LET'S TALK ABOUT THE BOOK OF HEBREWS

[Verifyveritas76]

There are two parties in the new covenant.

There are two parties mentioned in the new covenant in that passage.
As to Ezekiel 37. That entire chapter is a specific passage specifically regarding national Israel and the Trying to shoehorn everyone’s else into His covenant thru their house is conflating our covenant with Him with their covenant with Him.

Be carful VV76. This way is littered with wrecked ships and ruined faith. We can know what is the original text quite easily between the Septuagint and the New Testament and quotes of the Bible in in other sources. There’s no need to start questioning the Virgin Birth and what not. That would be folly.

Agreed. I think you may have misread the post. My point is that the Masoretic’s credibility with me is nonexistent now. This does not mean they changed everything, but certain topics that I know they jacked with, my default now is extreme caution. I cannot just accept it at face value whole heartedly.

I hate that it’s that way for me now but I can’t pretend otherwise.

I just ran across another instance the other day in Psalms 110:3 where they’ve changed it from God swearing verse 4 from before the morning star’s creation to the womb of the morning which massively degrades the importance of the origin of the Priesthood

 

[PeteR]

There are two parties mentioned in the new covenant in that passage.
As to Ezekiel 37. That entire chapter is a specific passage specifically regarding national Israel and the Trying to shoehorn everyone’s else into His covenant thru their house is conflating our covenant with Him with their covenant with Him.

So, please show me where the covenant with the Gentiles is recorded and what are the terms?

While you're at it, what are the terms for the new covenant?

 

[FollowingHim]

NO!

Priesthood is likely the correct fit!!

Ok, that makes more sense. I can see how it could be referring to the first "he" as stated in verse 6. And I suppose the word "they" in v8 could refer to the series of Levitical high priests, rather than the people as a whole. Not saying I agree necessarily, just that I understand your point now. There is a context of talking about priests, not just covenants.

 

[FollowingHim]

May I suggest that people post recommended reading for those who wish to dig into this in detail? Because of the strong opinions, this discussion can easily become an argument over details, with people talking at cross purposes about that detail because there are so many underlying points they disagree with, or don't understand yet, that they just can't appreciate the other's position accurately.

For anyone who is wanting to actually come to a better understanding, this is more readily achieved in personal study. If there's a sound commentary on Hebrews from your perspective that you'd recommend people go through, that would be great. I would myself find it valuable to go through commentaries from both perspectives and ponder them in my own time.

 

[PeteR]

In shameless self promotion....

Ten Parts in the King

Digs into Scripture answering the question of who the two houses are and more importantly why God did what He did. His purpose, His plan, how gentiles fit in, what the new covenant and Ezekiel 37 mean, what Paul meant in multiple passages, etc... all the pieces.

Available in paperback or Kindle.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

So, please show me where the covenant with the Gentiles is recorded and what are the terms?

While you're at it, what are the terms for the new covenant?

That’s easily done, but because I’m on a phone ATM, I’ll have to take a rain check on the long winded response. Acts 15 is more than sufficient to show that there are different terms and conditions for Gentiles in covenant with Christ.

 

[PeteR]

That’s easily done, but because I’m on a phone ATM, I’ll have to take a rain check on the long winded response. Acts 15 is more than sufficient to show that there are different terms and conditions for Gentiles in covenant with Christ.

I'm happy to wait. Take your time.

 

[Cap]

It wasn’t established by Moses. It was established by God on a flaming mountian rocked by earthquakes . Moses just got to hear it first.

Yes, I corrected that later.

 

[Cap]

This is the argument I can never understand, the “old covenant” was somehow flawed, even though it came from God Himself. God spoke the words, literally wrote some of them down but they’re flawed. They’re not right. Either God didn’t know what He was doing or maybe He was just kidding or maybe He was lying but somehow you, and those who believe like you, have convinced yourselves that God did something bad or wrong. He gave us Laws but they were bad laws. He screwed it up somehow, some way for some reason we don’t understand. I can’t accept this. It seems almost heretical to me and it blows my mind that anyone would make the claim.

I actually agree that the old covenant was not flawed, it served it's purpose perfectly. And that purpose was to show that WE are flawed and that we could never honor our part of the covenant. Therefore, God established a new covenant that He will save us through HIS efforts not ours. All we have to do is have faith. And demonstrate that faith though following the Holy Spirit as we learn to love and trust God.

 

[Cap]

Exactly! Walk as He Himself walked! Keep the feasts, keep Shabbat, eat clean, etc...

Ok, how do you actually keep the feasts, how do you actually keep the Sabbath (which day is it really). I guess eating clean is a little more clearer, but then you have the whole sheet with animals on it thing. Not sure about that. How do you know that I don't do these things as God has lead me to do them? Am I not following the Law that Christ has established for me today? Am I not following what has been written on my heart at the current time?

 

[PeteR]

Ok, how do you actually keep the feasts, how do you actually keep the Sabbath (which day is it really). I guess eating clean is a little more clearer, but then you have the whole sheet with animals on it thing. Not sure about that. How do you know that I don't do these things as God has lead me to do them? Am I not following the Law that Christ has established for me today? Am I not following what has been written on my heart at the current time?

@Cap it is not complicated. You know what is written. The Holy Spirit will not lead you contrary to what God has already given in hardcopy.

 

[Cap]

@Cap it is not complicated. You know what is written. The Holy Spirit will not lead you contrary to what God has already given in hardcopy.

It's not written. It's vague. I believe there is a reason it's vague. Because in the end if I can fulfill the requirements of the Law then I can boast about my accomplishments. It was never possible to fulfill the requirements of the Law.

However, can you say that the Holy Spirit is NOT leading me on the correct way? No. Then how can you say I am at risk? You can't. So basically we are at, God writes on your heart what He wants you to do and He writes on my heart what He wants me to do. It is to my benefit that I accept you for what you say I God is having you do, but it also is to your benefit that you accept what God is having me do. Do you agree?

 

[PeteR]

 

[Cap]

I'll take that as a no.

 

[GunnarR]

It's not written. It's vague. I believe there is a reason it's vague. Because in the end if I can fulfill the requirements of the Law then I can boast about my accomplishments. It was never possible to fulfill the requirements of the Law.

However, can you say that the Holy Spirit is NOT leading me on the correct way? No. Then how can you say I am at risk? You can't. So basically we are at, God writes on your heart what He wants you to do and He writes on my heart what He wants me to do. It is to my benefit that I accept you for what you say I God is having you do, but it also is to your benefit that you accept what God is having me do. Do you agree?

Why would YHVH purposefully make it vague? To try and cause us to sin? If His Torah is perfect, and attainable {Attainable: within reach, possible, gain, achieve} (per Psalm 19 and Deut. 30), then it is very clear as to how to keep His commandments... Saying that the Torah is vague is a lame excuse. Perhaps you should start in Exodus 16 and 20 for the Sabbath, Leviticus 23 for the Feasts, and Leviticus 11 for the clean and unclean laws. Read that and let me know how "vague" His commands are.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Cornelius is also a prime example. There’s no record of him ever keeping the Law, or converting to the tribe of Judah or Israel, before or after Peter’s visit.

Acts 10:34,35 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

This ^^ is in reference to Cornelius, who’s only recommendation is in verse 2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. Nothing is said about him following Torah or keeping the law. Period. It does not say that. The angel said that his prayer and alms were the reason God was regarding him.


The example of the olive tree and branches.
Romans 11:24,25.ff For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches,, be grafted into their own olive tree?
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

In this passage and example, the wild branches (Gentiles) are not grafted into the natural branches (Judah/Israel) but into the olive tree. Mostly because it is unreasonable to graft living wild branches into natural branches that have been removed. As the writer states, the natural may be grafted back in if the Master so chooses, but if so, it will be into the tree, not into the branches.

Romans 9:24-26 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
And it shall come to pass, that in the place where†it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Called the children of God. Not Israel or Judah

Galatians 3:25-29. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Ephesians 2:12-22 is also very apropos. Judah or Gentile = one in Christ, not one in Israel or Judah.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

This is the argument I can never understand, the “old covenant” was somehow flawed, even though it came from God Himself. God spoke the words, literally wrote some of them down but they’re flawed. They’re not right. Either God didn’t know what He was doing or maybe He was just kidding or maybe He was lying but somehow you, and those who believe like you, have convinced yourselves that God did something bad or wrong. He gave us Laws but they were bad laws. He screwed it up somehow, some way for some reason we don’t understand. I can’t accept this. It seems almost heretical to me and it blows my mind that anyone would make the claim.

I can appreciate where you’re coming from.

Not speaking for anyone else, but from my own perspective, it’s not that what God gave was bad. What God gave at Sinai was the best he could give then, not because of his inability to give better then, but because of the fathers proven inability to be responsible priests before Him with meat at that point. . So he gave them milk, and hung them off a Levitical teat until enough chastening had occurred and maturity had happened so that they could, as men, operate in a Melchizedek Priesthood, a better Priesthood and the one He tried and intended to utilize in Exodus 19 & 20.

It’s not that it’s bad, but simply that the good can be the enemy of the best in certain instances. It was the best that the Father would give them until the fullness of time when a perfect man would example how to fulfill a Melchizedek Priesthood. That does not mean it was the best ever, just that it was the best then. After Christ died, and mediated something better, the shadow can’t really compare to the real thing.

 

[PeteR]

Sorry, @Verifyveritas76 you did not show a covenant with the Gentiles, nor did you show the terms of their covenant. What you just showed is that they are grafted into Israel and are made part of (not replacement of) the seed of Abraham. Again, Scripture teaches that Israel is His people and they will never cease to exist.

Ez. 37:24-28... That clearly says where the Messiah will be, who He is with and what He will require.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Sorry, @Verifyveritas76 you did not show a covenant with the Gentiles, nor did you show the terms of their covenant. What you just showed is that they are grafted into Israel and are made part of (not replacement of) the seed of Abraham. Again, Scripture teaches that Israel is His people and they will never cease to exist.

Ez. 37:24-28... That clearly says where the Messiah will be, who He is with and what He will require.

But I did prove that Gentiles are accepted by God without being Torah observant, and Acts 15 shows in no uncertain terms that Gentile believers have a different very abbreviated set of rules than the Jews/Israel did.

If Israel is Jesus Christ, then yes. If Israel is the tribe then no. If thats your assertion, then you got some s’plainin to do. Your point, your burden of proof.

Ephesians 2:18,19 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

Through Him (Christ/Israel/Messiah) we both (circumcision AND uncircumcision) have access by one Spirit unto the Father. He is our covenant. Not the tribes.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

. Again, Scripture teaches that Israel is His people and they will never cease to exist.

I really dont know why this is a thing. Unless you think that only Israel can be His people? That somehow conversion to Israel/Judaism is required to have faith in and covenant with Christ?