Meat MEAT!!!!!!!! What is the "New Covenant"?

[Joleneakamama]

All Jews are Israeiltes, but not all Israelites are Jews

Actually Rev. 2:9 and 3:9 tell us some claiming to be Jews are not.

I'm pretty sure you are meaning Judahites, and pointing out that they alone are not all of Israel. ....but most don't ever want to "Judge" and so accept all claiming that title lest they get labeled a "hateful anti semite."

 

[MeganC]

There are a lot of politicians in Congress right now who claim to be Jews and Christians while their hideous behavior and contempt for God and Jesus proclaims their lies to the world!

 

[The Revolting Man]

Israel is a nation of people. The land is important but they are still Israel regardless of where they live.

You make this point for me when you say, At least twice, God is very specific that the house of Israel will be gathered to 'live in their land which I gave to My servant Jacob.'

The Land of Israel is therefore the land which belongs to Israel, it is their land.

You're worried too much about the land and the geography when God cares about the people and because He loves them He provided them with a place to call home.

If those people someday claim a planet as their own it will also be The Land of Israel because that will be where Israel lives.

The land itself was promised, before the word Israel had even been associated with Jacob. Melchizedek was there. The Temple was placed there. Christ will return there. There is something special about that land.

 

[PeteR]

You make this point for me when you say, At least twice, God is very specific that the house of Israel will be gathered to 'live in their land which I gave to My servant Jacob.'

You may have missed the bold part. God is specific.. the land is that 'which I gave My servant Jacob.' Now, maybe He did give Jacob Cuba, or

Actually Rev. 2:9 and 3:9 tell us some claiming to be Jews are not.

I'm pretty sure you are meaning Judahites, and pointing out that they alone are not all of Israel. ....but most don't ever want to "Judge" and so accept all claiming that title lest they get labeled a "hateful anti semite."

Say what you want. I'll let God be the Judge. He made promises that He'll keep.

My personal experience is seven trips to Israel as well as multiple close personal friends in the US which are Jews. Across that spectrum of experience, I know hundreds of beautiful people who love God and seek to be obedient to Him. Some know Yeshua, some don't.. at least not in the sense that you narrowly define it, but they walk by faith and understand the written Word. I embrace them as brothers and seek their peace and blessing.

 

[Joleneakamama]

You may have missed the bold part. God is specific.. the land is that 'which I gave My servant Jacob.' Now, maybe He did give Jacob Cuba, or

Deut. 32:8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

As far as I can see it is silly to think that YHWH is going to promise Jacob/Israel a nation and company of nations is going to come from him, but not have given him places for them to live. His chosen are restricted to "their area" unless they get "time out" for bad behavior in the rest of the wide wonderful world?

He said He would settle them after their old estates and do better to them then at their beginnings. He always keeps His word.

I go by the description of the land invaded that scripture calls the mountains of Israel.
If you asked someone to help play a prank on the short bald guy in the room, and the other was tall and had a full head of hair, would their names matter? No! The names are irrelevant because you can tell looking which one it is.

Me thinks that verse would be a super popular passage, if the shoe fit the resurrected idol.

I truly wish for peace and joy and life in Christ for everyone I know. I wish no ill on strangers. But that law of reaping what you sow is gonna bite some evil decievers running the anti life thing called Mystery Babylon in the rear. And like @MeganC alluded to, calling themselves Jews or Christians is not going to matter, if the fruit and substance doesn't match the name.

 

[PeteR]

@Joleneakamama and @MeganC , I don't disagree. God will judge the rebellious and evil doers. Ethnicity has no relevance. Where I disagree is lumping all Jews in that category. The percentage of Jews that fit the category you default to is so small you need a decimal point.

The house of Judah is alive and will be restored and have a prominent place in the Kingdom.

 

[Quartus]

The land itself was promised, before the word Israel had even been associated with Jacob. Melchizedek was there. The Temple was placed there. Christ will return there. There is something special about that land.

Agreed - Gospel preached to Abraham - why did Abrrham have to take Isaac 3. and a half days' journey to Mount Moriah in Jerusalem?
Gospel preached to Abraham - where was Melchisedek King-Priest of? Salem Jerusalem.
What was Shiloh at that time? a place of sacrifice for Canaanite religion.
So after the Ark was taken out of Shiloh it eventually went back to Jerusalem at the time the Melchisedek Psalm 110 was given to David, ready for priestly and kingly aspects to be combined in one place, though not yet under one person Christ (the Shiloh of Gen 49:10 but also the Melchisedek of Ps 110).

I don't see God doing Plan B,
But he has a lot of alternative routes to the same destination:
Jerusalem.
In Israel,
On the Mountains of Israel even.

 

[Quartus]

Also, can anyone find an Old Testament reference to the Law being a covenant. Its entirely possible I didn't look hard enough because I haven't found it yet. Please keep this thread narrowly focused on defining the various covenants. We can take our conclusions here back to other threads to beat each other over the heads with.

Well that is a good question. In fact its a very good question..
It seems to me that there is a lot of overlap, but nevertheless it isn't a complete fit.

I've only looked at Strong's for verses where they both occur. Usually there is no discernable difference
1Ch_16:17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,
(that looks like they are both the same as "same")

But here there is
Ezr_10:3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.

the difference being that Ezra can organise the making of a new covenant totally acceptably, but we know what happened in NT times when people tried to make new laws... So only God can make the laws but covenants could be made commercially and sometimes confirmed with an oath (Gen 26:28).

There are hundreds of OT reference to law and covenant and related words.

My personal shortcut to this one would be to look at the OATH in the NT.
Luk 1:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
Luk 1:72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
Luk 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
Luk 1:74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
so the oath IS the covenant made with Abraham

Heb_7:21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec

but no priest can come from Judah as Uzziah found out to his cost

And therefore

Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

So the difference is the Oath of God confirms the covenant made with Abraham but at the same time that means the law given by Moses has to be changed and the old covenant made at the time of the Exodus have to be changed.
Exo_24:8 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.

and then Hebrews immediately moves on to discuss the New Covenant of Jer 31:31.

When Israel accept the New Covenant they will be saved from their enemies (Luke 1:71,74)
They hadn't got to that point by AD70, and they still can't serve him "without fear".

 

[The Revolting Man]

Well that is a good question. In fact its a very good question..
It seems to me that there is a lot of overlap, but nevertheless it isn't a complete fit.

I've only looked at Strong's for verses where they both occur. Usually there is no discernable difference
1Ch_16:17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,
(that looks like they are both the same as "same")

But here there is
Ezr_10:3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.

the difference being that Ezra can organise the making of a new covenant totally acceptably, but we know what happened in NT times when people tried to make new laws... So only God can make the laws but covenants could be made commercially and sometimes confirmed with an oath (Gen 26:28).

There are hundreds of OT reference to law and covenant and related words.

My personal shortcut to this one would be to look at the OATH in the NT.
Luk 1:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
Luk 1:72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
Luk 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
Luk 1:74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
so the oath IS the covenant made with Abraham

Heb_7:21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec

but no priest can come from Judah as Uzziah found out to his cost

And therefore

Heb 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Heb 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

So the difference is the Oath of God confirms the covenant made with Abraham but at the same time that means the law given by Moses has to be changed and the old covenant made at the time of the Exodus have to be changed.
Exo_24:8 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.

and then Hebrews immediately moves on to discuss the New Covenant of Jer 31:31.

When Israel accept the New Covenant they will be saved from their enemies (Luke 1:71,74)
They hadn't got to that point by AD70, and they still can't serve him "without fear".

Would you say that when we see a covenant it is usually in close proximity to talk of blood, as in sacrifices? I admit upfront that Abraham's maybe wasn't but it seems like it comes up a lot in all the other references.

 

[Quartus]

Would you say that when we see a covenant it is usually in close proximity to talk of blood, as in sacrifices? I admit upfront that Abraham's maybe wasn't but it seems like it comes up a lot in all the other references.

Yes absolutely
Heb 9:22 ...without shedding of blood is no remission.
Heb 9:23 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.

Abraham confirmed the covenant with sacrifice Gen 15 but seems to have known that was a pattern
Gen 15:7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
Gen 15:8 And he said, Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?
Gen 15:9 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.

or its difficult to know how he understood that God ultimately required the sacrifice from Adam's race (Gen 22:8,13)
which according to the pattern was symbolised by a ram

I think everyone knew this from Eve on - from the evening burnt offering sacrifice in the cool of the day in Eden until Christ died and the veil of the temple was ripped apart. Then the job of the schoolmaster was over, from that point on the types were no longer required.

 

[MeganC]

@Joleneakamama and @MeganC , I don't disagree. God will judge the rebellious and evil doers. Ethnicity has no relevance. Where I disagree is lumping all Jews in that category. The percentage of Jews that fit the category you default to is so small you need a decimal point.

The house of Judah is alive and will be restored and have a prominent place in the Kingdom.

I had the privilege of knowing a mensch.

https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sacbee/obituary.aspx?pid=163738988

 

[The Revolting Man]

Yes absolutely
Heb 9:22 ...without shedding of blood is no remission.
Heb 9:23 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.

Abraham confirmed the covenant with sacrifice Gen 15 but seems to have known that was a pattern
Gen 15:7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
Gen 15:8 And he said, Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?
Gen 15:9 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.

or its difficult to know how he understood that God ultimately required the sacrifice from Adam's race (Gen 22:8,13)
which according to the pattern was symbolised by a ram

I think everyone knew this from Eve on - from the evening burnt offering sacrifice in the cool of the day in Eden until Christ died and the veil of the temple was ripped apart. Then the job of the schoolmaster was over, from that point on the types were no longer required.

So the covenant and the Law might not be the exact same thing. The covenant existed before the Law after all.

 

[Quartus]

So the covenant and the Law might not be the exact same thing. The covenant existed before the Law after all.

I think we should keep going back. We still have to include Abel among the faithful
Heb 11:4 by faith a better sacrifice did Abel offer to God than Cain, through which he was testified to be righteous, God testifying of his gifts, and through it, he being dead, doth yet speak. (YLT)
So I don't think we can get the full answer from an Abraham-or-Moses?, Covenant-or-Law? discussion.

We need to go back before Moses, before Jacob, before Abraham, before Noah, all the way back to Eve and see that what was central to solve the sin of our first parents. That was the provision of a Seed (singular) to provide the sacrifice for sin. (Gen 3:14-15) That seed was subsequently to come through Noah, and then Abraham. (The covenant with Abraham was unique because it contained the promise of "the land" or inheritance.)

Gal 3:16 and to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed; He doth not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, 'And to thy seed,' which is Christ;
Gal 3:17 and this I say, A covenant confirmed before by God to Christ, the law, that came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not set aside, to make void the promise,
Gal 3:18 for if by law be the inheritance, it is no more by promise, but to Abraham through promise did God grant it .
Gal 3:19 Why, then, the law? on account of the transgressions it was added, till the seed might come to which the promise hath been made, having been set in order through messengers in the hand of a mediator—

Gal 3:26 for ye are all sons of God through the faith in Christ Jesus,
Gal 3:27 for as many as to Christ were baptized did put on Christ;
Gal 3:28 there is not here Jew or Greek, there is not here servant nor freeman, there is not here male and female, for all ye are one in Christ Jesus;
Gal 3:29 and if ye are of Christ then of Abraham ye are seed, and according to promise—heirs.

Without the work of the seed singular, no promise to the seed plural could take full effect.

 

[rockfox]

It does take me back to the issue of "how and to what extent the Law given to Israel through the Mosaic covenant applies or doesn't apply to those of us grafted in".

For that go read Acts and specifically Acts 15.

So I ask again, what is the scriptural definition of the covenant we’re currently under? Jeremiah 31:31 doesn’t work.

That's too bad because Hebrews quotes Jer 31 in saying it is here now and we're under it, your misinterpretation of Jeremiah notwithstanding.

It is a covenant, and it is new (as in a replacement for the old) and we are presently under it. Its a new one, not an addendum to the old, because the old one was faulty. If you want to know the details of this new covenant, read the New Testament scriptures. This isn't hard.

 

[The Revolting Man]

For that go read Acts and specifically Acts 15.



That's too bad because Hebrews quotes Jer 31 in saying it is here now and we're under it, your misinterpretation of Jeremiah notwithstanding.

It is a covenant, and it is new (as in a replacement for the old) and we are presently under it. Its a new one, not an addendum to the old, because the old one was faulty. If you want to know the details of this new covenant, read the New Testament scriptures. This isn't hard.

You didn’t read the original post. Jeremiah 31:31 is most certainly not here. Hebrews 8 has a very logical explanation. You’ll have to read the first post though.