Nothing new about the "new" covenant?
- Thread starter LEPIDUS
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The Holy Spirit is dwelling in us now.
The New Jerusalem is the bride, the wife of the Lamb (Rev 21:9), Jesus Christ (Jn 1:29),
making the New Jerusalem the church, who is the wife of Christ (Eph 5:31-32), and
who will live in the new heavens and new earth in eternity, where there is no death (Rev 21:4).
The New Jerusalem is the bride, the wife of the Lamb (Rev 21:9), Jesus Christ (Jn 1:29),
making the New Jerusalem the church, who is the wife of Christ (Eph 5:31-32), and
who will live in the new heavens and new earth in eternity, where there is no death (Rev 21:4).
Last edited:
What is it. The Holy Spirit dwells in us or we dwell in the Holy Spirit?
Now in Ephesians 2:19-22 It is proof that the Holy Spirit dwells within us for we are now the temple of the new covenant.
It is clear now that the old temple has been replaced by the new temple and same as the Holy Spirit of God used to dwell in the old, He now dwells in the new. Sacrifice then is the beginning and the foundation of the new even as in the old. And now the spiritual aspect of ordinances are exacted using the old as a reference. The central part of God's old covenant was the physical temple involving sacrifice. Without it there was no way to receive forgiveness. That has been replaced by a spiritual temple made by Christ, and sacrifice is still relevant for forgiveness. Is this not the essence of salvation? Is this not the essence of the new covenant? Is this not the essence of the temple? The physical has vanished, and the spiritual is here. That's the only difference between the old and the new.
Elin said:
just-me said:
What is it. The Holy Spirit dwells in us or we dwell in the Holy Spirit?
Read 1Co 3:16.
So I ask you again to explain to everyone including me
how you come to the conclusion that the new covenant can work without a priest,
So, again, you want me to answer this question, which brings us right back to your not liking the way
I think is most instructive to answer it.
I note that you omit 1Co 3:16 states that the Holy Spirit dwells in us.
And it seems you don't understand which function of the temple is meant in 1Co 3:16.
It is the temple as the dwelling place of God (Eph 2:19-22).
In the new covenant, believers are the dwelling place of God, making the church the new temple.
I refer you to post #288, here, for demonstration of your error.
Feel free to address the demonstration.
Last edited:
Post 288 is your post not mine. So if we are the temple of the living God, and He dwells in us instead of the physical temple made by human hands, what was waxing old and ready to vanish away during the time Hebrews was written? You say the covenant that God made of old time that doesn't include the old temple for whatever reason. I say the covenant includes the temple. Hebrews chapter 8, like any other scripture, uses examples, in context, to prove the truth of a better covenant. I say that the inferior old physical temple is being used to describe the superior spiritual new temple that is the foundational focus of both.
Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
So is there not sacrifice attributed to the new and old covenant, and does not this involve the temple both old and new?
Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
So is there not sacrifice attributed to the new and old covenant, and does not this involve the temple both old and new?
Last edited:
Agreed.
Back again to the question whose answer I give you do not like.
I refer you to post #288, here, for demonstration of your error regarding Heb 8.
When you show Biblically where it is wrong, we'll go from there.
Ro 12:11 is not referring to the sacrifice of the new covenant (Lk 22:20).
There is no "temple" in Heb 8, there is only the true tabernacle in heaven where our High Priest is.
Nor is Heb 8 referring to Ro 12:11, nor is it about the same thing as Ro 12:11.
Back again to the question whose answer I give you do not like.
I refer you to post #288, here, for demonstration of your error regarding Heb 8.
When you show Biblically where it is wrong, we'll go from there.
Ro 12:11 is not referring to the sacrifice of the new covenant (Lk 22:20).
There is no "temple" in Heb 8, there is only the true tabernacle in heaven where our High Priest is.
Nor is Heb 8 referring to Ro 12:11, nor is it about the same thing as Ro 12:11.
Last edited:
So then do you believe that Paul's letter to the Romans had nothing to do with the New covenant relating it to sacrifice?
Let's try another book. Back to Hebrews. "By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name." (Hebrews 13:15)
Now, pre-empting that verse we read "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come" (Hebrews 13:10-14)
And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily , and follow me. (Luke 9:23)
Obviously there is a relationship in the above to the old temple or old sanctuary. This is a clear picture of the New covenant isn't it? And are we not the temple of the new covenant made without hands?
2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said , I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Yes there is a new city of Jerusalem coming as we read in Revelation and God's children are in this world but not of this world. We seek one to come.
All I have gotten from you is that you emphatically repeat that the old and new temples have nothing to do with the old and new covenants. Because you say that the temple made without hands has nothing to do with the new covenant, would I be right in saying that you also believe that the old covenant had nothing to do with the temple that was built during Moses' day?
"We heard him say , I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands." (Mark 14:58)
Is Jesus not the designer and instigator of the new covenant?
Let's try another book. Back to Hebrews. "By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name." (Hebrews 13:15)
Now, pre-empting that verse we read "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come" (Hebrews 13:10-14)
And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily , and follow me. (Luke 9:23)
Obviously there is a relationship in the above to the old temple or old sanctuary. This is a clear picture of the New covenant isn't it? And are we not the temple of the new covenant made without hands?
2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said , I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Yes there is a new city of Jerusalem coming as we read in Revelation and God's children are in this world but not of this world. We seek one to come.
All I have gotten from you is that you emphatically repeat that the old and new temples have nothing to do with the old and new covenants. Because you say that the temple made without hands has nothing to do with the new covenant, would I be right in saying that you also believe that the old covenant had nothing to do with the temple that was built during Moses' day?
"We heard him say , I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands." (Mark 14:58)
Is Jesus not the designer and instigator of the new covenant?
Ro 11:12 is not about the new covenant sacrifice of Ro 3:25.
Heb 13:15 is not about the new covenant sacrifice of Ro 3:25.
Yes, the writer of Hebrews is pointing out that
the OT priest could not eat the flesh of the altar if the blood was taken into the Holy Place (Lev 6:30),
but the NT priest (believer) can eat the flesh of the altar (Lord's Supper) because the blood has
been taken into the holy place (heavenly tabernacle.)
Heb 13:10-14 is talking about the new covenant sacrifice of Ro 3:25.
Are you saying Jesus states that we are to be physically crucified on a physical cross?
Or is Jesus saying his obedience cost him his life
and, likewise, our obedience will be costly to our sinful nature?
There is no temple in Heb 8,
and the Scriptures you present, Ro 11:12; Heb 13:15, are not talking about
the new covenant sacrifice of Ro 3:25 and, therefore, do not correspond
to the old covenant sacrifices in the old sanctuary.
Can't answer that because I don't know what you in particular mean by "new covenant,"
since you do not answer my questions regarding its meaning.
Yes, but it has nothing to do with Heb 8.
It has nothing to do with Heb 8, as shown in post #288 (link following), and
it is not in the new covenant of Jer 31:31-34; Heb 8:7-13.
Nor is your meaning of "new covenant" even clear.
Until you address post #288 here, dealing with your misunderstanding of Heb 8,
and show within the context of the book of Hebrews where the post is incorrect,
what you present regarding Heb 8 will remain in error.
Heb 13:15 is not about the new covenant sacrifice of Ro 3:25.
Yes, the writer of Hebrews is pointing out that
the OT priest could not eat the flesh of the altar if the blood was taken into the Holy Place (Lev 6:30),
but the NT priest (believer) can eat the flesh of the altar (Lord's Supper) because the blood has
been taken into the holy place (heavenly tabernacle.)
Heb 13:10-14 is talking about the new covenant sacrifice of Ro 3:25.
Are you saying Jesus states that we are to be physically crucified on a physical cross?
Or is Jesus saying his obedience cost him his life
and, likewise, our obedience will be costly to our sinful nature?
There is no temple in Heb 8,
and the Scriptures you present, Ro 11:12; Heb 13:15, are not talking about
the new covenant sacrifice of Ro 3:25 and, therefore, do not correspond
to the old covenant sacrifices in the old sanctuary.
Can't answer that because I don't know what you in particular mean by "new covenant,"
since you do not answer my questions regarding its meaning.
Yes, but it has nothing to do with Heb 8.
It has nothing to do with Heb 8, as shown in post #288 (link following), and
it is not in the new covenant of Jer 31:31-34; Heb 8:7-13.
Nor is your meaning of "new covenant" even clear.
Until you address post #288 here, dealing with your misunderstanding of Heb 8,
and show within the context of the book of Hebrews where the post is incorrect,
what you present regarding Heb 8 will remain in error.
I asked you
"And are we not the temple of the new covenant made without hands? "
Hebrews 8:1-2
1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched , and not man.
This related to Mark 14:58 We heard him say , I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
Let's recap the part of my post that you missed.
Now if there would have been no sacrifice by Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, would there be a New and better covenant? I don't think so. With that said the New covenant is because of His resurrection, but without death there can be no resurrection.
1 Corinthians 15:3 and 14
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received , how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
14 And if Christ be not risen , then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
Paul was preaching the good news (gospel) which was the gospel of the New Covenant in Christ. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is in relation to the temple ordinances otherwise the physical temple cannot be part of the shadow of things to come. Sorry you can't get it.
Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come , and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect .
"And are we not the temple of the new covenant made without hands? "
Hebrews 8:1-2
1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched , and not man.
This related to Mark 14:58 We heard him say , I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.
Let's recap the part of my post that you missed.
Now if there would have been no sacrifice by Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, would there be a New and better covenant? I don't think so. With that said the New covenant is because of His resurrection, but without death there can be no resurrection.
1 Corinthians 15:3 and 14
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received , how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
14 And if Christ be not risen , then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
Paul was preaching the good news (gospel) which was the gospel of the New Covenant in Christ. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is in relation to the temple ordinances otherwise the physical temple cannot be part of the shadow of things to come. Sorry you can't get it.
Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come , and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect .
Last edited:
So many want to get rid of the law that God gave to Moses. Moses didn't come up with the law by himself. Now if we get rid of the temple ordinances only, Having those fulfilled by Christ Jesus, that means that all of the law that does not pertain to the temple still stand as reliable. If we refuse to acknowledge that the physical temple ordinances have been fulfilled by Christ, then we can say that the old covenant law is in decay and is waxing old ready to vanish away. With that said, if we compare the temple ordinances of sacrifice with what our Lord, and Savior has accomplished, the New Covenant through Christ becomes dynamic in recognizing all that He has fulfilled.
"What is more, their minds were made stone like; for to this day the same veil remains over them when they read the Old Covenant; it has not been unveiled, because only by the Messiah is the veil taken away. Yes, till today, whenever Moshe is read, a veil lies over their heart. "But," says the Torah, "whenever someone turns to ADONAI, the veil is taken away." Now, "ADONAI" in this text means the Spirit. And where the Spirit of ADONAI is, there is freedom. So all of us, with faces unveiled, see as in a mirror the glory of the Lord; and we are being changed into his very image, from one degree of glory to the next, by ADONAI the Spirit. ." (2 Corinthians 3:14-18 CJB)
Exodus 34:34 But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he took the vail off , until he came out. And he came out , and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded .
"What is more, their minds were made stone like; for to this day the same veil remains over them when they read the Old Covenant; it has not been unveiled, because only by the Messiah is the veil taken away. Yes, till today, whenever Moshe is read, a veil lies over their heart. "But," says the Torah, "whenever someone turns to ADONAI, the veil is taken away." Now, "ADONAI" in this text means the Spirit. And where the Spirit of ADONAI is, there is freedom. So all of us, with faces unveiled, see as in a mirror the glory of the Lord; and we are being changed into his very image, from one degree of glory to the next, by ADONAI the Spirit. ." (2 Corinthians 3:14-18 CJB)
Exodus 34:34 But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he took the vail off , until he came out. And he came out , and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded .
Last edited:
Until you address post #288 here,
which shows your misunderstanding and misapplication of Heb 8,
and show within the context of the book of Hebrews where that post is incorrect,
what you present regarding Heb 8 will continue to be misunderstanding and misapplication.
You're just going in circles.
The NT references to covenant, temple, sacrifices, etc. which you present do not refer to Heb 8.
Common terms do not related passages make.
BTW: Is Jesus God, equal with God the Father?
Yes, or No. . .
which shows your misunderstanding and misapplication of Heb 8,
and show within the context of the book of Hebrews where that post is incorrect,
what you present regarding Heb 8 will continue to be misunderstanding and misapplication.
You're just going in circles.
The NT references to covenant, temple, sacrifices, etc. which you present do not refer to Heb 8.
Common terms do not related passages make.
BTW: Is Jesus God, equal with God the Father?
Yes, or No. . .
Last edited:
As you requested I'm acknowledging post 288
I asked, "So if Hebrews 8:1-6 is not about the temple is there another place that the priests offered sacrifice?"
Then your answer was
So here is what I comprehend. To me the sanctuary, tabernacle is in clear comparison with the temple. It may be a matter of semantics.
1 Samuel 3:3 And ere the *lamp of God went out in the temple of the LORD, where the ark of God was, and Samuel was laid down to sleep;
In the Old temple there was a mercy seat where the Spirit of God sat.
Hebrews 9:2 For there was a tabernacle made ; the first, wherein was the *candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread ; which is called the sanctuary
Hebrews 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
This temple of the old covenant was where the high priest made sacrifice.
Hebrews 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
Jesus couldn't be our Hight Priest if He were still walking the earth, and God told Moses how to make the tabernacle. Directions for making and erecting the temple are found in Exodus chapter 24 through 27
Hebrews 8:4-5
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See , saith he , that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
Now referring to the temple made without hands, we see the foundation and cornerstone of a New and *better covenant centered around the sacrifice of Jesus Christ who is our High Priest setting on the right hand of God..
Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant,(Strong's 1242 related to testament) which was established upon better promises.
Again the temple was the place of sacrifice, and covenant in this scripture is not separate from sanctuary, tabernacle, temple, or whatever one would like to define it. They are all the same in the previous scripture references.
Now, I want you to look up the word "covenant" in you concordance as note that there is no Greek word for that in Hebrews 8:7, Hebrews 8:13, and Hebrews 9:1
So with this information the focus is the temple, tabernacle, sanctuary, and they're all referring to the same thing whether made physically or made by Christ where His "Spirit" dwells within us.
Strong's 4633 tabernacle=4633. skene skay-nay' apparently akin to 4632 and 4639; a tent or cloth hut (literally or figuratively):--habitation, tabernacle
Strong's 39 sanctuary=39. hagion hag'-ee-on neuter of 40; a sacred thing (i.e. spot):--holiest (of all), holy place, sanctuary.
Strong's 3485 temple=3485. naos nah-os' from a primary naio (to dwell); a fane, shrine, temple :--shrine, temple. Compare 2411.
2411. hieron hee-er-on' neuter of 2413; a sacred place, i.e. the entire precincts (whereas 3485 denotes the central sanctuary itself) of the Temple (at Jerusalem or elsewhere):--temple.
Hebrews 9:1-2
1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
2 For there was a tabernacle made ; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread ; which is called the sanctuary.
I asked, "So if Hebrews 8:1-6 is not about the temple is there another place that the priests offered sacrifice?"
Then your answer was
So here is what I comprehend. To me the sanctuary, tabernacle is in clear comparison with the temple. It may be a matter of semantics.
1 Samuel 3:3 And ere the *lamp of God went out in the temple of the LORD, where the ark of God was, and Samuel was laid down to sleep;
In the Old temple there was a mercy seat where the Spirit of God sat.
Hebrews 9:2 For there was a tabernacle made ; the first, wherein was the *candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread ; which is called the sanctuary
Hebrews 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
This temple of the old covenant was where the high priest made sacrifice.
Hebrews 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
Jesus couldn't be our Hight Priest if He were still walking the earth, and God told Moses how to make the tabernacle. Directions for making and erecting the temple are found in Exodus chapter 24 through 27
Hebrews 8:4-5
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See , saith he , that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
Now referring to the temple made without hands, we see the foundation and cornerstone of a New and *better covenant centered around the sacrifice of Jesus Christ who is our High Priest setting on the right hand of God..
Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant,(Strong's 1242 related to testament) which was established upon better promises.
Again the temple was the place of sacrifice, and covenant in this scripture is not separate from sanctuary, tabernacle, temple, or whatever one would like to define it. They are all the same in the previous scripture references.
Now, I want you to look up the word "covenant" in you concordance as note that there is no Greek word for that in Hebrews 8:7, Hebrews 8:13, and Hebrews 9:1
So with this information the focus is the temple, tabernacle, sanctuary, and they're all referring to the same thing whether made physically or made by Christ where His "Spirit" dwells within us.
Strong's 4633 tabernacle=4633. skene skay-nay' apparently akin to 4632 and 4639; a tent or cloth hut (literally or figuratively):--habitation, tabernacle
Strong's 39 sanctuary=39. hagion hag'-ee-on neuter of 40; a sacred thing (i.e. spot):--holiest (of all), holy place, sanctuary.
Strong's 3485 temple=3485. naos nah-os' from a primary naio (to dwell); a fane, shrine, temple :--shrine, temple. Compare 2411.
2411. hieron hee-er-on' neuter of 2413; a sacred place, i.e. the entire precincts (whereas 3485 denotes the central sanctuary itself) of the Temple (at Jerusalem or elsewhere):--temple.
Hebrews 9:1-2
1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
2 For there was a tabernacle made ; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread ; which is called the sanctuary.
i posted this verse and others to elins about same question to me
"My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).
then she gave the same responce as here,
saying we deny Christ.
i could be wrong but are woman supose to talk down to man or preach.
this might not be a church here but is christians worshiping and decussing on forum,
should we not lift up others, all i get is torn down by some who wants nothing but argue.
"My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28).
then she gave the same responce as here,
saying we deny Christ.
i could be wrong but are woman supose to talk down to man or preach.
this might not be a church here but is christians worshiping and decussing on forum,
should we not lift up others, all i get is torn down by some who wants nothing but argue.