Jer. 31:31, Renewed Covenant Explained

Daniel Gregg · Jan 25, 2013

Qnts2 said:
A common error is to confuse the verbs meaning with the meaning of the adjective, as they can be different.

An adjective is not confused with a verb so long as the adjective is used as an adjective and not a verb. Grammar changes conserve lexical meaning. Semantic range {1. renewed, repair, anew, 2. new}.

When your article makes an appeal to the Piel stem, what it is doing is appealing to the verb to justify the meaning of the adjective. The Qal form of the verb does mean new, but the different forms of verbs alter the meaning of the word.

Nope, only with modern Hebrew where mass media levels usage pattern and dichotomizes them among stems. Fundamentally, the stem has no power to alter the lexical meaning. Some verbs are not used in all stems, but let us suppose that hadash is.
Qal renew, repair,
Niphal be renewed, renew onself (passive, reflexive)
Piel make to be anew. (stativeness and emphasis)
Hiphil make anew
Hitpael: make self to be anew, renewed

I agree with Dr. Kaiser that the prophesies and covenant about the Messiah starts in Genesis 3:15 and continues throughout the Tenakh. With Jeremiah 31:31, Kaiser believes that his use of 'renewed' for renewed covenant actually goes back to the Genesis 3:15 promise of the Messiah, which is the continuing theme and covenant of the Tenakh. So, Jeremiah 31:31 can not be speaking of a New Covenant but one already offered starting in Gen 3:15 and throughout.

I agree that the Promise of the Messiah is a continuing theme in the Tenakh, and that by faith, a person could receive the eternal promises given in the New Covenant by God, prior to the time of Jesus on earth. But, Walter Kaiser is stretching it to redefine a Hebrew word to further support his theology.

Kaiser does angle toward the promise trying to skip over the "Mosaic Covenant" as if it is a ( ), however, it is not hard and fast. Jer 31:33 recalls Deut. 30:6. I disagree with the propensity. The promise is inseparable from Mt. Sinai (cf. Exo20v6.)

A typical argument by those far less knowledgable in Hebrew then Dr. Kaiser, argue the new moon facet. The claim is the moon is not actually new but renewed. However, that also fails as the moon has not been re-newed either. The moon has not changed. It is a scientific term simply meaning the moon in position with the sun and the earth is partially visible, due to the sun lights reflection and the angles. Science has labeled this phase of the moon as the new moon, just as the new moon in the Tenakh represents the beginning of a new month. So the entire new moon/renewed moon argument is based on wishful thinking to justify an argument. There is no such phase of the moon referred to as the renewed moon, but the new moon means a new month.

You really think Kaiser pressed it this far. I think you only meant to show that new did not necessarily entail new in nature. The argument is based on the Hebrew hadash, i.e. for "renew", and the principle of semantic conservation. You can respect Kaiser, but I did not cite him for the weight of his authority only. That is only to soften the opposition enough to listen. He demonstrates his case with facts, and to these facts I have ammended the compelling lingustic principles and connections with Mt. Sinai. Exo20v6 and Deu30v6.

Daniel Gregg · Jan 25, 2013

O.k. I stand corrected on your intent. I do like the ideal that the adjective is built on Piel, the made-to-be-anew covenant. To make anew could be to restore something, to make a new copy of something already existing, or even something brand new...the semantic range covers all the ideas...however the context and nature of the renewed covenant is that it is just that, renewed.

daq said:
You are too quick!

yedida · Jan 25, 2013

Daniel Gregg said:
O.k. I stand corrected on your intent. I do like the ideal that the adjective is built on Piel, the made-to-be-anew covenant. To make anew could be to restore something, to make a new copy of something already existing, or even something brand new...the semantic range covers all the ideas...however the context and nature of the renewed covenant is that it is just that, renewed.

Personally, I take the Torah as the first standard, first witness and I don't see "new covenant" so much there. And I only see it once in the NT; so I don't actually see the "two or more" witnesses required. Just sayin....

Qnts2 · Jan 25, 2013

Daniel Gregg said:
O.k. I stand corrected on your intent. I do like the ideal that the adjective is built on Piel, the made-to-be-anew covenant. To make anew could be to restore something, to make a new copy of something already existing, or even something brand new...the semantic range covers all the ideas...however the context and nature of the renewed covenant is that it is just that, renewed.

I have to say something on this. An adjective can not be built on Piel. Piel has to do with the grammatical stems of a verb, which expresses the type of action or to whom the action occurs. The Piel form of the verb intensifies the action.

So, basically, what you are saying makes no sense when speaking about Hebrew.

Daniel Gregg · Jan 25, 2013

Qnts2 said:
I have to say something on this. An adjective can not be built on Piel. Piel has to do with the grammatical stems of a verb, which expresses the type of action or to whom the action occurs. The Piel form of the verb intensifies the action.

So, basically, what you are saying makes no sense when speaking about Hebrew.

It does appear you have little notion of grammatical slots vs. word forms.

The renewed covenant

Let's look at the adjective "renewed" from the English standpoint. It sits in the adjective slot and functions as an adjective. Therefore it is an adjective. But how did we get it. It is built on the verb renew, formed into a participle renewed by adding -ed, and than plugged into the adjective slot.

the piel does not add the semantic sense "renew" to the root. the semantic sense is in the root itself. When the verb root is reduced to an adjective form, all the form does is tell us WHERE to apply the semantic sense. Standing after the noun, and adjective in form, means the lexical sense is to modify the character of the noun, to further describe the noun.

all you are banking on is the dogmatism that the adjective form cannot contain the lexical sense of the root. But it rejects two principles: lexical conservatism and the context of the renewed covenant.

It cannot be...it cannot be...is ever the cry of one who does not want to consider the alterative.

Qnts2 · Jan 25, 2013

Daniel Gregg said:
It does appear you have little notion of grammatical slots vs. word forms.

The renewed covenant

Let's look at the adjective "renewed" from the English standpoint. It sits in the adjective slot and functions as an adjective. Therefore it is an adjective. But how did we get it. It is built on the verb renew, formed into a participle renewed by adding -ed, and than plugged into the adjective slot.

the piel does not add the semantic sense "renew" to the root. the semantic sense is in the root itself. When the verb root is reduced to an adjective form, all the form does is tell us WHERE to apply the semantic sense. Standing after the noun, and adjective in form, means the lexical sense is to modify the character of the noun, to further describe the noun.

all you are banking on is the dogmatism that the adjective form cannot contain the lexical sense of the root. But it rejects two principles: lexical conservatism and the context of the renewed covenant.

It cannot be...it cannot be...is ever the cry of one who does not want to consider the alterative.

Basic Hebrew grammar is needed to understand the language. The grammar in Hebrew does far more to define what is being said then grammar does in English. Without a knowledge of Hebrew grammar, you can not translate Hebrew which is why lexicons are useless without a knowledge of Hebrew grammar, as they assume this knowledge.

The term root, is strictly a term used when referring to a verb. Not an adjective. A verb has the concept of a root because of the various stems, which are added to the root.

If the qal form of a word means broke, 'he broke', the piel form of the same word would mean demolished, 'he demolished'. Same root word with a different stem. And the pual form would mean 'it was demolished'. So for all of your argument about this, the words and meaning does change and we are just talking verbs. The verbal stem will make the difference of whether a person is King or is annointing someone else as King.

Adjectives are different then verbs.

Without Hebrew grammar, Hebrew can not be read, spoken or understood.

macher · Jan 25, 2013

Qnts2 said:
With the New Covenant, I do not see it as the same words, as scripture says it is different then the one given at Mt. Sinai. And it is clear that many things have changed, such as Jesus is not a Levite, but is the High Priest. That is a change.

Just as an aside, typically the Jewish Rabbis do not spend time discussing the possible differences between the prophesied New Covenant and the Mosaic covenant. Since it against the Mosaic covenant law to teach contrary to any of the laws, to change, to add or take away, they were reticent to discuss the changes in the New Covenant for fear people would take that teaching as a reason to alter their keeping of the laws.

But, there was a brief time period, these discussions were entered. The various theories are interesting. One Rabbi said that each individual letter in the Torah was important as not one letter could be changed, but that the New Covenant would involved a New Torah, with the exact same letters in the exact same frequency, but in a different order to form new words and new commands in this New Torah. Another postulated that there would be 30 commands in the New Torah. Another Rabbi proposed that all sacrifices would cease except sacrifices of thanksgiving, because during the time of the Messiah, there would be no more evil inclination.

I was listening to a audio on Chabad and the rabbi implied that Messiah's Torah would be different. He mentioned that the Torah was made for this world/age but in the World to Come there will be Messiah's Torah.

Yahudim · Jan 25, 2013

macher said:
I was listening to a audio on Chabad and the rabbi implied that Messiah's Torah would be different. He mentioned that the Torah was made for this world/age but in the World to Come there will be Messiah's Torah.

Chabad does tend to be wonderfully creative at times!

No reason we should pay any attention to the 'heavens and the earth' passing away first. Wait, let me look out the window. I'll be right back!

daq · Jan 25, 2013

Daniel Gregg said:
O.k. I stand corrected on your intent. I do like the ideal that the adjective is built on Piel, the made-to-be-anew covenant. To make anew could be to restore something, to make a new copy of something already existing, or even something brand new...the semantic range covers all the ideas...however the context and nature of the renewed covenant is that it is just that, renewed.

It seems much more to mean "restore" and not "to make a new copy". The first question that comes to mind is where and how does one acquire the skin to make the wineskin?

How does one get from this:

To this?

354px-Niko_Pirosmani._Porter_with_a_Wineskin._Diptych._Oil_on_oil-cloth%2C_51x34_cm._The_State_Museum_of_Fine_Arts_of_Georgia%2C_Tbilisi.jpg

Therefore the skins are not "brand new" but more like "slain" and then "regenerated" into a completely different and useful purpose for the kingdom of heaven. So I went through my thesauros-treasury both old and new and this is what I found. The animal must of course be declared "clean" and then obviously the animal has to be sacrificed which would must needs be according to the sacrificial commandments and ordinances. Likewise when any man brings a sacrifice of burnt offering to the Most High then it is the Priest who offers it that shall have the skin to himself. I have found many times over and again as well as surely most everyone here that our High Priest and Mediator of the Covenant only has our best interest in mind; and surely this is true when it comes to our own skins.

Leviticus 7:7-8 KJV
7. As the sin offering is, so is the trespass offering: there is one law for them: the priest that maketh atonement therewith shall have it.
8. And the priest that offereth any man's burnt offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt offering which he hath offered.

Apparently it can be one of several different types of skins, depending upon the circumstances, but generally it shall be the skin of a ram, a goat, a sheep, a cow or bull hide, or possibly something the KJV calls a "badger" which is probably nothing like a badger:

Exodus 25:2-9 KJV
2. Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take My offering.
3. And this is the offering which ye shall take of them; gold, and silver, and brass,
4. And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats' hair,
5. And rams' skins dyed red, and badgers' [HSN#8476 tachash] skins, and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]tim wood,
6. Oil for the light, spices for anointing oil, and for sweet incense,
7. Onyx stones, and stones to be set in the ephod, and in the breastplate.
8. And let them make me a sanctuary; [miqdash] that I may dwell among them.
9. According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, [mishkan] and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it.

Original Strong's Ref. #8476
Romanized tachash
Pronounced takh'-ash
probably of foreign derivation; a (clean) animal with fur, probably a species of antelope:
KJV--badger.

BDB - Strong's Hebrew Definition for #8476
08476 // vxt // tachash // takh'-ash //
probably of foreign derivation; TWOT - 2503; n m
AV - badger 14; 14
1) a kind of leather, skin, or animal hide
1a) perhaps the animal yielding the skin
1a1) perhaps the badger or dugong, dolphin, or sheep or a now extinct animal

Exodus 25:5 NJB
5. rams' skins dyed red, fine leather, acacia wood;

Exodus 25:5 RSV
5. tanned rams' skins, goatskins, acacia wood,

So I went to see a certain Simon Burseus, (to whom there is that house beside the molten Sea) so as to inquire concerning this wild animal which is called the "tachash" from ancient days gone by. And the Word from Simon the Tanner is that one need not worry too much about what kind of animal the "tachash" might be so long as he understands that it is indeed a wild animal dwelling in the wilderness during the wilderness journey of the children of Israel and that surely it must be declared "ceremonially clean" according to the Most High because its skin is used for the wilderness Tabernacle. Thus, even though it is a wild animal, Simon says; "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."

And I understood that the women are the cities are the wines are the Covenants:

Ezekiel 16:9-10 KJV
9. Then washed I thee with water; yea, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, and I anointed thee with oil.
10. I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, and I girded thee about with fine linen, and I covered thee with silk.

So the skins indeed are washed in living water and soaked in Spirit oil;
But first they must be offered up before they see the Tanner

------------------------------

27 January 2013 EDIT ~
So that I be not accused once again by the members of this forum and its moderators, (for quoting materials "not my own" without posting a link to the source) please let it be known that this post has now been incorporated into "my own" following webpage and the link is provided now after the fact simply because the material was not there when this post was initially generated in this forum:
Daniel 9:27 Confirmation of the Covenant

Daniel Gregg · Jan 25, 2013

Qnts2 said:
Basic Hebrew grammar is needed to understand the language.

...it is plainly obvious that you are not addressing the substance of my careful reply to your concerns

If the qal form of a word means broke, 'he broke', the piel form of the same word would mean demolished, 'he demolished'. Same root word with a different stem. And the pual form would mean 'it was demolished'. So for all of your argument about this, the words and meaning does change and we are just talking verbs. The verbal stem will make the difference of whether a person is King or is annointing someone else as King.

With this remark you show that you are refusing to adress the difference between lexical meaning and grammatical semantics. In all of your examples the lexical meaning is the same.

Adjectives are different then verbs.

...different grammatical slots, but with the same lexeme there is no change in the lexical sense...while ignoring the proof's Kaiser gave: new commandment = renewed commandment, etc.

1. Address the point: lexical meaning is conserved across grammatical variations.

2. Your puerile remarks tend to subjectively gain the upper hand by treating the opposition as ignorant. Please stop making them.

Daniel Gregg · Jan 25, 2013

daq said:
It seems much more to mean "restore" and not "to make a new copy".

very creative post!

Certainly in Jer.31...but then we can't have the opposition saying we are leaving it out of the semantic domain. They might win a point then.

stone · Jan 25, 2013

Sometimes new simply means new.uy

daq · Jan 25, 2013

Daniel Gregg said:
very creative post! Certainly in Jer.31...but then we can't have the opposition saying we are leaving it out of the semantic domain. They might win a point then.

Thanx! And perhaps you are correct in regards to the "semantic domain" but you appear to be doing quite well already, (and perhaps there is a "point count" somewhere that reflects that?). My "semantics" were in hopes of targeting the broader scope of the New Covenant and those comments are certainly there as you say:

Jeremiah 31:26-30 KJV
26. Upon this I awaked, and beheld; my sleep was sweet unto me.
27. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.
28. And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith the Lord.
29. In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.
30. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Certainly glad the "seed of beast" is not physically literal in meaning, (Hosea 13 ~ Revelation 13) ...

Lulav · Jan 25, 2013

Daniel Gregg said:
[FONT=&quot]The renewed covenant explained...notice the highlighted portion of the sentence structure.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]31 Behold, the days come, utters Yăhwēh, that I will cut the covenant anew with the house of Yişra̱e̱l, and with the house of Yǝhuḋa̱h:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]32 Not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Mitsrayim, when my covenant they broke, and I acted as Master against them, utters Yăhwēh.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]33 Because this is the covenant that I cut with the house of Yişra̱e̱l: After those days, utters Yăhwēh: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their Almĭghty, and they shall be my people:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Yăhwēh; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, says Yăhwēh: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]►[/FONT][FONT=&quot]31:31 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]וְכָרַתִּי בְּרִית חֲדָשָׁה[/FONT][FONT=&quot]: And I cuteth the covenant anew. A new moon is the same as the old moon, but it is a new instance of the old moon in time. The Piel verb ɦ̣a̱ḋash means renew, repair. The Piel Stem adds the sense of make to be to a verb conveying emphasis, intensivity, or stativeness. Thus make to be anew is the sense by which Hebrew conveys the concept of new. New in Hebrew is something made to be anew. While it is possible that this indicates something brand new, it may not mean totally brand new. It may mean only newness in time. The promise in Deu. 30:6 shows that only newness in time is meant, as does vs. 33, which shows that the nature of the commandments has not changed ● sometimes one must use an English participle to translate a Hebrew adjective; this has to do with the fact that English does not conform to Hebrew thought pattern exactly, thus we may translate [/FONT][FONT=&quot]בְּרִית חֲדָשָׁה[/FONT][FONT=&quot] = a renewed covenant; however I prefer the adverb anew to express the same idea ● Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. points out in Toward Rediscovering The Old Testament that a renewed covenant was the proper idea in Jeremiah. His Hebrew expertise ranks next to Franz Delitzsch.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]►[/FONT][FONT=&quot]31:32 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]לֹא כַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר כָּרַתִּי אֶת־אֲבוֹתָם[/FONT][FONT=&quot]: not according to the covenant which I cut with their fathers; according to the covenant there are curses for disobedience or blessings for obedience. The terms of the renewed covenant are not different, but the outcome is different; the first time around the covenant was applied according to the curses, but the second time it will be according to the blessings. Yăhwēh will not have to deal with Yişra̱e̱l according to the curses, but according to the blessings, so in this sense the renewed covenant is not according to the first application of the covenant. Yişra̱e̱l gets a second chance [/FONT][FONT=&quot]אֲשֶׁר־הֵמָּה הֵפֵרוּ אֶת־בְּרִיתִי; אֲשֶׁר[/FONT][FONT=&quot] connects to [/FONT][FONT=&quot]כַ[/FONT][FONT=&quot] in in the preceeding text to be taken in the sense of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]כַּאֲשֶׁר[/FONT][FONT=&quot]: when, according to when [/FONT][FONT=&quot]וְאָנֹכִי בָּעַלְתִּי בָם[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The verb [/FONT][FONT=&quot]בָּעַלְתִּי[/FONT][FONT=&quot] means, I lordeth over them or I acted the Master with them. The sense is that of a Master having to discipline his subjects for breaking the covenant. The translation married misses the sense, and has causes a needless conflict with the LXX ● Not according to the covenant that I cut with their fatherswhen my covenant they broke, and I acted as Master against them, utters Yăhwēh: to make the sentence structure clearer, drop out the () material telling when and where he had to judge Israel in the wilderness.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]►[/FONT][FONT=&quot]31:33 Because this is the covenant I cut: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]כִּי זֹאת הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר אֶכְרֹת אֶת־בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The original covenant included circumcision of the heart, Deu30v6. It promises that those faithful would have their hearts circumcised and the hearts of their children. This is the covenant I cut are words pointing back to the one covenant. After those days begins a new clause and refers to the implementation of the original covenant promise in the end of days (Deu30) ● The Hebrew imperfect, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]אֲשֶׁר אֶכְרֹת[/FONT][FONT=&quot], which I cut. Most Hebrew readers train themselves to insert tense into their reading, however linguist Galia Hatav (Ph.D. Tel Aviv U) has shown this to be an errant way of reading Hebrew in her book The Semantics of Aspect and Modality; Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew. This is a high level book, but it is a must reading if anyone wants to understand the aspect and modality of Biblical Hebrew. Which I cut refers to the original covenant, for the promise in 31:33 is exactly the promise in the Torah at Deu30v6.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]►[/FONT][FONT=&quot]31:33 The promise to inscribe the law on the heart is the same concept and the same promise expressed in Deu30v6: And Yăhwēh your Almĭghty will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love Yăhwēh your Almĭghty with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live. There is no better promise than this; if we are faithful to Messiah then He will perform it. Deu30v11-14 is quoted by Paul in Romans 10: the word is nigh unto you, in your mouth, and in your heart, that you may do it. This is the word of faithfulness. By Messiah's faithfulness the hearts of the faithful will be circumcised.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]►[/FONT][FONT=&quot]31:34 Know Yăhwēh: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]דּעוּ אֶת־יהוה[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. We know him if we keep his commandments. See iJoh2v3. But we don't know him perfectely yet because we are not perfected yet. The promise of the renewed covenant is not fulfilled to completion until Messiah returns to set up the kingdom for the ages to come ● I will forgive their iniquity: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]אֶסְלַח לַעֲוֹנָם[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; the context places this in the age to come, see vs. 34; surely at present iniquity is forgiven on an individual basis for those trustingly faithful to Messiah, however in this eschatological context the phrase is referring to the corporate iniquity of all the house of Israel. This is parallel to Zec3v10, and I will remove the iniquity of that land on one day: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]וּמַשְׁתִּי אֶת־עֲוֹן הָאָרֶץ־הַהִיא בְּיוֹם אֶחָד[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. This is to be a one day event on a future Yom Kippur yet to be fulfilled.[/FONT]

This is good,

and I know there are some of us here that have problems reading small print, and if it's too big all one has to do is a very old computer trick, hit ctrl and scroll back to size you like.

This supports something I've said for years, that we are not in the New Covenant. That the New Covenant was for those who were given the Old Covenant (Israel and Judah) and everyone does not know who G-d is yet. But others insist we are in it, even though the proof is right before their eyes. These are those who doeth their own thing while proclaiming to have G-d laws written on their hearts. This world would not be what it is today if that were true.

yedida · Jan 25, 2013

Lulav said:
This is good, and I know there are some of us here that have problems reading small print, and if it's too big all one has to do is a very old computer trick, hit ctrl and scroll back to size you like.

This supports something I've said for years, that we are not in the New Covenant. That the New Covenant was for those who were given the Old Covenant (Israel and Judah) and everyone does not know who G-d is yet. But others insist we are in it, even though the proof is right before their eyes. These are those who doeth their own thing while proclaiming to have G-d laws written on their hearts. This world would not be what it is today if that were true.

Yep. I've been saying it too, much to the chagrin of most gentiles. We're in process of this New Covenant, but not fully yet. All one has to do is just look around to know it's not here yet.

visionary · Jan 25, 2013

[New..renew.. old] covenant.... Let us first be clear about the covenant and the law and what is the difference. A covenant covers the relationship... and while it may repeat parts of the law of that same said covenant, it is not the vows, which might be a better way of saying covenant... So when God said He will put it into the heart.. that is the covenant part, What gets put into the heart are the same laws that were written in stone.. that is the law part... When the children of Israel first heard the law given on Mount Sinai.. they made the vow that all God said they will do... and then went about breaking those same vows by not keeping the law. God knew they would need to figure out that without Him they would be unable to fulfill those vows. When they figured that out, then they would seek Him, and when they find Him, search Him, to know and understand how to live in Him thus fulfilling the covenant that God wants with His people. Our doing the law without the covenant relationship is impossible.

Qnts2 · Jan 27, 2013

Daniel Gregg said:
An adjective is not confused with a verb so long as the adjective is used as an adjective and not a verb. Grammar changes conserve lexical meaning. Semantic range {1. renewed, repair, anew, 2. new}.
Nope, only with modern Hebrew where mass media levels usage pattern and dichotomizes them among stems. Fundamentally, the stem has no power to alter the lexical meaning. Some verbs are not used in all stems, but let us suppose that hadash is.
Qal renew, repair,
Niphal be renewed, renew onself (passive, reflexive)
Piel make to be anew. (stativeness and emphasis)
Hiphil make anew
Hitpael: make self to be anew, renewed

Once again, you are using the definitions for verbs, and of course the lexicon lack the variations and emphasis as it assumes an understanding of Hebrew grammar.

But, of course the issue is that the word being discussed is not a verb. It is an adjective.

Your argument is that modern Hebrew has changed, but that simply has nothing to do with our discussion. Very simply, I am dealing with Biblical Hebrew. What you are trying to affirm just isn't true.

But, let's put this simply. The Jewish scholars have studied the scriptures for thousands of years, and have consistently understood Jeremiah 31:31 to mean New covenant. These commentaries referring to this verse date back over a thousand years, so obviously the understanding of the adjective meaning 'new' pre-dates modern Israel and modern Hebrew. So you appeal to a corruption of Hebrew grammar in modern days does not stand up to history either, or Hebrew grammar.

Kaiser does angle toward the promise trying to skip over the "Mosaic Covenant" as if it is a ( ), however, it is not hard and fast. Jer 31:33 recalls Deut. 30:6. I disagree with the propensity. The promise is inseparable from Mt. Sinai (cf. Exo20v6.)

You really think Kaiser pressed it this far. I think you only meant to show that new did not necessarily entail new in nature. The argument is based on the Hebrew hadash, i.e. for "renew", and the principle of semantic conservation. You can respect Kaiser, but I did not cite him for the weight of his authority only. That is only to soften the opposition enough to listen. He demonstrates his case with facts, and to these facts I have ammended the compelling lingustic principles and connections with Mt. Sinai. Exo20v6 and Deu30v6.

Once again, chadash the adjective means new.

Your view of the promise being inseparable with Mt. Sinai, is not Dr. Kaiser's argument at all as his argument is that the promise of the New Covenant starts with Genesis 3:15 and the first prophesy of a coming Messiah. Dr. Kaiser is saying the New Covenant is the Messianic Covenant. To go into more detail on Kaiser's premise of as he calls it 'OT theology' is the OT theology is Messiah theology or Messiah centered and that each time man sinned and faced punishment, that punishment included a prophesy concerning the hope of the Messiah, so Genesis 3:15 which contains Adam and Eve's punishment, there is the introduction to the covenant of the Messiah. Again, after the flood, there is another promise of the Messiah and in Jeremiah 31, God is referring back to Genesis 3:15 and all other promises concerning the Messiah, so essentially Jeremiah 31:31 is a renewal of the promise or covenant which was introduced in Genesis. So, Kaiser would look at Messianic promises pointing to the Messianic New Covenant, when Israel is judged for violating the Mosaic covenant. In part Dr. Kaiser is correct as Isaiah and Jeremiah as well as other prophetic books which point out Israels sins and coming judgement do contain prophesies of the hope of the Messiah to come.

macher · Jan 27, 2013

I don't see it as a re-newed covenant because it's not going to be like the covenant when He lead them out of Egypt and they broke the covenant. I'm convinced this is the result of the golden calf incident. Prior to the golden calf there was no Deut, Lev etc. It was only after the golden calf came Deut, Lev etc.

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[a] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.

Now what covenant at this particular time is God referring too? It doesn't include Deut, Lev etc. It only included the Ten Commandments.

Daniel Gregg · Jan 27, 2013

Did you bother to read the OP and understand it?

[FONT=&quot]32 Not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Mitsrayim, when my covenant they broke, and I acted as Master against them, utters Yăhwēh.[/FONT]

but in the future it will be according to the SAME covenant when they keep it.....blessings.

macher said:
I don't see it as a re-newed covenant because it's not going to be like the covenant when He lead them out of Egypt and they broke the covenant. I'm convinced this is the result of the golden calf incident. Prior to the golden calf there was no Deut, Lev etc. It was only after the golden calf came Deut, Lev etc.

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[a] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.

Now what covenant at this particular time is God referring too? It doesn't include Deut, Lev etc. It only included the Ten Commandments.

Qnts2 · Jan 28, 2013

Daniel Gregg said:
Did you bother to read the OP and understand it?

[FONT=&quot]32 Not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Mitsrayim, when my covenant they broke, and I acted as Master against them, utters Yăhwēh.[/FONT]

but in the future it will be according to the SAME covenant when they keep it.....blessings.

Bad understanding of grammar. The not according to, is about the covenant cut when they left Egypt. It is the covenant which will be different. This will be a new covenant, a different covenant. It will not be the same covenant that they broke.

Just as a side note, I don't really care for the version of scripture you are posting. The pronunciation marks above the vowels in the Tetragrammaton, from an English perspective, are wrong. It is not pronounced like an English long 'e'. While transliterating from Hebrew letters to English letters leaves some room for differences in the letters used to approximate sounds, there are certain normal standards.

Jer. 31:31, Renewed Covenant Explained

Messianic, House of Yisra'el

Messianic, House of Yisra'el

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!

Well-Known Member

Messianic, House of Yisra'el

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Y'shua HaMoshiach Messianic

Messianic

Messianic, House of Yisra'el

Messianic, House of Yisra'el

Senior Contributor

Messianic

Y'shua is His Name

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Messianic, House of Yisra'el

Well-Known Member

Similar threads