IS ISRAEL IN THE NEW COVENANT GOD'S CHURCH?

[Guojing]

The New Covenant of grace is unilateral, on God's part only, requiring only God's performance to keep it in force, as was the Abrahamic covenant of grace,
it is not a bilateral agreement between two parties, requiring an agreement to perform by both parties to remain in force, as was the Sinaitic Covenant.

Do you have scripture for the above claim?

The Old Covenant began after everyone in Israel accepted its requirements in Exodus 24.

As far as I believe, the requirement is that Israel the nation needed to accept Christ as their promised Messiah, before the New Covenant can begin for them. Matthew 23:39, John 20:31

So I don't understand what you are saying when you claim the NC is "unilateral".

Are you saying that even though the nation of Israel has rejected Christ as their Messiah, it doesn't matter, the New Covenant has still begun for them?

 

[RickReads]

Too bad you are not willing to go into detail to establish and defend your view it might be fun.

I think any preterist thread would do. Not so sure about the fun part. I was just curious to see how she would get around all the Israel prophecies. Kind of a disappointment, doesn`t look like there's any meat on this bone.

 

[Clare73]

Not true, Peter is the culprit behind this view.

Acts 3
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Peter is re-offering the kingdom to Israel, although the church is born in chp 2.
It's one of the "overlaps" we find in the transitional nature of Acts from the OT to the NT.
The existence of the Temple in the NT, until 70 AD, is part of the transitional nature from the OT to the NT.

 

[Guojing]

It stands to reason that the final dissolution of Israel as a nation would end any national covenant that God had made with it. The old had to make way for the new. The destruction of the Temple and priesthood ensured that the two covenants wouldn't conflict with one another. You don't put new wine into an old wine skin.

So the current nation of Israel that we see now, when you claim that their Old covenant has finally dissolved, are you saying they are now under the New Covenant, or something else?

 

[Guojing]

Her denominational beliefs prevent her from taking an objective look at the prophets. For most Christians, this is the real problem.

If I understand her correctly, she does not believe in a 1000 year reign of Christ after the Tribulation, which puts her views as amillennialist.

 

[Clare73]

Do you have scripture for the above claim?
The Old Covenant began after everyone in Israel accepted its requirements in Exodus 24.
As far as I believe, the requirement is that Israel the nation needed to accept Christ as their promised Messiah, before the New Covenant can begin for them. Matthew 23:39, John 20:31
So I don't understand what you are saying when you claim the NC is "unilateral".

Do some study on covenants.

Are you saying that even though the nation of Israel has rejected Christ as their Messiah, it doesn't matter, the New Covenant has still begun for them?

The New Covenant has begun for all who are interested, Jew and Gentile alike.
All enter the New Covenant by faith, just as they entered the Abrahamic covenant by circumcision.

 

[Guojing]

Do some study on covenants.

All enter the New Covenant by faith, just as they entered the Abrahamic covenant by circumcision.

So you have no scripture but offering your personal views. I can accept that.

 

[Guojing]

The New Covenant has begun for all who are interested, Jew and Gentile alike.
All enter the New Covenant by faith, just as they entered the Abrahamic covenant by circumcision.

So you have to be interested in the NC before it can begin.

The house of Israel has rejected Christ as their promised Messiah. I suppose that is a clear indication they had zero interest in the NC?

So God cannot unilaterally begin the NC for the House of Israel.

You would agree with this?

 

[Clare73]

So the current nation of Israel that we see now, when you claim that their Old covenant has finally dissolved, are you saying they are now under the New Covenant, or something else?

The Old Covenant is dissolved, there is no priesthood, no mediator, no Temple, no nation of Israel with whom it was made. Nothing that was the "Old Covenant" exists anymore.

 

[Clare73]

So you have no scripture but offering your personal views. I can accept that.

Lose much weight jumping to those conclusions?

 

[Guojing]

Lose much weight jumping to those conclusions?

I ask you for scripture but you provided none. That is not jumping into that conclusion.

 

[Clare73]

So you have to be interested in the NC before it can begin.

The house of Israel has rejected Christ as their promised Messiah. I suppose that is a clear indication they had zero interest in the NC?

So God cannot unilaterally begin the NC for the House of Israel.

You would agree with this?

Everyone "begins" it for himself through faith in Jesus Christ.

It is in effect for all who want to enter it, Jew and Gentile alike.

It is really sad to see how poorly the NT is understood now.

 

[Clare73]

I ask you for scripture but you provided none. That is not jumping into that conclusion.

Until I state there is none, it is just that--jumping to a conclusion--regarding me.

 

[Guojing]

Everyone "begins" it for himself through faith in Jesus Christ.

As I stated, the nation Israel has rejected Christ as their Messiah.

So, as Hebrews 8:8 stated, the New Covenant could not have begun for them.

Just like the Old Covenant of the Law which began for Israel the nation in Exodus 24, the New Covenant is not for individuals who believe, it is also meant for the nation of Israel.

Your premise is thus incorrect

The only way for your doctrine to make sense, is to also claim that the Body of Christ is the House of Israel, as I have already explained here IS ISRAEL IN THE NEW COVENANT GOD'S CHURCH?

 

[Clare73]

So sad. . .

Do not put asunder what God has joined.

 

[RickReads]

Peter is re-offering the kingdom to Israel, although the church is born in chp 2.
It's one of the "overlaps" we find in the transitional nature of Acts from the OT to the NT.
The existence of the Temple in the NT, until 70 AD, is part of the transitional nature from the OT to the NT.

Peter mentions the age to come in both verses 19 and 21: times of refreshing, times of restitution, and what we call the millennial rule of Christ is all one and the same period of time. The apostles and all the early Christians believed in it.

 

[Clare73]

As I stated, the nation Israel has rejected Christ as their Messiah.

So, as Hebrews 8:8 stated, the New Covenant could not have begun for them.

Jesus offered it to them, they turned it down, the offer is off the table, he gave it to the Gentiles--in terms of the wrong way you are viewing it.

Just like the Old Covenant of the Law which began for Israel the nation in Exodus 24, the New Covenant is not for individuals who believe, it is also meant for the nation of Israel.

Your premise is thus incorrect

The only way for your doctrine to make sense, is to also claim that the Body of Christ is the House of Israel, as I have already explained here IS ISRAEL IN THE NEW COVENANT GOD'S CHURCH?

 

[Clare73]

Peter mentions the age to come in both verses 19 and 21: times of refreshing, times of restitution, and what we call the millennial rule of Christ is all one and the same period of time. The apostles and all the early Christians believed in it.

Yes, it's called the Church age (1 Corinthians 15:25), and the number in that prophetic riddle is one of the numbers symbolic of fullness, completion as are 7, 12, 144, 1000.

 

[Clare73]

.

 

[Guojing]

Jesus offered to them, they turned it down, the offer is off the table--in terms of the wrong way you are viewing it.

So my original point to you is that the NC could not have already begun.

You are changing the meaning of the recipients of the NC in Hebrews 8:8 to individuals, instead of what the verse literally says "House of Israel and House of Judah".

I have presented scripture to you, for my points, but as of now, you have not. If you still want to claim it is wrong, but yours is somehow correct, that is your choice.