quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

I am really enjoying this "give and take" between Christian brothers who clearly have a different understanding of covenantal relationship between God and man. It has helped me to confirm some intriguing issues regarding OT and NT theology.

quote:

It may sound that way to you, but maybe that is because you differentiate between believing and doing. I believe that there is no believing without doing.

Bluethread, this sounds a whole lot to me like an extension of Wesleyan/Holiness doctrine. Many Holiness theologians say there is no imputed righteousness (believing) without corresponding imparted righteousness (doing). They would also say there is no standing in Christ (believing) without corresponding state of Christ (doing). You have aptly said there is no believing without doing. Your credentials as a Holiness theologian are on the rise...

quote:

In my view, the one Covenant provides salvation by grace through faith that results in good works in daily living.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

Ok, time to look at definitions again. Where in the Scriptures do we find the phrase "the covenant of works" or something similar? This is not a trick question. It may be there, I just can't find it at the moment. I would like to see what it is refering to, if it is there.

Exodus 24:6-7
6 Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, "We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey."

These does not say "the covenant of works" or something similar. They just points out that we agreed to obey it. So, if anything this would be a "covenant of obedience".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Do you think a convenat based on being obedient to Adonai is a bad thing?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw
The stipulations laid down in the first covenant is that righteousness is attained by keeping the law. In the New Covenant, righteousness--a perfect righteousness--is attained by believing. And once made perfect and blameless before God, a life of ever-increasing deeds of righteousness is the result (not the means of righteousness as in the first covenant).


Man's tragic lack of righteousness, and his inability to produce it, is why God established the New Covenant. A Covenant contingent on believing in the forgiveness of God in Christ, not on the complete performance of everything written in the book of the covenant.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

Exodus 24:6-7
6 Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, "We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey."

These does not say "the covenant of works" or something similar. They just points out that we agreed to obey it. So, if anything this would be a "covenant of obedience".

Exodus 19:5-6
5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."


This is completely contrary to the New Covenant in which becoming a part of the nation of God's treasured possession is not conditioned on being fully obedient to the law. In the New Covenant it comes by faith in Christ:

Phil. 3:7-9 (parenthesis mine)
7But whatever was to my profit (works of the law) I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things (natural lineage, works of the law). I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Do you think a convenant based on being obedient to Adonai is a bad thing?

For imperfect man, 'yes'! Note that you said 'based' on. The New Covenant is a covenant established (based) on believing. Perfectly suited for imperfect man who has no capacity to produce the perfect righteousness required by God to be part of his treasured people.

quote:

The stipulations laid down in the first covenant is that righteousness is attained by keeping the law. In the New Covenant, righteousness--a perfect righteousness--is attained by believing. And once made perfect and blameless before God, a life of ever-increasing deeds of righteousness is the result (not the means of righteousness as in the first covenant).

quote:

Man's tragic lack of righteousness, and his inability to produce it, is why God established the New Covenant. A Covenant contingent on believing in the forgiveness of God in Christ, not on the complete performance of everything written in the book of the covenant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw
The stipulations laid down in the first covenant is that righteousness is attained by keeping the law. In the New Covenant, righteousness--a perfect righteousness--is attained by believing. And once made perfect and blameless before God, a life of ever-increasing deeds of righteousness is the result (not the means of righteousness as in the first covenant).


Man's tragic lack of righteousness, and his inability to produce it, is why God established the New Covenant. A Covenant contingent on believing in the forgiveness of God in Christ, not on the complete performance of everything written in the book of the covenant.

Which only emphasises this Scripture;

(Heb 8:7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

The first had faults, so God brought the second. Now all the "God Defenders" that say the first had to be prefect are just wrong.

For if the first convenant had been perfect; then there would have been no need for the second.


Thanks
RC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

Exodus 24:6-7
6 Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, "We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey."

These does not say "the covenant of works" or something similar. They just points out that we agreed to obey it. So, if anything this would be a "covenant of obedience".

Exodus 19:5-6
5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."


This is completely contrary to the New Covenant in which becoming a part of the nation of God's treasured possession is not conditioned on being fully obedient to the law. In the New Covenant it comes by faith in Christ:

Phil. 3:7-9 (parenthesis mine)
7But whatever was to my profit (works of the law) I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things (natural lineage, works of the law). I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.

Here you are mixing metaphores. The first passage referes to being a light to the gentiles and the second refers to salvation and possibly sanctification.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

Exodus 19:5-6
5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."


This is completely contrary to the New Covenant in which becoming a part of the nation of God's treasured possession is not conditioned on being fully obedient to the law. In the New Covenant it comes by faith in Christ:

Phil. 3:7-9 (parenthesis mine)
7But whatever was to my profit (works of the law) I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things (natural lineage, works of the law). I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.

Here you are mixing metaphores. The first passage referes to being a light to the gentiles and the second refers to salvation and possibly sanctification.

The first covenant was a performance based covenant of works. And when a person was thoroughly defeated by the demands of that covenant they could turn to the eternal Covenant, outside of the first covenant, and live. Like David and others did.

quote:

The first covenant killed people. It could not give life. The second Covenant is what gives life:

2 Cor. 3:6-11 (parenthesis mine)
6He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

7Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 8will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9If the ministry that condemns men (the first covenant engraved on stone) is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness (Christ through the ministry of the Holy Spirit)! 10For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw
The first covenant was a performance based covenant of works. And when a person was thoroughly defeated by the demands of that covenant they could turn to the eternal Covenant, outside of the first covenant, and live. Like David and others did.

Are you saying that David rejected HaTorah? If so, please provide Scripture that substantiates that.

quote:


If not, that is my point. HaTorah is a representation of The Covenant, it is living according to The Covenant that is most important. It is within that framework that one seeks to understand Adonai's ways and that is how it always has been.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

David stood condemned under the first covenant:

Exodus 21:14
...if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.


Leviticus 20:10
" 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.


The first covenant required that he be put to death. Those are the terms of that covenant. There is no forgiveness under the old covenant for murder and adultery. Yet David was forgiven by God and did not suffer the required penalty of death for his sins. The provision of forgiveness he received did not come from the first covenant itself. It made no provision for forgiveness of those offenses.

quote:

The forgiveness he received came from outside of the first covenant. It's not written in the first covenant that a murderer and an adulterer can live. Only in the eternal Covenant, fully revealed in what we now know as the second or New Covenant is there provision for forgiveness for all offenses and release from the penalties of those sins--even the one's the first covenant made no legal provision to cover:

Acts 13:38-39
...my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

quote:

quote:


If not, that is my point. HaTorah is a representation of The Covenant, it is living according to The Covenant that is most important. It is within that framework that one seeks to understand Adonai's ways and that is how it always has been.

All you're saying here is what we've been saying, and what the Bible says. Knowledge of sin comes through the first covenant, and that's about it. David is a perfect example of how knowledge of sin comes through the first covenant and leaves a man condemned and accountable. And if the man who finds himself in the place of no lawful remedy for his sin is honest about that wrongdoing ("blessed is the man...in whose spirit is no deceit" Psalm 32:2) then God will grant him the provision of the eternal Covenant sealed with the blood of Jesus Christ.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

David stood condemned under the first covenant:

Exodus 21:14
...if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.


Leviticus 20:10
" 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.


The first covenant required that he be put to death. Those are the terms of that covenant. There is no forgiveness under the old covenant for murder and adultery. Yet David was forgiven by God and did not suffer the required penalty of death for his sins. The provision of forgiveness he received did not come from the first covenant itself. It made no provision for forgiveness of those offenses.

This is presumptious. Yes, there are no exceptions to the death penalty, but that does not preclude salvation based on faith in The Promise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
David should have undergone a trial, but He did not. Such is politics. However, Adonai did judge him by taking one of his sons and allowing disension and rebellion in the kingdom by allowing rebeliousness in another of his sons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

The forgiveness he received came from outside of the first covenant. It's not written in the first covenant that a murderer and an adulterer can live. Only in the eternal Covenant, fully revealed in what we now know as the second or New Covenant is there provision for forgiveness for all offenses and release from the penalties of those sins--even the one's the first covenant made no legal provision to cover:

Acts 13:38-39
...my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses.

The operative term here is proclaimed. The fact that David was forgiven in an eternal sense is support to the view that this "new" covenant was available to David. The written code calls for a trial and appropriate punshment in this life, but the grace of Adonai through The Promise provides eternal salvation. Two different purposes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
If not, that is my point. HaTorah is a representation of The Covenant, it is living according to The Covenant that is most important. It is within that framework that one seeks to understand Adonai's ways and that is how it always has been.

All you're saying here is what we've been saying, and what the Bible says. Knowledge of sin comes through the first covenant, and that's about it. David is a perfect example of how knowledge of sin comes through the first covenant and leaves a man condemned and accountable. And if the man who finds himself in the place of no lawful remedy for his sin is honest about that wrongdoing ("blessed is the man...in whose spirit is no deceit" Psalm 32:2) then God will grant him the provision of the eternal Covenant sealed with the blood of Jesus Christ.

No, even though the eternal Coventant provides salvation by grace through faith, the application of that Covenant, as we understand it being guided by the written code and Adonai's Spirit, results in a holy society here on earth. One speaks to how the Covenant works in providing eternal life to the fallen, the other speaks of how the Covenant provides harmony among Adonai's people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

This isn't about trying to preclude salvation by faith during the first covenant. Nobody's arguing against that. This thread is about why God established the New Covenant. He did that because people, like David, are condemned without remedy by the first covenant. There was no provision for David to be forgiven within the terms of the first covenant. The forgiveness he received did not come from the terms and provision of the first covenant. God established a second Covenant that does have that provision of forgiveness in it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
David should have undergone a trial, but He did not. Such is politics. However, Adonai did judge him by taking one of his sons and allowing disension and rebellion in the kingdom by allowing rebeliousness in another of his sons.

quote:

And regardless of what you think, David was not judged according to the required penalty for murder and adultery. His kids were, but he was not. What stipulation of the first covenant let him out of that? There is nothing in the law to let him go free. That grace came from outside of the terms of the first covenant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
The operative term here is proclaimed. The fact that David was forgiven in an eternal sense is support to the view that this "new" covenant was available to David. The written code calls for a trial and appropriate punshment in this life, but the grace of Adonai through The Promise provides eternal salvation. Two different purposes.

We know the grace of the eternal Covenant was there to forgive David. The point you seem to be evading is, this grace is not part of the first covenant. That's why God established the second Covenant.

quote:

The law condemned a man both physically and spiritually. In the old covenant you were cutoff both spiritually and physically from God. That's why God established the New Covenant. There are not two different purposes here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

Yeah, wouldn't everything be harmonious if we would all just stone each other for our various offenses as the law requires. That's not harmony and peace. Harmony and peace is realized through the New Covenant, not the old. Unless you consider capital punishment, and all the other various punishments of the old covenant the agent of harmony amongst the people of God instead of the Spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation as in the New Covenant (Jesus and Paul's sermons illustrate this well).

quote:

I'll go with the New Covenant on this point, BT. Actually, I can't think of any point of the old covenant I'd rather be under. I think every honest sinner would agree with me. Nobody can live under the old covenant. It's for blind hypocritical Pharisees, not imperfect sinners who stand condemned before God and know it. That's why God established the New.

quote:

The point of the law has been preserved in the New--'love your neighbor as yourself'. The difference is, that law is now written on hearts of flesh, minus all the rock throwing and removed from the Mosaic system that condemned men. The New Covenant is a new 'system' in which God's royal law (love your neighbor as yourself) is fulfilled. If a man wants to stay under the system of the written code and not under the new way of the Spirit, there is no way he can live. That's why God established the New.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw
This isn't about trying to preclude salvation by faith during the first covenant. Nobody's arguing against that. This thread is about why God established the New Covenant. He did that because people, like David, are condemned without remedy by the first covenant. There was no provision for David to be forgiven within the terms of the first covenant. The forgiveness he received did not come from the terms and provision of the first covenant. God established a second Covenant that does have that provision of forgiveness in it.

Good, then are you saying David was forgiven under the new Covenant?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
David should have undergone a trial, but He did not. Such is politics. However, Adonai did judge him by taking one of his sons and allowing disension and rebellion in the kingdom by allowing rebeliousness in another of his sons.

What benefit would a trial have been to David? David would have been a fool to demand a trial. So would every sinner condemned by the terms of the first covenant. That's what salvation by faith is all about. It's knowing you don't have a legal leg to stand on before God and casting yourself on his mercy in faith--mercy that is not provided by the first covenant but is only available through the eternal Covenant. The knowledge of which has been fully revealed for mankind with the death and resurrection of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Then are you saying Jeffery Daumer should have been freed? He professed that He had accepted Jesus. No one should be held accountable for their actions in this life. It is not David who would demand the trial, but two or three witnesses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

And regardless of what you think, David was not judged according to the required penalty for murder and adultery. His kids were, but he was not. What stipulation of the first covenant let him out of that? There is nothing in the law to let him go free. That grace came from outside of the terms of the first covenant.

No, it was not in the written code. It was part of Adonai's Covenant which predates the written code and in David's case postdates the written code, because Adonai as part of the Covenant established the throne with David and had he did Shlomo(Soloman) would not have been born. I know it all can get rather confusing, but that is why we are given the written code and are commanded to study it guided by Adonai's Spirit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
However, it becomes let confusing if one does not insist on certain terms being absolutely tied to certain concepts. I have heard that such a literal interpretation of the Scriptures is really unacceptable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
The operative term here is proclaimed. The fact that David was forgiven in an eternal sense is support to the view that this "new" covenant was available to David. The written code calls for a trial and appropriate punshment in this life, but the grace of Adonai through The Promise provides eternal salvation. Two different purposes.

We know the grace of the eternal Covenant was there to forgive David. The point you seem to be evading is, this grace is not part of the first covenant. That's why God established the second Covenant.

So, how is it David was forgiven by a covenant that had not yet been established?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

The law condemned a man both physically and spiritually. In the old covenant you were cutoff both spiritually and physically from God. That's why God established the New Covenant. There are not two different purposes here.

You just said David was forgiven and the old covenant can not do that, but, if I am not mistaken, you also say the new covenant later replaced the old covenant. So, was David living under the old covenant or the new covenant?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

Yeah, wouldn't everything be harmonious if we would all just stone each other for our various offenses as the law requires. That's not harmony and peace. Harmony and peace is realized through the New Covenant, not the old. Unless you consider capital punishment, and all the other various punishments of the old covenant the agent of harmony amongst the people of God instead of the Spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation as in the New Covenant (Jesus and Paul's sermons illustrate this well).

You are forgetting due process and a standard of evidence that is much higher than that exercised by the USA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

I'll go with the New Covenant on this point, BT. Actually, I can't think of any point of the old covenant I'd rather be under. I think every honest sinner would agree with me. Nobody can live under the old covenant. It's for blind hypocritical Pharisees, not imperfect sinners who stand condemned before God and know it. That's why God established the New.

Tell that to the father of that little girl who was raped and murdered by that man who was released from prison after serving three to five.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

The point of the law has been preserved in the New--'love your neighbor as yourself'. The difference is, that law is now written on hearts of flesh, minus all the rock throwing and removed from the Mosaic system that condemned men. The New Covenant is a new 'system' in which God's royal law (love your neighbor as yourself) is fulfilled. If a man wants to stay under the system of the written code and not under the new way of the Spirit, there is no way he can live. That's why God established the New.

If one does not understand what Adonai means when He says to love one's neighbor, we will all die at the hands of psycotic murderers whos consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. Now we can go back and forth over which set of legal standards works best, but if we do not agree on what constitutes Adonai's Covenant with man all we are doing is eventually putting one or both of us in a position of blasphemy for finding fault with Adonai. The latter of the two is probably the most likely outcome. So, maybe we should stick to defining the Covenant or Covenants and leave the specific hypotheticals for another thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Good, then are you saying David was forgiven under the new Covenant?

Ultimately, yes. The eternal Covenant, later unveiled and established as the New Covenant is where the provision for his forgiveness was. The point being, David was not forgiven under the old covenant. The old covenant had no provision to do that. That's why God unveiled the New Covenant to fallen man.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw
Then are you saying Jeffery Daumer should have been freed? He professed that He had accepted Jesus. No one should be held accountable for their actions in this life. It is not David who would demand the trial, but two or three witnesses.

The first covenant doesn't even allow the question to be entertained whether Jeffery Daumer, along with David, should have been released or given reduced sentences. The first covenant does not allow any mitigating circumstances to determine varying punishments for murder and adultery (and other things). The old covenant specifies the death penalty, period. If you do not kill the adulterer or the premeditated murderer you are not keeping the covenant. The New Covenant does not have that restriction because forgiveness is possible.

quote:

I don't know what connection you're trying to make with Solomon being born. Don't stray away from the point: David was not forgiven under the first covenant. Thankfully, his plea of helplessness was answered by the eternal Covenant lurking in the background. The old covenant had no provision to entertain such a plea.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
However, it becomes let confusing if one does not insist on certain terms being absolutely tied to certain concepts. I have heard that such a literal interpretation of the Scriptures is really unacceptable.

There's no reason to think the first and second covenants are not literally two different covenants. The NT plainly teaches them that way. No discernment is necessary to derive some figurative meaning out of the appearance of the New Covenant that it should be understood as a continuation of the old covenant and system of relating to God.

quote:

All the evidence of what is different between the old covenant and the New Covenant leads to no other conclusion than to insist that the new is literally a distinct and different covenant. Despite the narrow definition you define the New Covenant by (Jer. 31), we have presented loads of other scripture to show how very much different the New Covenant is that it should be thoroughly understood as just that...a 'new' and different Covenant. One that forgives murderers and adulterers and idolators, and kids who abuse their parents. That's pretty literal to me, BT.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Good, then are you saying David was forgiven under the new Covenant?

Ultimately, yes. The eternal Covenant, later unveiled and established as the New Covenant is where the provision for his forgiveness was. The point being, David was not forgiven under the old covenant. The old covenant had no provision to do that. That's why God unveiled the New Covenant to fallen man.

Then, it appears, Covenant and the new Covenant are the same thing and those who lived in the time of the Tanach were forgiven based on that Covenant. That being the case, would it not be right to consider the "old" covenant to be the written code.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
...you seem to be reading a lot more into the "new" covenant than just Adonai's Spirit writing His word on our hearts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread
How does one determine that capital punishment as a means of societal self defense is not part of the "new" Covenant?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw
There's no reason to think the first and second covenants are not literally two different covenants. The NT plainly teaches them that way. No discernment is necessary to derive some figurative meaning out of the appearance of the New Covenant that it should be understood as a continuation of the old covenant and system of relating to God.

No, I am saying that the old Covenant could be refering to how the written code was understood, as a list of activities that have primacy over The Covenant as understood through a proper spiritual relationship with Adonai. The new Covenant replaces this misunderstanding with a proper understanding of the eternal Covenant, which you acknowledge was "lurking in the background " all along.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

All the evidence of what is different between the old covenant and the New Covenant leads to no other conclusion than to insist that the new is literally a distinct and different covenant. Despite the narrow definition you define the New Covenant by (Jer. 31), we have presented loads of other scripture to show how very much different the New Covenant is that it should be thoroughly understood as just that...a 'new' and different Covenant. One that forgives murderers and adulterers and idolators, and kids who abuse their parents. That's pretty literal to me, BT.

Yes, the new Covenant which, in those passages where that term is directly addressed, is about implimentation, is quite different that how the Word of Adonai was implimented by those in authority in the time of the Tanach. Now, whether that means that murderers, adulterers, idolators, and kids who abuse their parents should be permitted to walk the streets or be supported at government expense, is an issue that can be addressed once one establishes how one determines what the New Covenant says on such matters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

I would say if the "blood of the eternal covenant" (Heb. 13:20) is the same blood of the New Covenant then they must be the same covenant.

I see what you're driving at, but we call the Mosaic covenant the 'first' covenant, aka the 'old' covenant (Heb. 8:6), because that's what the Bible calls it, even though the eternal Covenant obviously, by virtue of it being 'eternal', predates the Mosaic covenant:

Hebrews 8:8-9 (parenthesis mine)
...I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 9It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt (the Mosaic covenant).


Hebrews 8:13 (parenthesis mine)
13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one (the one God made with the forefathers of the house of Israel and Judah when they came out of Egypt) obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

We call the Mosaic covenant the 'first' and 'old' covenant because the Bible does. 'Old' and 'New', and, 'first' and 'second' refer to both the sequence of revelation, and the difference in features of the two covenants.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

You're missing the point. There were capital offenses that could not be forgiven in the old covenant and required death. But now in the New Covenant they are forgiven. David did not die after being forgiven his trespasses. And we understand very clearly how Christ took the penalty of sin upon himself in our place. This is what the Romans passage I shared earlier shows:

Romans 3:23-25
...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

IOW, Christ died the just penalty for all those who didn't pay that penalty themselves. What makes it just is the fact that a death actually occured as required, not just a declaration of forgiveness. Just another example of how Christ came to fulfill the law on our behalf, even dying the required death penalty of that law. Col. 2 also speaks to this removal of the penalty of sin required by the law:

Col. 2:13-14
13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChainSaw

I would say if the "blood of the eternal covenant" (Heb. 13:20) is the same blood of the New Covenant then they must be the same covenant.

I see what you're driving at, but we call the Mosaic covenant the 'first' covenant, aka the 'old' covenant (Heb. 8:6), because that's what the Bible calls it, even though the eternal Covenant obviously, by virtue of it being 'eternal', predates the Mosaic covenant:

Hebrews 8:8-9 (parenthesis mine)
...I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 9It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt (the Mosaic covenant).


Hebrews 8:13 (parenthesis mine)
13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one (the one God made with the forefathers of the house of Israel and Judah when they came out of Egypt) obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

We call the Mosaic covenant the 'first' and 'old' covenant because the Bible does. 'Old' and 'New', and, 'first' and 'second' refer to both the sequence of revelation, and the difference in features of the two covenants.

I am still not convinced that every "new" refers to the covenant in chapter 8. He begins the chapter discussing the priesthood. Then he says in verses 6 and 7, "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 _____A______ had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second _____A______." The bold terms represent actual greek words. The question then becomes what should be put in place of A. There is nothing there in the greek, therefore, whatever we put there is speculation.

Now given that he is talking about the priesthood in all of the previous verses and only now introduces the term covenant in verse six, it seems to me at least as likely that A represents the word "ministry" as the word "covenant".

In verse 8, He says he found fault with "them", this is plural. What have we seen so far that is presented in the plural; the heavens(v1), sacrifices(v3), priests(v4), gifts(v4), things(v5), and promises(v6). Now we are to ignore all of these options and use the singular covenant? We can go through each of these other options, but none of them embodies the entire covenant.

He then quotes the New Covenant that points out that Adonai would write it on our hearts and minds and there would be no need of a teacher. Were not the priests the teacher with regard to the sacrifices, gifts, and things regarding the Temple? Now, we come to verse 13 "In that he saith , A new _____A______ , he hath made the first _____A______ old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." One might say covenant goes in A here in both cases because it is singular and the qoute from Jeremiah uses the term covenant, however, the priesthood is refered to in both the singular and the plural in this chapter, while covenant is only refered to in the singular and the sentence could be an application of the quote and not necessarily a perfect parallel.

If we continue into chapter 9 we read, 1."Then verily the first _____A______ had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary." The words priesthood or minstry also work well here. In fact, we see in the next verse, 2."For there was a tabernacle made ; the first_____A______, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread ; which is called the sanctuary." In this case, A must represent the word tabernacle. Primarily because it is the clear topic of the sentence and secondly because it provides a transition into a use of the temple by the priests.

Therefore, I would say that it is at least reasonable that Paul is speaking primarily of the priesthood of Yeshua and uses the passage regarding the New Covenant as a justification of that priesthood as eternal in comparison to the earthly priesthood which is transitory.