b.

In the Parable of the Wine in the refreshed Wine Skins, all the skins into which the "new" grape juice is to be poured into need to be checked and refreshed so that they are pliable and soft, so that they can hold the freshly squeeze grape juice without the wine skins bursting. "Neo" is with respect to age i.e. the grape juice, while "kaneos" is with respect to condition of the wine skins being refreshed so as to hold the grape juice.

In the New Testament there is only one case where "neo" is found in close proximity to the word "covenant" and in that case in the Letter to the Hebrews, I believe that it is stating that "Christ" is the neo/new High Priest of the Covenant and not that Christ is the High Priest of the new covenant. The translation in this case is dependent upon the associativity we place on the word "New." Because many want a "new covenant" they have determined that the associability links the word "new" with the word "covenant" whereas I believe that the associability links the word "new" with Christ now being our High Priest.

Every occurrence of the Greek word "Kaneos" I believe has the meaning of "refreshed" or "made like new again."

Shalom

 

[dak]

The Cross of Christ changed the process by which mankind is now able to gain redemption and establish His relationship with God as an individual. The only change to Salvation Covenant was the process by which it can be obtained as per Daniel 9:24b.

In the Parable of the Wine in the refreshed Wine Skins, all the skins into which the "new" grape juice is to be poured into need to be checked and refreshed so that they are pliable and soft, so that they can hold the freshly squeeze grape juice without the wine skins bursting. "Neo" is with respect to age i.e. the grape juice, while "kaneos" is with respect to condition of the wine skins being refreshed so as to hold the grape juice.

In the New Testament there is only one case where "neo" is found in close proximity to the word "covenant" and in that case in the Letter to the Hebrews, I believe that it is stating that "Christ" is the neo/new High Priest of the Covenant and not that Christ is the High Priest of the new covenant. The translation in this case is dependent upon the associativity we place on the word "New." Because many want a "new covenant" they have determined that the associability links the word "new" with the word "covenant" whereas I believe that the associability links the word "new" with Christ now being our High Priest.

Every occurrence of the Greek word "Kaneos" I believe has the meaning of "refreshed" or "made like new again."

Shalom

Excellent, people who understand and believe this are few and far between. It's proven in the parable of the wine-skins and how neos and kainos are employed by the Master therein. Wine-skins were made primarily with goat skins, (but whether or not so isn't important, that's just how it was). The goat skin was formerly the property of a living creature, a goat, and therefore it it surely had to be renewed, (kainos), repurposed, treated, and sewn back up into a large bottle, before it could be filled with neos-new wine.



So the Kohen who offers the goat receives the skin as his own: then he takes the skin to Shimon the Tanner to be cleansed, renewed, and repurposed, then the heart of the one who brought the goat willingly to the Kohen to be offered before the Most High, on account of his elder brother, is filled with new wine, (by his elder brother), and being gracious, the elder brother returns it to him full of new wine. And the elder brother says to him: Wait until after the yamim rabbim, (many days, 7*180=1260), for the old is chrestos!

 

[dak]

In the New Testament there is only one case where "neo" is found in close proximity to the word "covenant" and in that case in the Letter to the Hebrews, I believe that it is stating that "Christ" is the neo/new High Priest of the Covenant and not that Christ is the High Priest of the new covenant. The translation in this case is dependent upon the associativity we place on the word "New." Because many want a "new covenant" they have determined that the associability links the word "new" with the word "covenant" whereas I believe that the associability links the word "new" with Christ now being our High Priest.

Amen, Meshiah is the neos-new Mediator of the kainos-renewed covenant: for Mosheh was the former Mediator.

However you will not win this argument by what is currently in the Greek texts because the grammar rules support how it is rendered in most translations. It can only be supported at this point by common sense logos: which is what you have indeed already offered, for every other place in the Briyth Hadashah, (Renewed Covenant), where the new-renewed covenant is mentioned in the Greek texts, the wording is always one form or another of kainos diatheke, beginning with Luke 22:20, (η καινη διαθηκη).

This means that the portion of the verse in question, Heb 9:15a, is like a lone wolf and sticks out like a sore thumb: that is the overriding logos and logic, for it opposes a key doctrinal principle which has already been repeated in many other places. The Epistle to the Hebrews also was the next most likely candidate for a text that was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, that is, after Matthew and John. As for Matthew we have the patristic evidence from the so-called church fathers themselves, claiming that it was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and that they themselves translated it into Latin and Greek. The problem with this is that every time we find out such a thing we start finding the errors in their translations into Greek by back-translating their Greek back into Hebrew/Aramaic. The early so-called church fathers were apparently not so proficient in Hebrew and Aramaic as they were with Latin and Greek: this is the most likely reason for the error in case and possibly word order in Heb 9:15a.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Excellent, people who understand and believe this are few and far between. It's proven in the parable of the wine-skins and how neos and kainos are employed by the Master therein. Wine-skins were made primarily with goat skins, (but whether or not so isn't important, that's just how it was). The goat skin was formerly the property of a living creature, a goat, and therefore it it surely had to be renewed, (kainos), repurposed, treated, and sewn back up into a large bottle, before it could be filled with neos-new wine.

View attachment 69648 View attachment 69649

So the Kohen who offers the goat receives the skin as his own: then he takes the skin to Simon the Tanner to be cleansed, renewed, and repurposed, then the heart of the one who brought the goat willingly to the Kohen to be offered before the Most High, on account of his elder brother, is filled with new wine, (by his elder brother), and being gracious, the elder brother returns it to him full of new wine. And the elder brother says to him: Wait until after the yamim rabbim, (many days, 7*180=1260), for the old is chrestos!

​

New Wine Old Bottles

The contrast between the old and the new is vividly illustrated in the parable of new wine in old wineskins, highlighting not only outward form but the inner spirit. A person who approaches God with the mindset of Judaism, believing that religious regimen and self-discipline can earn divine approval, is like an old wineskin. The fermenting new wine, alive and active, cannot be contained by the rigid old skin; it bursts, the wine is lost, and the skin is rendered useless.

This parable is also prophetic. The first-century efforts by Jews to capture Christianity as merely a sect of Judaism led to the collapse of the Mosaic system and the loss of the Truth. Jesus used this figure to foretell the inevitable failure of anyone, whether his disciples or John’s followers, who attempted to merge the new gospel with the unprofitable religious practices of the Pharisees. To embrace the new teaching, one must become a new creature; merely polishing the old self will not suffice. “Put new wine into new wineskins,” and both are preserved.

New Wine and Old

Luke further records a third related teaching: “And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, ‘The old is good’” (Luke 5:39, ESV).

Here, Jesus may have been gently addressing the disciples of John, who had long admired the Pharisees’ strict devotion to tradition. It was natural for them, in their new zeal for God, to emulate what they had always respected. Yet Jesus implied that the new wine of the gospel is far better, and they needed to adjust to it quickly, especially since the old system was fading.

This saying became especially significant when Jews came to faith in Christ and had to let go of their attachment to the Law of works. A Jewish mindset would not immediately embrace the new wine of faith, but salvation requires developing a taste for it (Mark 4:33; John 3:12; 16:12; 1 Cor. 3:12; Heb. 5:12–14).

Jesus’ words show his gracious understanding of human weakness. Few people experience an instantaneous, complete conversion. Most undergo a gradual transformation of perspective. Peter, for example, was called three times by Jesus before fully understanding his mission. Many date their conversion from the time of baptism, yet even then, the journey of growth continues. As Jesus reminded Peter at the close of his ministry: “When you have turned back, strengthen your brothers” not at the beginning, but after the process of conversion and maturity.

Notes:

An old garment. Isaiah 50:8–9 and 51:6–8 use a similar figure of speech with the same lesson: in the spiritual realm, do not try to “make do and mend” the old; instead, discard it and put on a new garment (Galatians 4:3, 9; Hebrews 7:18).

Old bottles. Both mini-parables also appear in Job (13:28 LXX: “I am that which waxes old like a bottle, or like a moth-eaten garment”; cf. 32:19 LXX). New wine: “These men are full of new wine” (Acts 2:13) indeed, they were!

 

[Hiddenthings]

Amen, Meshiah is the neos-new Mediator of the kainos-renewed covenant: for Mosheh was the former Mediator.

Amen, Jesus (the Messiah) as the Mediator of a new covenant

 

[Hiddenthings]

The Cross of Christ changed the process by which mankind is now able to gain redemption and establish His relationship with God as an individual. The only change to Salvation Covenant was the process by which it can be obtained as per Daniel 9:24b.

In the Parable of the Wine in the refreshed Wine Skins, all the skins into which the "new" grape juice is to be poured into need to be checked and refreshed so that they are pliable and soft, so that they can hold the freshly squeeze grape juice without the wine skins bursting. "Neo" is with respect to age i.e. the grape juice, while "kaneos" is with respect to condition of the wine skins being refreshed so as to hold the grape juice.

In the New Testament there is only one case where "neo" is found in close proximity to the word "covenant" and in that case in the Letter to the Hebrews, I believe that it is stating that "Christ" is the neo/new High Priest of the Covenant and not that Christ is the High Priest of the new covenant. The translation in this case is dependent upon the associativity we place on the word "New." Because many want a "new covenant" they have determined that the associability links the word "new" with the word "covenant" whereas I believe that the associability links the word "new" with Christ now being our High Priest.

Every occurrence of the Greek word "Kaneos" I believe has the meaning of "refreshed" or "made like new again."

Shalom

Christ’s priesthood is superior in every respect, as emphasized in Hebrews 8:6 (ESV): “But as it is, Christ has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as he is also mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.”

This verse highlights three interconnected elements: a better ministry, a better covenant, and better promises. The Greek word leitourgia (“ministry”) occurs in the LXX and in Hebrews 9:21. In the New Testament it is often spiritualized to denote Christian ministry (cf. 2 Corinthians 9:12; Philippians 2:17, 30), though in Luke 1:23 it retains its original ceremonial sense. Christ’s ministry surpasses the Levitical priesthood because it addresses spiritual realities rather than mere ritual obligations. The term mesites (“mediator”), appearing here and again in Hebrews 9:15 and 12:24, conveys more than the idea of a middleman; it carries the sense of accomplishing salvation, closely linked to the “guarantee” (arrabōn) of a better covenant in Hebrews 7:22. Christ as Mediator ensures the full realization of covenant promises, in contrast to the old priesthood, which only foreshadowed them. The new covenant is also described as “founded” or “legally enacted” (nomotheteo), a term that emphasizes its authoritative and binding nature, as seen in Hebrews 7:11 regarding the Mosaic law. Finally, the “better promises” anticipated in this covenant include true sabbath rest (Hebrews 4:3, 9), an unshakable kingdom (Hebrews 12:28), and the heavenly Jerusalem to be established on Earth (Hebrews 12:22–24). Taken together, Christ’s priestly work, the covenant he mediates, and the promises it secures are altogether superior to the old, demonstrating the greater excellence of the new covenant in every respect.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Hebrews 8:7 "For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second."

For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant (@dak we have looked at some of its deficiencies but more to come!), no place would have been sought for another. Yet the hope of a new covenant is precisely what we read about in the prophet Jeremiah. This is the crux of the whole argument: the old covenant was not, nor had it ever been considered, final (Ezekiel 37:26–28; Isaiah 59:20–21; Romans 11:26–27). The argument of verse 7 parallels that of Hebrews 7:11: if the old covenant were sufficient, why would Scripture speak of a further reality? While the old covenant was morally “faultless” (Romans 7:12), it was ultimately powerless to save because of the weakness of the flesh (Romans 8:3–4). Therefore, no new covenant would have been sought had the first truly been sufficient; the necessity of a further covenant underscores the limitations of the old and the hope fulfilled in Christ.

@Jay Ross, I’ve been trying for weeks to get @dak to recognize that the old covenant contained God-intended deficiencies, yet he has never demonstrated a correct understanding of this. He clearly does not grasp the teachings of the Apostle Paul, who fully understood the limitations of the Torah.

 

[Hiddenthings]

@Jay Ross even the Priesthood is based on an entirely different order!

Hebrews 7:11 "Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (by Torah) (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?"

Better Covenant (Eternal Redemption by the Blood of Christ)
Better Promises (Abrahamic)
Better Priesthood (Melchizedek)

And the Torah (tutor) designed to lead people to Christ!

Hebrews 7:11 raises a crucial question: if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood, for on the basis of it the law was given to the people why was there still need for another priest to arise? This highlights the inability of the Levitical system to achieve the goal of full salvation, signaling the first hint of the Law’s decline and eventual nullification. Had the Aaronic priesthood been sufficient, there would have been no need to speak of another priest arising, one of the order of Melchizedek rather than Aaron.

Psalm 110:4 confirms this inadequacy, describing the one at God’s right hand as “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek,” waiting for his enemies to become a footstool for his feet.

The parenthetical remark that the law was given to the people on the basis of the Levitical priesthood should not be taken literally, since the priesthood did not precede the Mosaic law; rather, it emphasizes that the priestly system forms the foundation of the entire structure of the law, with the two being inextricably linked, as the argument of Hebrews makes clear. Here, “perfection” signifies nearness to God, or salvation, while the intimate connection between priesthood and law underscores their combined role in God’s plan. The term “another” (Greek heteron) indicates a different kind of priest, not from the tribe of Levi, pointing to Christ’s superior priesthood.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Hebrews 7:12 “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.”

Hebrews 7:12 teaches that when there is a change in the priesthood, there must also be a change in the law. This shift carries profound consequences, for the priesthood and the law were inseparably bound together: the priests taught the law (Malachi 2:7) and interpreted it for the people (Deuteronomy 17:8–11). Thus, if the priesthood changes, the law itself must also change. While the writer of Hebrews emphasizes continuity between the old and the new showing Christianity as the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel, he also acknowledges a real discontinuity. This would have been a bold claim, one difficult for Jewish readers to accept (and @dak), and one likely to fuel criticism from opponents of Christianity. In the immediate sense, the change in the law involves a priest not from Levi but from Judah, but the implications are much broader (Se verses 18–19; Heb. 8:7, 13). Significantly, the word “change” here develops into “disannul” in verse 18, showing that this change is essentially an abrogation of the old system, replaced by the better covenant Christ mediates.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Hebrews 7:18 “For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness.”

Here the writer boldly declares that the Mosaic regulation concerning the Levitical priesthood has been set aside, the Greek word athetēsis meaning “to annul” or “declare invalid,” even used in legal contexts for official cancellation. Some translations render it “disannulling” (KJV), “cancellation” (JBP), or “abrogation” (Diag). This is remarkable considering passages such as Exodus 40:15, which spoke of a priesthood lasting “for all generations,” or Jeremiah 33:18, which affirmed the permanence of Levitical service. Yet, the author sees in Christ the true fulfillment that renders the old priesthood obsolete. The reason given is clear: the law concerning the Levitical system was “weak and useless.” The priests themselves were described as weak (Hebrews 5:2; 7:28), and Paul echoes this when he says, “what the law could not do” because of human weakness (Romans 8:3; cf. Galatians 4:9). The term “useless” (anoepheles) is especially strong, used in Isaiah 44:10 of idols that are “profitable for nothing.” The point is not that God’s law was evil, in fact, Paul insists it was “holy, righteous, and good” (Romans 7:12) but that, apart from Christ, it could not accomplish salvation. Thus, once Christ brought the reality to which the law pointed, the Levitical system became outmoded and was set aside.

 

[dak]

New wine: “These men are full of new wine” (Acts 2:13) indeed, they were!

Once again thanks for such a great example of how absolutely wrong it is to search for a text by quote mining to find something you can rip from its context to say something ridiculous and entirely against what the scripture actually says.

Acts 2:13-15
13 But others mocking said, They are filled with new wine.
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spake forth unto them, saying, Ye men of Judæa, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and give ear unto my words.
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose; seeing it is but the third hour of the day;

As for the rest of your spiel, it appears directed toward me, and is nothing but a strawman argument painting me as someone I am not. You keep trying to make me out to be a Pharisee, but again, you are clearly the one who agrees with the Pharisees when it comes to understanding the Torah. That's why you cannot pin me down under your false accusations: you keep failing because you neither understand the Torah nor believe Paul when he tells you it is spiritual in Rom 7:14a).

 

[Hiddenthings]

Once again thanks for such a great example of how absolutely wrong it is to search for a text by quote mining to find something you can rip from its context to say something ridiculous and entirely against what the scripture actually says.

Acts 2:13-15
13 But others mocking said, They are filled with new wine.
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spake forth unto them, saying, Ye men of Judæa, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and give ear unto my words.
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose; seeing it is but the third hour of the day;

As for the rest of your spiel, it appears directed toward me, and is nothing but a strawman argument painting me as someone I am not. You keep trying to make me out to be a Pharisee, but again, you are clearly the one who agrees with the Pharisees when it comes to understanding the Torah. That's why you cannot pin me down under your false accusations: you keep failing because you do neither understand the Torah nor believe Paul when he tells you it is spiritual in Rom 7:14a).

As we are finding the transition from old to new is more grievous for some than others. I'm only at Hebrews 7 dak! We haven't even started to discuss the deficiencies in the Law.

Don't worry we will!

 

[Hiddenthings]

Once again thanks for such a great example of how absolutely wrong it is to search for a text by quote mining to find something you can rip from its context to say something ridiculous and entirely against what the scripture actually says.

Acts 2:13-15
13 But others mocking said, They are filled with new wine.
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spake forth unto them, saying, Ye men of Judæa, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and give ear unto my words.
15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose; seeing it is but the third hour of the day;

Dak, you have lost your way in these discussions because, unlike Paul, you cannot speak truthfully about the (Old or) New Covenant in Christ.

Your wine has failed, just as Isaiah declared: “The wine mourns, the vine languishes, all the merry-hearted sigh” (Isaiah 24:7–9). But the Lord Himself provides “wine well refined” (Isaiah 25:6), which is none other than everlasting life: “He will swallow up death forever” (Isaiah 25:8). Truly, the best wine has been saved for last, as Jesus said: “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:54).

Taste and see!

 

[Hiddenthings]

That's why you cannot pin me down under your false accusations: you keep failing because you neither understand the Torah nor believe Paul when he tells you it is spiritual in Rom 7:14a).

How many times have you wrested this verse? How many times have you quoted it in vain? Maybe you should read Hebrews 7 instead to get the full picture?

 

[Hiddenthings]

Hebrews 7:19 “(for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.”

Hebrews 7:19 teaches that the law made nothing perfect, meaning it could not bring God’s redemptive purposes to completion (Heb 5:9). Whereas the previous verse referred specifically to the “commandment” (entole), here the author broadens the scope to the entire law (nomos), highlighting its inability to achieve God’s intended goal. In contrast, a better hope is introduced, one of the author’s favorite themes through which we draw near to God. This “better hope” rests on the finished work of Christ, giving believers confidence not only for the future but also transforming their present reality (cf. Heb 3:6; 6:11,18; 10:23). The verb “teleioo” again underscores the emphasis on reaching God’s goal, here showing the inadequacy of the law but the sufficiency of Christ. Importantly, this hope is for both Jew and Gentile alike, as all who come in Christ are brought near to God (Eph 2:11–22), fulfilling what the law could never accomplish.

Better Covenant (Eternal Redemption by the Blood of Christ)
Better Promises (Abrahamic)
Better Priesthood (Melchizedek)
Better Hope (In Christ - All promises are yes!)

 

[Hiddenthings]

You can see how the author is gradually bringing to light the divinely designed deficiencies within the Torah.

Hebrews 7:20–22 highlights the certainty and permanence of Christ’s priesthood by pointing to God’s oath. All eternal promises in Scripture were confirmed with an oath (cf. Heb 6:13–20; Gen 22:16–18; Psa 89:3–4; Isa 62:8; Mic 7:20; Num 14:21; Luke 1:73; Acts 2:30), and the same is true for the priesthood of Melchizedek (Psa 110:4).

The author stresses, “And it was not without an oath! For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath.” Unlike the Levitical priests, who entered their role without a divine vow, Christ’s priesthood was established with God’s solemn oath, making it unchangeable and eternally secure. This oath, added to God’s word, provides double assurance of the superiority of Christ’s ministry.

 

[NSH]

Perhaps the solution to understanding the covenants is in the difference between the human realm of priests and the priest of the order of Melchizedek (the eternal order). The human priests where operating on one level, but this is not the same kind of covenant that was made and sealed with bread, wine, and a tithe in genesis:
Genesis 14:18-20.
Unlike the Levitical priesthood, the Order of Melchizedek isn't a lineage passed from father to son but a priesthood through direct appointment by God.

We have to understand that the law does not stand apart from the priesthood who facilitates the functions of the law. The law is not just rules for people to follow, it is a whole operating system of facilitation of spiritual powers that brings union to the higher and lower, to the heavens and the earth. if we are only talking about the written laws and records, we are not really talking about the priestly order that generates the law itself.

After Jesus healed, he sent the people to see the priests as required by the law. Without a system of priests to facilitate it, the law does not stand.

 

[dak]

Perhaps the solution to understanding the covenants is in the difference between the human realm of priests and the priest of the order of Melchizedek (the eternal order). The human priests where operating on one level, but this is not the same kind of covenant that was made and sealed with bread, wine, and a tithe in genesis:
Genesis 14:18-20.
Unlike the Levitical priesthood, the Order of Melchizedek isn't a lineage passed from father to son but a priesthood through direct appointment by God.

We have to understand that the law does not stand apart from the priesthood who facilitates the functions of the law. The law is not just rules for people to follow, it is a whole operating system of facilitation of spiritual powers that brings union to the higher and lower, to the heavens and the earth. if we are only talking about the written laws and records, we are not really talking about the priestly order that generates the law itself.

After Jesus healed, he sent the people to see the priests as required by the law. Without a system of priests to facilitate it, the law does not stand.

Welcome to the board, and, well said.

Of note:

Yithrow Reuel, ("His Excellency, Friend of El"), was/is a Kohen after the order of Melki-Tzedek. Mosheh himself was/is a Kohen after the order of Melki-Tzedek. King David also was/is a Kohen after the order of Melki-Tzedek, and likewise the other Kohanim Gadolim after king David, (such as Yhoshua ben Yhotzadak haKohen haGadol). And the Meshiah is the final Kohen after the order of Melki-Tzedek: for this one defeated death by faith in the Word of the Father, and dies no more.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Perhaps the solution to understanding the covenants is in the difference between the human realm of priests and the priest of the order of Melchizedek (the eternal order). The human priests where operating on one level, but this is not the same kind of covenant that was made and sealed with bread, wine, and a tithe in genesis:
Genesis 14:18-20.
Unlike the Levitical priesthood, the Order of Melchizedek isn't a lineage passed from father to son but a priesthood through direct appointment by God.

We have to understand that the law does not stand apart from the priesthood who facilitates the functions of the law. The law is not just rules for people to follow, it is a whole operating system of facilitation of spiritual powers that brings union to the higher and lower, to the heavens and the earth. if we are only talking about the written laws and records, we are not really talking about the priestly order that generates the law itself.

After Jesus healed, he sent the people to see the priests as required by the law. Without a system of priests to facilitate it, the law does not stand.

Correct, but Dak fails to recognize the deficiencies within the Law (Torah).

He believes that the order of Melchizedek is based on, or founded upon, the Mosaic order.

It is not.

He believes the New covenant is an extension (renewal) of the Old

It is not.

 

[Hiddenthings]

Welcome to the board, and, well said.

Of note:

Yithrow Reuel, ("His Excellency, Friend of El"), was/is a Kohen after the order of Melki-Tzedek. Mosheh himself was/is a Kohen after the order of Melki-Tzedek. King David also was/is a Kohen after the order of Melki-Tzedek, and likewise the other Kohanim Gadolim after king David, (such as Yhoshua ben Yhotzadak haKohen haGadol). And the Meshiah is the final Kohen after the order of Melki-Tzedek: for this one defeated death by faith in the Word of the Father, and dies no more.