Nothing new about the "new" covenant?

[just-me]

Faith is also Old Testament
Habakkuk 2:4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried , offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Faith was and is the same in the old and the new. Faith motivates one unto good works, but faith is not acquired through works by itself. Old and New are the same principle, and as James says, "Yea, a man may say , Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:18)

God hasn't changed the principles of faith, and works. "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." (Malachi 3:6)

 

[Elin]

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.

That's a lot of improvisation.

Jesus is righteous.

The saints are righteous.

All God's ways are righteous.

All that God does is righteous.

Etc., etc., etc.

So you have established God's throne on many things.

 

[LEPIDUS]

Rhetorical?

It's fundamental Christian doctrine.

rhe·tor·i·cal
rəˈtôrikəl/
adjective

• • (of a question) asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information.

Yes I used the correct word, please don't try to correct what I intended to say.

 

[LEPIDUS]

That's a lot of improvisation.

Jesus is righteous.

The saints are righteous.

All God's ways are righteous.

All that God does is righteous.

Etc., etc., etc.

So you have established God's throne on many things.

I have not established Gods throne on anything, speak for yourself. I am quoting The Bible. If that doesn't satisfy you that is not my problem.

 

[Elin]

I have mentioned this before, and some (I will not mention their names) will dispute this input which I am ready to endorse.

One should also take note that the English word "covenant" in 3 verses are added.

They are not added in my Bible.

And rather than altering the meaning in any way at all, they serve only to clarify it according to the context.

In context, the writer of Hebrews is focusing on the temple that was made by humans hands, according to the instructions given to Moses.
He (the writer of Hebrews) is also addressing the priesthood.

That is not what the writer is focusing on.

Your misunderstanding of Heb 8:6-13, 9:1 have been previously and thoroughly addressed, here.

As you read these verses, read them without the added italicized word "covenant,"

Sorry, "covenant" is in the Greek text four times in Heb 8:6-13.

This is a red herring (non issue).

If you want to understand Heb 8, you cannot omit the word "covenant."

and I think it will expand the understanding, and cause any confusion, previously wrestled with, to be alleviated. The word covenant that is not italicized belong in the text and are not added.

Hebrews 8:6-13
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant (added) had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For 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:
9 Not 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.
10 For 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:
11 And 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 .
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith , A new covenant, (added) he hath made the first old . Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 9:1 1 Then verily the first covenant (added) had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

That's a lot of shoe horning to get Heb 8:6-13 to support your theology.

 

[Elin]

Someone please explain how the new covenant is "new".

I think, Ideally the "old" covenant was always intended to be followed by heart but the people had hearts of stone, and in turn were unable to grasp the purpose of his commandments. They tried to keep them by their means which failed horribly.

It's not about heart, or stone.

The old (Mosaic, Sinaitic) covenant was bilateral,
it required the people to comply or the covenant would be broken,
and curses would ensue.

The new covenant is unilateral, it is all the work of God.
Those born into it by the rebirth at true faith are not kept in it by what they do,
they do not have the power to break it.

The new covenant is definitely new.

And this was more of a rhetorical question.

Rhetorical?

It's fundamental Christian doctrine.

rhe·tor·i·cal
rəˈtôrikəl/
adjective
(of a question) asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information.
Yes I used the correct word, please don't try to correct what I intended to say.

Rhetorical or not, your misunderstanding of the fundamental Christian doctrine
of the new covenant was to be answered.

 

[Elin]

I have not established Gods throne on anything, speak for yourself.
I am quoting The Bible. If that doesn't satisfy you that is not my problem.

I don't think so.

Where does the bible state that the foundation of God's throne is the commandments?

 

[LEPIDUS]

Rhetorical or not, your misunderstanding of the fundamental Christian doctrine
of the new covenant was to be answered.

And please tell me, what is my misunderstanding of the "new" covenant?

 

[LEPIDUS]

I don't think so.

Where does the bible state that the foundation of God's throne is the commandments?

If you read post #15 thoroughly, I explained why I stated that.

 

[just-me]

from post #25

They are not added in my Bible.

And rather than altering the meaning in any way at all, they serve only to clarify it according to the context.

That is not what the writer is focusing on.

Your misunderstanding of Heb 8:6-13, 9:1 have been previously and thoroughly addressed, here.

Sorry, "covenant" is in the Greek text four times in Heb 8:6-13.

This is a red herring (non issue).

If you want to understand Heb 8, you cannot omit the word "covenant."

That's a lot of shoe horning to get Heb 8:6-13 to support your theology.

Unlike your post #25 this is the way I originally posted on #16 I invite all to see the reality rather than this distortion. And yes, as you said "covenant" is in the Greek text four times in Heb 8:6-13. The ones highlighted are added.

I have mentioned this before, and some (I will not mention their names) will dispute this input which I am ready to endorse.

One should also take note that the English word "covenant" in 3 verses are added. In context, the writer of Hebrews is focusing on the temple that was made by humans hands, according to the instructions given to Moses. He (the writer of Hebrews) is also addressing the priesthood. As you read these verses, read them without the added italicized word "covenant," and I think it will expand the understanding, and cause any confusion, previously wrestled with, to be alleviated. The word covenant that is not italicized belong in the text and are not added.

Hebrews 8:6-13
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better 1. covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant (added) had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith , Behold , the days come , saith the Lord, when I will make a new 2. covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the 3. 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.
10 For this is the 4. 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:
11 And 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 .
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith , A new covenant, (added) he hath made the first old . Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 9:1 1 Then verily the first covenant (added) had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

What's the problem?

 

[RedTent]

Don't take the teeth out of the old covenant and neuter it.

It was about righteousness, which is required for right standing with God and which saved from his wrath (Ro 5:9) on the guilt of their sin, giving them eternal life.

It was always through faith by grace that eternal life was given and that the blood cleansed.

Neither the salvation of the NT nor the atonement of the OT is given apart from faith.

The old covenant was based on performance for righteousness.
The new covenant cancelled that out, and is based on faith for righteousness.

Performance for righteousness is NOT the base or reason for the Old Covenant, and neither covenant (Old or New) changed how God saw faith in any way. When you study in Genesis about faith and you study in Rev. about faith, it is the same always.

The Old covenants, especially the Mosaic Covenant, had many facets to it like most of the Old Testament with layered meanings.It can be used for a help in many areas, but always we need to keep in mind the main purpose of this special old covenant.Its statement is that it gives how to live in spirit and truth in a way that God will bless you, don’t live in this way and it brings on curses in your life.

For an example of how this works, you could try living your life as a thief, or in resentment toward your parents, or some other way that is not in how God says works best and you will find it doesn’t work as well as following God’s way.

It also tells about how righteous people live, and you can get all upset and bothered that it is only faith, grace, and Christ that really makes you righteous and blame the law.Your choice.It points to the sin that we need Christ for to forgive us, and you can say that is the only thing this law is good for, everything else it does and means doesn’t count.Again, your choice if you think that.Because, after the covenant, it points to what is to be physically done to live within the law, you can shake your fist at God for telling you these things all you want, you can’t change God.I have read posts by people who tell God that because He doesn’t base His salvation on following law at all they just aren’t about to so much as read what God says about how best to live, they are interested in God giving them salvation and absolutely nothing else God can do for them.They say “no salvation is in it so I’m out of here”.And our gracious God says OK, I told you it was only through grace I saved, so if this is your choice, ask for my grace and you will still be saved.

I can’t for the life of me see how you can say you have faith in his word and then say God took His word back and didn’t mean a word of it.

 

[Elin]

Performance for righteousness is NOT the base or reason for the Old Covenant

Do you not understand that the basis of the old covenant was law?

 

[RedTent]

Do you not understand that the basis of the old covenant was law?

I have read all scripture says about each of the covenants God has given us, have you? Perhaps it is because you only listen to a small percentage of scripture to base your understanding of God that you have so much trouble? The basis of the Mosaic Covenant is the kind of living that brings blessings to us. Perhaps in your mind that means "law" to you. Usually, when someone uses that word to translate any of the original words for it, they have pictures in their mind of a secular policeman coming to threaten them if they break it, not at all as God uses his instructions. God is love, not a policeman.

 

[Elin]

And please tell me, what is my misunderstanding of the "new" covenant?

You don't know?

Jeremiah 31:31-34
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

However, if we see in the greek text we find that the word "new" is not really new in the sense of it never existing before but rather new in quality.

The promise of Jer 31:31 was not written in Greek.
It was written in Hebrew, where chadash means "a new thing."

kainós – properly, new in quality (innovation), fresh in development or opportunity – because "not found exactly like this before."

3501 néos – new ("new on the scene"); recently revealed or "what was not there before" (TDNT), including what is recently discovered.

3501 /néos ("new on the scene") suggests something "new in time" – in contrast to its near-synonym (2537 /kainós, "new in quality").

Now if it said neos then I can take it as new as it never existing before but it doesn't use neos.

The "new" covenant is not about being "new on the scene."

Nor is the essence of the "new" covenant about "recent discovery" (neos).

Its essence is "new" in form and quality, superior and better, never there before (kainos).

It was not based on performance and could be broken and nullified, as was the old covenant.
It was based on grace, where God assumed sole responsibility for its enactment.

That's true newness, in quality, not just a recent discovery, or new on the scene.

Additionally, this "new" covenant was already established with the house of Isreal. Therefore, it cannot be "new".

The "new" covenant was not already established with the house of Israel.
It was promised to the house of Israel.

The "new" covenant was not established until it was cut in the blood of Christ (Lk 22:20).

The "new" covenant is new.

You misunderstand this fundamental Christian doctrine.

Someone please explain how the new covenant is "new".

See the above.

If someone has a different understanding feel free to reply.

Is that rhetorical also?

 

[psychomom]

I have mentioned this before, and some (I will not mention their names) will dispute this input which I am ready to endorse.

One should also take note that the English word "covenant" in 3 verses are added. In context, the writer of Hebrews is focusing on the temple that was made by humans hands, according to the instructions given to Moses. He (the writer of Hebrews) is also addressing the priesthood. As you read these verses, read them without the added italicized word "covenant," and I think it will expand the understanding, and cause any confusion, previously wrestled with, to be alleviated. The word covenant that is not italicized belong in the text and are not added.

Hebrews 8:6-13
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant (added) had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For 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:
9 Not 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.
10 For 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:
11 And 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 .
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith , A new covenant, (added) he hath made the first old . Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 9:1 1 Then verily the first covenant (added) had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

you can go ahead and mention my name...it's okay.

you're right, in the Greek the word doesn't appear.
however, in context, it's pretty clear.

not really sure where the problem lies?

 

[Elin]

Where does the bible state that the foundation of God's throne is the commandments?

If you read post #15 thoroughly, I explained why I stated that.

Non-responsive. . .you did not answer the question.

 

[Elin]

They are not added in my Bible.

That is not what the writer is focusing on.

Your misunderstanding of Heb 8:6-13, 9:1 have been previously and thoroughly addressed, here.

Sorry, "covenant" is in the Greek text four times in Heb 8:6-13.

The two additional ones do not alter the meaning in any way at all,
they serve only to clarify it according to the context.

This is a red herring (non issue).

If you want to understand Heb 8, you cannot omit the word "covenant."

That's a lot of shoe horning to get Heb 8:6-13 to support your theology.

And yes, as you said "covenant" is in the Greek text four times in Heb 8:6-13. The ones highlighted are added.

What's the problem?

Your red herring.

 

[Elin]

I have read all scripture says about each of the covenants God has given us, have you? Perhaps it is because you only listen to a small percentage of scripture to base your understanding of God that you have so much trouble? The basis of the Mosaic Covenant is the kind of living that brings blessings to us. Perhaps in your mind that means "law" to you. Usually, when someone uses that word to translate any of the original words for it, they have pictures in their mind of a secular policeman coming to threaten them if they break it, not at all as God uses his instructions. God is love, not a policeman.

You have me confused with someone else.

 

[prove-all]

Re:the "new" covenant?

The New Covenant is founded on better promises (Hebrews 8:6),

which consist of “eternal inheritance” (Hebrews 9:15).


the law ways allways faith and love, and keeping the Sabbath,

before laws where even added for transgrasion.

 

[LEPIDUS]

You don't know?

Apparently I don't, but you seem to know that already. (sarcasm)

The promise of Jer 31:31 was not written in Greek.
It was written in Hebrew, where chadash means "a new thing."

yes I knew that, thank you for taking the time to type it out.

The "new" covenant is not about being "new on the scene."

Nor is the essence of the "new" covenant about "recent discovery" (neos).

Its essence is "new" in form and quality, superior and better, never there before (kainos).

I think that's the only thing you understood from my post, sadly.

It was not based on performance and could be broken and nullified, as was the old covenant.
It was based on grace, where God assumed sole responsibility for its enactment.

You lost me here, are you saying that the "new" covenant can be broken and nullified ?

That's true newness, in quality, not just a recent discovery, or new on the scene.

I posted scripture to validate my statement so please if you're going to argue that I'd like to read scripture.

The "new" covenant was not already established with the house of Israel.
It was promised to the house of Israel.

The "new" covenant was not established until it was cut in the blood of Christ (Lk 22:20).

The "new" covenant is new.

You misunderstand this fundamental Christian doctrine.

Out of all your 8 or 9 post I'd say only one mentioned scripture and that was only cause you were restating another post. I posted scripture for what I have stated, please don't waste my time or yours in typing anything without scripture. It will be disregarded.

See the above.

Post scripture

Is that rhetorical also?

Maybe I need to be clear when I state someone with different understanding should reply with scripture. and no that was not rhetorical but I will not carry a conversation with someone with opposing statements without scripture to back their beliefs.

And quite frankly I think you misunderstood my whole post. No where am I questioning the significance of the "new" covenant. I was just simply stating that God intended that to be his covenant from the beginning.