Nothing new about the "new" covenant?

[just-me]

Actually, the old covenant has been made obsolete (Heb 8:13).

The new covenant is not an extension, because the new covenant is based on grace,
while the old covenant was based on performance of obedience.

The new covenant is a complete disconnect from the old covenant,
which has been made obsolete. (Heb 8:7-13).

Here we go again. Really?

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith , A new covenant, he hath made the first old . Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The temple made with physical hands is what the writer of Hebrews is talking about. Now we are the temple, and the same spiritual application still applies in our hearts and minds. All covenants in scripture are God's sayings, not man's sayings.
If anyone shall live by every word that God has ever said, it cannot be what God has spoken that "decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

It just can't.

The very next verse Hebrews 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

Both chaapters 8 and 9 are talking about the covenant made with Israel concerning the temple ordinances. I request that all who read this post will also read both chapters completely through and see if this is true.

The law in the spiritual aspects originally intended (through the Holy Spirit) has NOT vanished away. Through Christ, all scripture is given for our profitability. We cannot reject any of it just because we don't want to pay any attention to it.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[prove-all]

the first old.
Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

is ready to vanish away,

does not say it allready has been done away, obsolete.

 

[achduke]

will you give me a verse in the bible that says God will make a new covenant with the Gentiles?

Gentiles are Grafted into Israel(The People, Not the land mass) and have the same covenant.

Romans 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in,

Romans 11:26 and in this way[SUP]e[/SUP] all Israel will be saved. As it is written:

Isaiah 11:11-13
11In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the surviving remnant of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush,[SUP]b[/SUP] from Elam, from Babylonia,[SUP]c[/SUP] from Hamath and from the islands of the Mediterranean.

12He will raise a banner for the nations
and gather the exiles of Israel;
he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four quarters of the earth.
13Ephraim’s jealousy will vanish,
and Judah’s enemies[SUP]d[/SUP] will be destroyed;

Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah,
nor Judah hostile toward Ephraim.

 

[achduke]

Here we go again. Really?

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith , A new covenant, he hath made the first old . Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The temple made with physical hands is what the writer of Hebrews is talking about. Now we are the temple, and the same spiritual application still applies in our hearts and minds. All covenants in scripture are God's sayings, not man's sayings.
If anyone shall live by every word that God has ever said, it cannot be what God has spoken that "decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

It just can't.

The very next verse Hebrews 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

Both chaapters 8 and 9 are talking about the covenant made with Israel concerning the temple ordinances. I request that all who read this post will also read both chapters completely through and see if this is true.

The law in the spiritual aspects originally intended (through the Holy Spirit) has NOT vanished away. Through Christ, all scripture is given for our profitability. We cannot reject any of it just because we don't want to pay any attention to it.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I agree, Any ordinance that can not be observed because there is no temple can not be performed. Still many of the laws can be performed like the feasts. All the Feasts including Tabernacles are forever. Do we still want to boil a kid in its mothers milk? No. Does it make us righteous by not doing so? No. We do not do it because we want to obey God and his laws.

 

[nkz0]

sir i have been studying what you wrote above but i simply did not see the "covenant of the gentiles with God" i am not asking to argue with you i have been thinking, studying but the above verses speak of the tribes of israel so please help me understand by explaining .

 

[achduke]

sir i have been studying what you wrote above but i simply did not see the "covenant of the gentiles with God" i am not asking to argue with you i have been thinking, studying but the above verses speak of the tribes of israel so please help me understand by explaining .

Israel is still God's people that has not changed. Some of the parents of Israel may have been cast away for not obeying but there will be a remant that God brings back together. All the Gentiles are grafted onto this remnant and are under the same covenant thus becoming part of Israel.

Exodus 12:48-49 “A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it. 49The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”

Numbers 15:15-16 15The community is to have the same rules for you and for the foreigner residing among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the foreigner shall be the same before the Lord: 16The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the foreigner residing among you.’ ”

Galatinas 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[nkz0]

Numbers 15:15-16 15The community is to have the same rules for you and for the foreigner residing among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the foreigner shall be the same before the Lord: 16The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the foreigner residing among you.’ ”

Galatinas 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Thank you this explain it

 

[Elin]

the first old.

That's "he hath made the first old." (Heb 8:13)

Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

is ready to vanish away,

does not say it allready has been done away, obsolete.

But "has been made old (palaioo--worn out by time and use; abrogate)" says that.

 

[prove-all]

so if the old covenent has vanished,

why does my president not know the Lord ?

or my neighbor even know who Christ is ?


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:

11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother,
saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.


12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

 

[Elin]

will you give me a verse in the bible that says God will make a new covenant with the Gentiles?

Well, not every NT doctrine is contained in one verse. So let's begin with

"A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical.
A man is a Jew is he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit,
not by the written code." (Ro 2:28-29)

"If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:29)

"But God found fault with the people and said
'The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.' " (Heb 8:8)

All those in Christ are Abraham's seed,
the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
the Israel of God (Gal 6:16),
the NT church composed of believing Jews and Gentiles.

 

[LEPIDUS]

Yeah, that wasn't clear. I am saying
the new covenant is not based on performance of the people,
therefore, the new covenant cannot be broken and nullified by the people,
as the old covenant was broken and nullified by the disobedience of the people.

Thank you for clarifying, but I never questioned that in my initial post. All I stated is how God intended the "old" covenant to be kept, by heart, but obviously it wasn't. Therefor, he had to renew that covenant to what we call today as the "new" covenant. As far as the Hebrew text of Jeremiah, I believe that if and when the scripture referenced was written in Greek, they would have used the word neos meaning never existing before since obviously they have a word for something never existing before, but instead they used kainos; for the sake of understanding lets just say it means renewed.

And that's a whole lotta true "newness."

As I stated in my initial post it was renewed, therefor, it can not be "a whole lotta true "newness".

Posting Scripture does not necessarily validate one's statement.
You linked several Scriptures to your assertion, but they did not validate your statement that the new covenant was not a new covenant.

I was referring to my statement of the commandments being the foundation of God's throne, and I believe I also used scripture to validate my statements about the "new" covenants newness.

If my statements contradict The Bible then yes Id agree with you on this but I have provided scripture to validate my statements. If you have scripture to oppose them please show them, I am open to rebuke, reprove.

Are you saying you need the Scriptures which state that
the old covenant was based on performance by the people, and
the people broke and nullified the old covenant, as I stated above?

Again this was not questioned at all.

Sripture must indicate the application you are asserting,
which the Scriptures you posted did not.

I think all The Bible verses I referenced validate my statements throughout my original post.

Are you asking for Scriptures which state the covenant made in the blood of Jesus Christ is new?

You are questioning its newness,
and asserting, contrary to the Word of God, that it is not new.

I already explained the newness, and will not do it again. I think you need to reread my initial post very slowly.

That's good to know.

But isn't everything God intended about everything also intended from the beginning?

Glad we agree on something.

 

[LEPIDUS]

Non-responsive. . .you provided no Scriptural statement that
the commandments are the foundation of God's throne.

Are you being intellectually honest on this?

Apparently, you couldn't go back on the thread so I've taken the liberty of re-posting it for you.

Now to expand on this.


Psalms 97:2
2 Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne.

Psalms 89:14
14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.

From the previous verse quoted it is established that the commandments are righteousness, therefore, it is safe to say Gods throne is established on his commandments.

Additionally,

Exodus 25:
17 And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof.


18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.


19 And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof.


20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.


21 And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.


22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

I forgot one part of that post so I will post it below

 

[LEPIDUS]

well I think all one needs to know for what has been posted is just what is righteousness.

Psa 119:172 My tongue shall speak of thy word: for all thy commandments are righteousness.

Mac

I was expanding on this post. Additionally, the post before this one makes perfect sense when we understand the commandments as righteousness since that word (righteousness) is used liberally on those verses.

 

[Elin]

Here we go again. Really?

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith , A new covenant,
he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is
ready to vanish away.

old (palaioo--worn out by time and use; abrogate)

"For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant,
no place would have been sought for another." (Heb 8:7)

The old covenant has vanished away,
another has been sought to replace it (Heb 8:13),
which is the new covenant (Lk 22:20).

The temple made with physical hands is what the writer of Hebrews is talking about.

Nope. . .there's nothing in Heb 8 about believers being the Temple.
It's about the High Priest of a new covenant (Heb 7:27-8:1).

The subject of Heb 8 is the function of the Aaronic High Priest compared with the new eternal High Priest
in the order of Melchizedek, which includes
offering gifts and sacrifices in the Temple and
mediating the covenant.

The new eternal High Priest no longer offers gifts and sacrifices in an earthly Temple, but
is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven and
whose service in the true temple is interceding for the saints, and
mediating a new and superior covenant founded on better promises.

The whole chapter is about one subject--comparison of the several services of the Aaronic High Priest and the new eternal High Priest in the order of Melchizedek.

Now we are the temple, and the same spiritual application still applies in our hearts and minds. All covenants in scripture are God's sayings, not man's sayings.
If anyone shall live by every word that God has ever said,
it cannot be what God has spoken that "decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

It can when God says it is (Heb 7-8).

It just can't.

That's strongly held human reasoning, with which the NT Word of God disagrees..

 

[LEPIDUS]

will you give me a verse in the bible that says God will make a new covenant with the Gentiles?

It is not a new covenant with the gentiles but a covenant with the house of Israel, where the gentiles are grafted in.

 

[Elin]

so if the old covenent has vanished,

why does my president not know the Lord ?

or my neighbor even know who Christ is ?

The old covenant was made with the OT people of God only.

The new covenant is made with the NT people of God only, which includes Gentiles, as well as Jews.

 

[LEPIDUS]

It is not a new covenant with the gentiles but a covenant with the house of Israel, where the gentiles are grafted in.

Romans 11:

18 [FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.[/FONT]
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 [FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.[/FONT]
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
24 [FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]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?[/FONT]
25 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.

 

[prove-all]

"For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant,
no place would have been sought for another." (Heb 8:7)

first off there was nothing wrong with the first covenent of Gods,
it was the people called out in his name that was faulty.


20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying,
This cup is the new (testament) in my blood, which is shed for you.

there is a big differance between covenent and testament.

 

[Elin]

Thank you for clarifying, but I never questioned that in my initial post. All I stated is how God intended the "old" covenant to be kept, by heart, but obviously it wasn't. Therefor,
he had to renew that covenant to what we call today as the "new" covenant.

Nope, God did not say he would renew the covenant, he said he would make a new covenant.

The old covenant was nullified by their disobedience.
There was nothing to renew.

Let's not alter the word of God to fit our own fancies,
he used the word he meant, and he didn't use "renew."
'nough said.

As far as the Hebrew text of Jeremiah, I believe that if and when the scripture referenced was written in Greek, they would have used the word neos meaning never existing before since obviously they have a word for something never existing before, but
instead they used kainos;

Yes, the word kainos fittingly describes a covenant whose very essence
was radically different from the old in

form (unilateral vs. bilateral) and
quality (grace vs. works).

for the sake of understanding lets just say it means renewed.

Sorry, we don't get to say that for three reasons:

1) that is handling the Word of God loosely, it does not state that;

2) it is not the meaning of kainos; and would be a misunderstanding;

3) the only similarity between the two covenants is that they are both made with the people of God.

Apart from that, they are as different as they can be:
one is bilateral,
based on performance of obedience, which lack of compliance nullifies the covenant;

the other is unilateral,
based on grace, with God alone effecting the covenant, which we cannot nullify.

Posting Scripture does not necessarily validate one's statement.
You linked several Scriptures to your assertion, but they did not validate your statement that the new covenant was not a new covenant.

I was referring to my statement of the commandments being the foundation of God's throne, and I believe
I also used scripture to validate my statements about the "new" covenants newness.

The Scriptures you presented did not validate either.

Non-responsive. . .you provided no Scriptural statement that
the commandments are the foundation of God's throne.

Are you being intellectually honest on this?

I have provided scripture to validate my statements.

They do not validate your statement that the commandments are the foundation of God's throne.

You simply linked Scriptures together on assumption of their showing your point,
and I showed your assumption set the foundation of God's throne on many different things.

Assumption is not proof, and you have provided no Scripture stating such linkage.

Intellectually honest?

If you have scripture to oppose them please show them, I am open to rebuke, reprove.

It's not mine to disprove your assertion,
it is yours to prove it,
and you have not.

You have provided no Scripture which states it.

 

[LEPIDUS]

Nope, God did not say he would renew the covenant, he said he would make a new covenant.

The old covenant was nullified by their disobedience.
There was nothing to renew.

Let's not alter the word of God to fit our own fancies,
he used the word he meant, and he didn't use "renew."
'nough said.


Yes, the word kainos fittingly describes a covenant whose very essence
was radically different from the old in

form (unilateral vs. bilateral) and
quality (grace vs. works).

Sorry, we don't get to say that for three reasons:

1) that is handling the Word of God loosely, it does not state that;

2) it is not the meaning of kainos; and would be a misunderstanding;

3) the only similarity between the two covenants is that they are both made with the people of God.

Apart from that, they are as different as they can be:
one is bilateral,
based on performance of obedience, which lack of compliance nullifies the covenant;

the other is unilateral,
based on grace, with God alone effecting the covenant, which we cannot nullify.


The Scriptures you presented did not validate either.


They do not validate your statement that the commandments are the foundation of God's throne.

You simply linked Scriptures together on assumption of their showing your point,
and I showed your assumption set the foundation of God's throne on many different things.

Assumption is not proof, and you have provided no Scripture stating such linkage.

Intellectually honest?


It's not mine to disprove your assertion,
it is yours to prove it,
and you have not.

You have provided no Scripture which states it.

I will not carry this conversation with you as clearly you have no understanding. So be blessed and good day.