The Covenant with Israel

tall73 · Jun 23, 2018

Anderseric said:
After reading the thread, tell me if I have this right:

God's covenant and promise is forever.
The fault in the covenant was with the priesthood or man. Christ is our mediator.
Jesus came only for the lost children of the house of Israel.
We should seek to follow His covenant, the ten commandments.
Jesus walked them perfectly.
We should imitate Jesus as best as we can.
Jesus always kept the Sabbath.
We should have faith, keep the Sabbath.

Let's seek to walk in His ways and not according to the commandments of men.

Well, there were a number of points in your summation that were not in the thread. My main goal was to see if we could get shared buy in to the portions already listed to go forward and see what agreement we have beyond that.

Light of the East · Jun 23, 2018

tall73 said:
As a righteous person, please moderate your tone. You can address his points without disparaging his study habits.

Yes. You are right. As a former Fundamentalist, I got a rather large dose of this incorrect exegesis, and unfortunately, it has left a considerably sour taste in my mouth. Such teaching, based in truncated exegesis of the Scriptures along with a failure to study and quote the Early Church Fathers, kept me from the beauty of the apostolic faith for almost 25 years.

Hence, I do tend to have an attitude I need to work on.

tall73 · Jun 23, 2018

Light of the East said:
Yes. You are right. As a former Fundamentalist, I got a rather large dose of this incorrect exegesis, and unfortunately, it has left a considerably sour taste in my mouth. Such teaching, based in truncated exegesis of the Scriptures along with a failure to study and quote the Early Church Fathers, kept me from the beauty of the apostolic faith for almost 25 years.

Hence, I do tend to have an attitude I need to work on.

I understand brother. As someone who has changed their thinking considerably on these issues as well, and debated both sides, I can relate to that issue. I think we all believe fervently what we have seen of God and want to share that with others. And when we have disagreements that become heated it is because we care deeply. That is why all of us are here doing this instead of watching TV or something.

And I would hope that apart from this we are also spending time in study, in sharing Christ, in living out the faith.

As to the Church Fathers, you will find varying opinions on them here. However, you can certainly share their insights when appropriate, as witnesses to the early faith.

Light of the East · Jun 23, 2018

tall73 said:
Php 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
Php 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
Php 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Php 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Php 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
Php 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
Php 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

It appears to my reading that Paul did not desire his own righteousness. How do you read this?

You must consider the social and religious milieu in which Paul was speaking and the specific problem that he was addressing at that time. His greatest opponents, the ones who just hounded him to death, opposed his teaching, persecuted him, and tried to shake the confidence of his converts were --

the Jews.

The Pharisees of that time kept insisting upon circumcision as a necessity for salvation and said that without circumcision, one could not be saved. Paul's entire discourse in the book of Galatians is to address this error. Hence, when Paul speaks in the verses you quoted, what he is doing is showing those Jews, who were depending upon their own keeping of the law, and therefore the righteousness that they thought they had before God, that they had nothing in which to trust or brag. He is telling them that he was not only like them, but exceeded them in keeping the Jewish Law. If anyone could trust in his own righteousness to get him into heaven, it would have been Paul. So Paul uses his own life to show that even though we can be righteous people, our own righteousness is not enough to obtain eternal life.

This is the point I was making above, that the Yom Kippur Covenant is the only covenant with the Father that pays for the sins of God's covenant people and thus opens heaven to us. Our own righteousness, while keeping the covenant principles and making us moral people, is not the same as the Yom Kippur covenant righteousness of Christ. Paul was righteous, but he knew that he had to enter into Christ, into the Yom Kippur covenant in order to have Christ.

I'm sorry I can't explain this better. Sometimes I can "see" things but have a hard time explaining what I see.

Light of the East · Jun 23, 2018

tall73 said:
I understand brother. As someone who has changed their thinking considerably on these issues as well, and debated both sides, I can relate to that issue. I think we all believe fervently what we have seen of God and want to share that with others. And when we have disagreements that become heated it is because we care deeply. That is why all of us are here doing this instead of watching TV or something.

And I would hope that apart from this we are also spending time in study, in sharing Christ, in living out the faith.

As to the Church Fathers, you will find varying opinions on them here. However, you can certainly share their insights when appropriate, as witnesses to the early faith.

Curious. Not many people in Christianity speak of God's Covenant and our covenant relationship. Are you Presbyterian? That is where I learned about covenant.

tall73 · Jun 23, 2018

Light of the East said:
Curious. Not many people in Christianity speak of God's Covenant and our covenant relationship. Are you Presbyterian? That is where I learned about covenant.

I have never been Presbyterian, and could not be due to their soteriology. I was a Seventh-day Adventist for years before leaving over theological disagreements.

But it seems hard to avoid talk of covenants if you read the Scriptures!

I would consider myself about a .5 point TULIP Calvinist if that helps.

tall73 · Jun 23, 2018

Light of the East said:
You must consider the social and religious milieu in which Paul was speaking and the specific problem that he was addressing at that time. His greatest opponents, the ones who just hounded him to death, opposed his teaching, persecuted him, and tried to shake the confidence of his converts were --

the Jews.

The Pharisees of that time kept insisting upon circumcision as a necessity for salvation and said that without circumcision, one could not be saved. Paul's entire discourse in the book of Galatians is to address this error. Hence, when Paul speaks in the verses you quoted, what he is doing is showing those Jews, who were depending upon their own keeping of the law, and therefore the righteousness that they thought they had before God, that they had nothing in which to trust or brag. He is telling them that he was not only like them, but exceeded them in keeping the Jewish Law. If anyone could trust in his own righteousness to get him into heaven, it would have been Paul. So Paul uses his own life to show that even though we can be righteous people, our own righteousness is not enough to obtain eternal life.

This is the point I was making above, that the Yom Kippur Covenant is the only covenant with the Father that pays for the sins of God's covenant people and thus opens heaven to us. Our own righteousness, while keeping the covenant principles and making us moral people, is not the same as the Yom Kippur covenant righteousness of Christ. Paul was righteous, but he knew that he had to enter into Christ, into the Yom Kippur covenant in order to have Christ.

I'm sorry I can't explain this better. Sometimes I can "see" things but have a hard time explaining what I see.

It is alright, I think I can see a point of agreement here, regardless of the phrasing.

We agree that Paul says by simply law terms he was blameless, in regards to righteousness through his actions. He certainly is giving the resume he would have reason to be proud of, by the standards of his opponents, were that sufficient.

But he requires the righteousness of Christ to have any hope of eternal life with God.

We would agree on those basic points, if I am reading it correctly.

Light of the East · Jun 23, 2018

With my apologies for taking this thread a bit off course, I would like to comment on some of what you said in the OP.

The stronger king would impose the treaty upon the vassal king in order to make plain his requirements and how they were to serve him. He would make promises to them in return for their loyalty. Now of course in this case the great King is God and the vassal nation are His people. He delivered them from another nation and on this basis, and on the basis of creation, He demonstrates that He is their Sovereign. So He puts this in familiar terms, and we see a number of parallels to covenants of that time.

Nice! Most people have no knowledge of the parallels or foundation that our covenant has with the Suzerainty Covenants of the Old Testament.

Here is a file that illustrates the key components of a suzerainty treaty in brief form. This is not my work. I just found it to be the simplest I could find online.

http://www.bethel.edu/~dhoward/classes/Ot101-111/SuzeraintyTreaty-Handout.pdf

Now if we look at the various components it outlines how the Sinai covenant is similar.

1. Preamble: Identifies author of the covenant.

Exo 20:2 "I am the LORD your God,

Would it seem to you that the various miracles and the statements of Christ in the Gospels (for instance, Jesus saying "Before Moses was, I AM") are preamble statements?

2. Historical Prologue: Mentions past relationship between the two parties; past benefactions by suzerain form the basis for the vassal's gratitude and future obedience.

Exo 19:3 while Moses went up to God. The LORD called to him out of the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel:
Exo 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.

Ex. 20:2 Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

Where do we see this in Jesus's statements in the Gospels. Must be there somewhere in order to follow the covenant structure.

3. Stipulations: The obligations laid upon the vassal by the sovereign.

The ten commandments, and then also the book of the law, including all the laws of the nation, laws regarding worship, laws of a moral nature, laws instituting care for the poor, etc.

All of these were required of Israel under the covenant, and part of their agreement to do all the Lord commanded.

Actually, this is Sutton's Third Principle of Covenant - Ethics, or the Rules of the Relationship.

Sutton lays out five principles of covenant which I think you will recognize:

T - Transcendence. The greater offers covenant to the lesser
H - Hierarchy. Who's in charge here?
E - Ethics. The rules of the relationship.
O - Oaths and Sanctions. Vows to keep the ethics laid out. Blessing for their keeping, curse for their violation.
S - Succession. The covenant continues from generation to generation.

4. a. Deposition: A copy of the covenant is deposited in the vassal's sanctuary.

In the normal arrangement each party would place a copy of the covenant in the sanctuary of their god's temple. In this case one party IS God and the others worship at His temple. Therefore the covenant document is placed in stone, and placed in the temple of God, inside the ark. Many scholars now think the whole text was written on each, as a copy for God and a copy for the people, but this is not an essential element here and is not spelled out in the biblical text, so I don't think we can be dogmatic on the point. But it may explain the emphasis on the two tablets.

b. Public Reading: The covenant terms are periodically read to the people.

Hmmmmmm.....before there was a canon of Scripture, it seems to me that the deposition and public reading could be the Church and the witness of the Apostles. What do you think?

This occurred during the invasion into Canaan, and later during the time of the restoration from exile, etc.

5. Witnesses: A list of gods invoked to witness the covenant.

God, being the only true God, calls upon the creation in Deut.:

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,

6. Curses invoked on the vassal if he breaks the covenant, and blessings invoked on the vassal if he keeps the covenant.

Sutton's principle number 4, Oaths and Sanctions.

The new covenant is better because the promises are on one side. God will do it. It is not dependent on the faulty people. Instead of the law on stone, that the people then would have to carry out, God writes it on the heart and in the mind. We find out in other passages God literally dwells in us by His Spirit. This means that we now obey in a different way. He changes our thinking and our ability to keep the law and be fruitful when we walk in the Spirit.

Ummmmmm....this is where I take issue. This sounds way too much like the faulty Calvinist paradigm in which God does everything (i.e., and "unconditional covenant") and we do nothing. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that is what I am hearing.

What I do see is the synergy of the believer and God which did not exist in the Old Covenant. As you point out, we now have the power living within to keep that which we promise to God when we are baptized into the covenant relationship. But we are still under those promises. It is not one-sided. It can't be because the principle of a covenant is that both sides make covenant vows before entering into the relationship.

Let me use the analogy that the Scriptures use: marriage. We are the Bride of Christ. He is the divine Bridegroom. Now when the Covenant of Marriage is made, does the man simply pick out a woman, take her without her consent, and marry her with no promises from her of fidelity? That is what is suggested by saying that the promises are on one side. In marriage, both parties make vows and agree to sanctions of blessing/curse in the covenant they are about to enter into.

Anderseric · Jun 23, 2018

Light of the East said:
"Anderseric, post: 72844954, member: 322323"After reading the thread, tell me if I have this right:

As a matter of a fact, you have several errors:

God's covenant and promise is forever.
Nope. All covenants are conditional, that is, you only get the blessings if you are faithful to the covenant promises which you made at the time you "cut covenant." This is why the Old Covenant no longer exists. This is also why St. Paul warns against falling away and losing one's salvation.

Look at it this way: a covenant is a relationship. It is not, contrary to Calvinist error, a contract that is inviolate. The Bible describes the covenant relationship of God to man in terms of marriage. You don't get much more relationship oriented than that, do you? And like all relationships, one can walk out of the relationship by choice.

The fault in the covenant was with the priesthood or man. Christ is our mediator.
I don't even know how these two statements relate to one another. And there is no fault in the covenant.

Jesus came only for the lost children of the house of Israel.
Initially, yes. He came as the promised Redeemer/Messiah, the one who would be the Covenant Head over Israel as the particular people of God. But when the Jews destroyed the covenant by killing their Messiah, that ended the relationship, and hence ended the covenant.

Now, interestingly enough, you use the term "House of Israel." What is the "House of Israel?" Is it only Jews? Can't be, because something St. Paul said in Romans gives us a clue. Here is a most puzzling verse in Romans 9:

Romans 9: 6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

What in the world could that mean, "they are not all Israel who are of Israel." Only when you understand the proper understanding of the title "Israel" do you understand that strange verse. Israel means "the people of God." So the verse really should read like this:

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, (the people of God) which are of Israel (Jews, or national Israel):

In other words, not all JEWS are the people of God.

We should seek to follow His covenant, the ten commandments.
Jesus walked them perfectly.
We should imitate Jesus as best as we can.

Seems correct to me.

Jesus always kept the Sabbath.
We should have faith, keep the Sabbath.

Whooops. Now you slipped up. Jesus was an Orthodox Jew in the Old Covenant. The keeping of the Sabbath belongs specifically to the Old Covenant:

Exodus 31: 16 "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant."

Children of Israel. Jews in this case.

Now, there are several things which belong to the covenant which were changed with the change from the Old to the New Covenant. The New Covenant is not a different covenant. It is a modification of the one Covenant of God with mankind. Thus we see that as the Old Covenant changes to the New, the following changes are also made:

Passover Meal is changed to the Eucharist. (Luke 22:15-20)
Circumcision, the ritual of covenant cutting, is changed to baptism. (Colossians 2:11-13)
The high priesthood on earth is abolished and replaced with the Great High Priest who offers an eternal Yom Kippur in the heavenlies. (Hebrews 7-10)
The priesthood is changed from the Levites to the Apostles (John 20:23)
The Saturday Sabbath, which is a symbol of the rest to come in the Messiah, is changed to the Sunday Sabbath, which celebrates the victory of the Risen Christ over death.

There is not a change in the foundation, but rather in how each of these is expressed. Each of these changes expresses the change from anticipation to fulfillment. Those who celebrate the Old Covenant ordinances fail to symbolize Christ's coming and victory over death.

Thanks for the reply. Just a couple questions:

You quoted verses for each change to the Old Covenant except for the Sabbath change. Where do you find that in the Scriptures?

You said the keeping of the Sabbath "belongs specifically to the Old Covenant". Did Paul and the Apostles keep the Sabbath during their lives after resurrection? Paul said "I am a Pharisee". Paul did not say he was a Pharisee.

About "Israel", Matthew 15:24 says "I came only for the lost sheep of the House of Israel". Did Jesus mean what he said? Maybe the gal believed and joined the House of Israel? Amos talks a lot about the tribes of Israel being booted out. It seems Jesus wants them back. Aren't we all invited to join the House of Israel? Ruth was a gentile and joined.

tall73 · Jun 23, 2018

Light of the East said:
Yes. You are right. As a former Fundamentalist, I got a rather large dose of this incorrect exegesis, and unfortunately, it has left a considerably sour taste in my mouth. Such teaching, based in truncated exegesis of the Scriptures along with a failure to study and quote the Early Church Fathers, kept me from the beauty of the apostolic faith for almost 25 years.

Hence, I do tend to have an attitude I need to work on.

On the attitude part of it, I think I have simply looked at it in the following way. With few exceptions the people who teach various exegesis are honestly convinced of these things in their own heart. Objectively we know that if there are five different doctrines, they cannot all be the true one. However, I do not think most folks are preaching a doctrine that is incorrect because they want to be false teachers, but because they are convinced it is correct.

By my own views changing I am admitting that I was a false teacher. Or I am now, or even perhaps both. That is not a pleasant thought. God is the one who is True. We are all trying to understand Him. I am not angry at those who taught something I no longer agree with. I freely agreed with it at the time. I do feel that I was following God when I changed views, but it remains to be seen whether I have the correct views even now. Hence I try to find what He wants me to do. If I feel that He has led me to something closer to His word, then I am content that in His time He did so. But the fault is certainly with me in any case. He has revealed what He wants us to know. My misunderstanding of it, even if influenced by others at times, is still my misunderstanding. Any mistake in following the direction of His Spirit or His word is my mistake. So how can I be angry with others?

Anderseric · Jun 23, 2018

Light of the East said:
With my apologies for taking this thread a bit off course, I would like to comment on some of what you said in the OP.

The stronger king would impose the treaty upon the vassal king in order to make plain his requirements and how they were to serve him. He would make promises to them in return for their loyalty. Now of course in this case the great King is God and the vassal nation are His people. He delivered them from another nation and on this basis, and on the basis of creation, He demonstrates that He is their Sovereign. So He puts this in familiar terms, and we see a number of parallels to covenants of that time.

Nice! Most people have no knowledge of the parallels or foundation that our covenant has with the Suzerainty Covenants of the Old Testament.

Here is a file that illustrates the key components of a suzerainty treaty in brief form. This is not my work. I just found it to be the simplest I could find online.

http://www.bethel.edu/~dhoward/classes/Ot101-111/SuzeraintyTreaty-Handout.pdf

Now if we look at the various components it outlines how the Sinai covenant is similar.

1. Preamble: Identifies author of the covenant.

Exo 20:2 "I am the LORD your God,

Would it seem to you that the various miracles and the statements of Christ in the Gospels (for instance, Jesus saying "Before Moses was, I AM") are preamble statements?

2. Historical Prologue: Mentions past relationship between the two parties; past benefactions by suzerain form the basis for the vassal's gratitude and future obedience.

Exo 19:3 while Moses went up to God. The LORD called to him out of the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel:
Exo 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.

Ex. 20:2 Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

Where do we see this in Jesus's statements in the Gospels. Must be there somewhere in order to follow the covenant structure.

3. Stipulations: The obligations laid upon the vassal by the sovereign.

The ten commandments, and then also the book of the law, including all the laws of the nation, laws regarding worship, laws of a moral nature, laws instituting care for the poor, etc.

All of these were required of Israel under the covenant, and part of their agreement to do all the Lord commanded.

Actually, this is Sutton's Third Principle of Covenant - Ethics, or the Rules of the Relationship.

Sutton lays out five principles of covenant which I think you will recognize:

T - Transcendence. The greater offers covenant to the lesser
H - Hierarchy. Who's in charge here?
E - Ethics. The rules of the relationship.
O - Oaths and Sanctions. Vows to keep the ethics laid out. Blessing for their keeping, curse for their violation.
S - Succession. The covenant continues from generation to generation.

4. a. Deposition: A copy of the covenant is deposited in the vassal's sanctuary.

In the normal arrangement each party would place a copy of the covenant in the sanctuary of their god's temple. In this case one party IS God and the others worship at His temple. Therefore the covenant document is placed in stone, and placed in the temple of God, inside the ark. Many scholars now think the whole text was written on each, as a copy for God and a copy for the people, but this is not an essential element here and is not spelled out in the biblical text, so I don't think we can be dogmatic on the point. But it may explain the emphasis on the two tablets.

b. Public Reading: The covenant terms are periodically read to the people.

Hmmmmmm.....before there was a canon of Scripture, it seems to me that the deposition and public reading could be the Church and the witness of the Apostles. What do you think?

This occurred during the invasion into Canaan, and later during the time of the restoration from exile, etc.

5. Witnesses: A list of gods invoked to witness the covenant.

God, being the only true God, calls upon the creation in Deut.:

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,

6. Curses invoked on the vassal if he breaks the covenant, and blessings invoked on the vassal if he keeps the covenant.

Sutton's principle number 4, Oaths and Sanctions.

The new covenant is better because the promises are on one side. God will do it. It is not dependent on the faulty people. Instead of the law on stone, that the people then would have to carry out, God writes it on the heart and in the mind. We find out in other passages God literally dwells in us by His Spirit. This means that we now obey in a different way. He changes our thinking and our ability to keep the law and be fruitful when we walk in the Spirit.

Ummmmmm....this is where I take issue. This sounds way too much like the faulty Calvinist paradigm in which God does everything (i.e., and "unconditional covenant") and we do nothing. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that is what I am hearing.

What I do see is the synergy of the believer and God which did not exist in the Old Covenant. As you point out, we now have the power living within to keep that which we promise to God when we are baptized into the covenant relationship. But we are still under those promises. It is not one-sided. It can't be because the principle of a covenant is that both sides make covenant vows before entering into the relationship.

Let me use the analogy that the Scriptures use: marriage. We are the Bride of Christ. He is the divine Bridegroom. Now when the Covenant of Marriage is made, does the man simply pick out a woman, take her without her consent, and marry her with no promises from her of fidelity? That is what is suggested by saying that the promises are on one side. In marriage, both parties make vows and agree to sanctions of blessing/curse in the covenant they are about to enter into.

I like your analogy of Marriage. It seems believers in Jesus are engaged to Him and hope to become a Bride of Christ when He returns and calls us acceptable. If seems presumptuous to think He has already married us and we are perfected. Fair?

tall73 · Jun 23, 2018

Light of the East said:
With my apologies for taking this thread a bit off course, I would like to comment on some of what you said in the OP.

The stronger king would impose the treaty upon the vassal king in order to make plain his requirements and how they were to serve him. He would make promises to them in return for their loyalty. Now of course in this case the great King is God and the vassal nation are His people. He delivered them from another nation and on this basis, and on the basis of creation, He demonstrates that He is their Sovereign. So He puts this in familiar terms, and we see a number of parallels to covenants of that time.

Nice! Most people have no knowledge of the parallels or foundation that our covenant has with the Suzerainty Covenants of the Old Testament.

Here is a file that illustrates the key components of a suzerainty treaty in brief form. This is not my work. I just found it to be the simplest I could find online.

http://www.bethel.edu/~dhoward/classes/Ot101-111/SuzeraintyTreaty-Handout.pdf

Now if we look at the various components it outlines how the Sinai covenant is similar.

1. Preamble: Identifies author of the covenant.

Exo 20:2 "I am the LORD your God,

Would it seem to you that the various miracles and the statements of Christ in the Gospels (for instance, Jesus saying "Before Moses was, I AM") are preamble statements?

2. Historical Prologue: Mentions past relationship between the two parties; past benefactions by suzerain form the basis for the vassal's gratitude and future obedience.

Exo 19:3 while Moses went up to God. The LORD called to him out of the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel:
Exo 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.

Ex. 20:2 Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

Where do we see this in Jesus's statements in the Gospels. Must be there somewhere in order to follow the covenant structure.

3. Stipulations: The obligations laid upon the vassal by the sovereign.

The ten commandments, and then also the book of the law, including all the laws of the nation, laws regarding worship, laws of a moral nature, laws instituting care for the poor, etc.

All of these were required of Israel under the covenant, and part of their agreement to do all the Lord commanded.

Actually, this is Sutton's Third Principle of Covenant - Ethics, or the Rules of the Relationship.

Sutton lays out five principles of covenant which I think you will recognize:

T - Transcendence. The greater offers covenant to the lesser
H - Hierarchy. Who's in charge here?
E - Ethics. The rules of the relationship.
O - Oaths and Sanctions. Vows to keep the ethics laid out. Blessing for their keeping, curse for their violation.
S - Succession. The covenant continues from generation to generation.

4. a. Deposition: A copy of the covenant is deposited in the vassal's sanctuary.

In the normal arrangement each party would place a copy of the covenant in the sanctuary of their god's temple. In this case one party IS God and the others worship at His temple. Therefore the covenant document is placed in stone, and placed in the temple of God, inside the ark. Many scholars now think the whole text was written on each, as a copy for God and a copy for the people, but this is not an essential element here and is not spelled out in the biblical text, so I don't think we can be dogmatic on the point. But it may explain the emphasis on the two tablets.

b. Public Reading: The covenant terms are periodically read to the people.

Hmmmmmm.....before there was a canon of Scripture, it seems to me that the deposition and public reading could be the Church and the witness of the Apostles. What do you think?

This occurred during the invasion into Canaan, and later during the time of the restoration from exile, etc.

5. Witnesses: A list of gods invoked to witness the covenant.

God, being the only true God, calls upon the creation in Deut.:

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,

6. Curses invoked on the vassal if he breaks the covenant, and blessings invoked on the vassal if he keeps the covenant.

Sutton's principle number 4, Oaths and Sanctions.

The new covenant is better because the promises are on one side. God will do it. It is not dependent on the faulty people. Instead of the law on stone, that the people then would have to carry out, God writes it on the heart and in the mind. We find out in other passages God literally dwells in us by His Spirit. This means that we now obey in a different way. He changes our thinking and our ability to keep the law and be fruitful when we walk in the Spirit.

Ummmmmm....this is where I take issue. This sounds way too much like the faulty Calvinist paradigm in which God does everything (i.e., and "unconditional covenant") and we do nothing. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that is what I am hearing.

What I do see is the synergy of the believer and God which did not exist in the Old Covenant. As you point out, we now have the power living within to keep that which we promise to God when we are baptized into the covenant relationship. But we are still under those promises. It is not one-sided. It can't be because the principle of a covenant is that both sides make covenant vows before entering into the relationship.

Let me use the analogy that the Scriptures use: marriage. We are the Bride of Christ. He is the divine Bridegroom. Now when the Covenant of Marriage is made, does the man simply pick out a woman, take her without her consent, and marry her with no promises from her of fidelity? That is what is suggested by saying that the promises are on one side. In marriage, both parties make vows and agree to sanctions of blessing/curse in the covenant they are about to enter into.

I certainly don't intend a Calvinistic understanding. However, I am going to ponder what you wrote for a bit before responding, as there are some points I need to think over. Thank you.

Light of the East · Jun 23, 2018

"Anderseric, post: Thanks for the reply. Just a couple questions:

You quoted verses for each change to the Old Covenant except for the Sabbath change. Where do you find that in the Scriptures?

Fair question. Remember, not all things are given to us word for word (literalist interpretation). The Scriptures speak to us in analogies, metaphors, symbols, parables, and literal words.

The first place is Exodus 31:16, which I quoted in my previous post on this. The Sabbath clearly belongs to the Jewish people, those who were the specific "people of God" in the Old Covenant.

You said the keeping of the Sabbath "belongs specifically to the Old Covenant". Did Paul and the Apostles keep the Sabbath during their lives after resurrection? Paul said "I am a Pharisee". Paul did not say he was a Pharisee.

Yes, it is a well-known fact that the first believers were Jewish, thought of themselves as Jews, and observed the Sabbath worship. This would explain why they went to Shabbos on Saturday. But as time went along, it became painfully (and often fatally) clear to them that the "House of Israel" wanted nothing to do with them or the Messiah, and they ceased to worship on Saturday. By the time of the writing of the Gospels and Epistles, they were meeting on "the first day of the week" (Acts 20:7) to break bread (Holy Communion).

The other thing to remember is this: what is the symbolism of worshiping on Saturday as was done in the Old Covenant. The Saturday Sabbath was a looking forward to the coming rest in Christ. To continue to do so symbolically shows that Christ has yet to come, whereas the symbolism of changing the Sabbath rest to Sunday celebrates His glorious Resurrection and victory over death. Symbols are important.

About "Israel", Matthew 15:24 says "I came only for the lost sheep of the House of Israel". Did Jesus mean what he said? Maybe the gal believed and joined the House of Israel? Amos talks a lot about the tribes of Israel being booted out. It seems Jesus wants them back. Aren't we all invited to join the House of Israel? Ruth was a gentile and joined.

I answered this above. The House of Israel is now not just the Jews. It is the Gentile/Jewish Church which replace the nation of Israel, according to Matthew 21:33-46.

Light of the East · Jun 23, 2018

Anderseric said:
I like your analogy of Marriage. It seems believers in Jesus are engaged to Him and hope to become a Bride of Christ when He returns and calls us acceptable. If seems presumptuous to think He has already married us and we are perfected. Fair?

Well, it's what the Bible uses, so I think it is proper to use it.

If you continue with this analogy, let's look at the whole wedding ceremony and Christ as our divine Bridegroom.

When all the vows are made, the blessings said, the rings exchanged, and the priest gives the final "Amen" the couple is married. But there remains one thing to "seal the deal" as it were -

the nuptial bed.

The nuptial bed makes real that which has been promised with words alone. It is the consummation and fulfillment of all that the ceremony pointed to.

What is the analogic equivalent to the nuptial bed? Where does the believer join and unite his body to that of his divine Bridegroom?

The Eucharist.

The Eucharist, the real and true Body and Blood of Christ, as He said in John 6 and Matthew 26:26, is where we "finalize" the deal. It is heaven coming down to earth as a foretaste of the reality of eternity in union with Christ. This is why when a convert is received into the Orthodox Church, the first thing that happens after all the vows, the baptism into the covenant, and the Liturgy of the Word, is that the newly enlightened convert receives the Eucharist. It is all one ceremony, just as the wedding day is not complete until the nuptial act is consummated.

When I realized this as a Protestant I couldn't wait to get into the Church.

This is also why some of the saints in the Church have gone into a state of ecstasy after receiving the Eucharist. Because of their closeness to the Lord, they experienced here and now what we shall all experience eternally after death. Our relationship with Christ is a perpetual union of divine love which shall be eternal joy.

We ARE married to Him, yet we still await the fulfillment of that perfect union.

Light of the East · Jun 23, 2018

tall73 said:
I certainly don't intend a Calvinistic understanding. However, I am going to ponder what you wrote for a bit before responding, as there are some points I need to think over. Thank you.

Look forward to more discussion. And thanks for reminding me to be civil. I need constant reminders in that area.

Anderseric · Jun 23, 2018

Light of the East said:
"Anderseric, post: Thanks for the reply. Just a couple questions:

You quoted verses for each change to the Old Covenant except for the Sabbath change. Where do you find that in the Scriptures?

Fair question. Remember, not all things are given to us word for word (literalist interpretation). The Scriptures speak to us in analogies, metaphors, symbols, parables, and literal words.

The first place is Exodus 31:16, which I quoted in my previous post on this. The Sabbath clearly belongs to the Jewish people, those who were the specific "people of God" in the Old Covenant.

You said the keeping of the Sabbath "belongs specifically to the Old Covenant". Did Paul and the Apostles keep the Sabbath during their lives after resurrection? Paul said "I am a Pharisee". Paul did not say he was a Pharisee.

Yes, it is a well-known fact that the first believers were Jewish, thought of themselves as Jews, and observed the Sabbath worship. This would explain why they went to Shabbos on Saturday. But as time went along, it became painfully (and often fatally) clear to them that the "House of Israel" wanted nothing to do with them or the Messiah, and they ceased to worship on Saturday. By the time of the writing of the Gospels and Epistles, they were meeting on "the first day of the week" (Acts 20:7) to break bread (Holy Communion).

The other thing to remember is this: what is the symbolism of worshiping on Saturday as was done in the Old Covenant. The Saturday Sabbath was a looking forward to the coming rest in Christ. To continue to do so symbolically shows that Christ has yet to come, whereas the symbolism of changing the Sabbath rest to Sunday celebrates His glorious Resurrection and victory over death. Symbols are important.

About "Israel", Matthew 15:24 says "I came only for the lost sheep of the House of Israel". Did Jesus mean what he said? Maybe the gal believed and joined the House of Israel? Amos talks a lot about the tribes of Israel being booted out. It seems Jesus wants them back. Aren't we all invited to join the House of Israel? Ruth was a gentile and joined.

I answered this above. The House of Israel is now not just the Jews. It is the Gentile/Jewish Church which replace the nation of Israel, according to Matthew 21:33-46.

Anderseric · Jun 23, 2018

Thank you for your opinion. I just think there is a little too much "replacing" going on with man and the Scriptures. It seems easier, at least for me, to just try and walk to way Jesus did. As imperfect as I am, I try my best to imitate the way He walked. Sabbath and all. Blessings.

Hank77 · Jun 23, 2018

tall73 said:
On the other hand, Romans 3 also indicates there were none sinless, and that all sinned. So in the sense of being like Jesus, they were not. And it sounds like they still needed a righteousness apart from law, introduced then in vs. 21.

Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.[1343]

G1343
δικαιοσύνη
dikaiosunē
dik-ah-yos-oo'-nay
From G1342; equity (of character or act); specifically (Christian) justification: - righteousness.

The Law itself can never justify anyone unless they can perform it perfectly, so we need to be justified, found to be righteous, by faith/by believing God. Just the same as the saints who died before the cross.

Jan001 · Jun 23, 2018

Anderseric said:
After reading the thread, tell me if I have this right:

God's covenant and promise is forever.
The fault in the covenant was with the priesthood or man. Christ is our mediator.
Jesus came only for the lost children of the house of Israel.
We should seek to follow His covenant, the ten commandments.
Jesus walked them perfectly.
We should imitate Jesus as best as we can.
Jesus always kept the Sabbath.
We should have faith, keep the Sabbath.

Let's seek to walk in His ways and not according to the commandments of men.

RE: God's covenant and promise is forever.
REPLY: Prophecy states that the First Covenant will be annulled/made obsolete/no longer in force.

Zechariah 11:4-11
Thus said the Lord my God: “Become shepherd of the flock doomed to slaughter. 5 Those who buy them slay them and go unpunished; and those who sell them say, ‘Blessed be the Lord, I have become rich’; and their own shepherds have no pity on them. 6 For I will no longer have pity on the inhabitants of this land, says the Lord. Lo, I will cause men to fall each into the hand of his shepherd, and each into the hand of his king; and they shall crush the earth, and I will deliver none from their hand.”
7 So I became the shepherd of the flock doomed to be slain for those who trafficked in the sheep. And I took two staffs; one I named Grace, the other I named Union. And I tended the sheep. 8 In one month I destroyed the three shepherds. But I became impatient with them, and they also detested me. 9 So I said, “I will not be your shepherd. What is to die, let it die; what is to be destroyed, let it be destroyed; and let those that are left devour the flesh of one another.” 10 And I took my staff Grace, and I broke it, annulling the covenant which I had made with all the peoples. 11 So it was annulled on that day, and the traffickers in the sheep, who were watching me, knew that it was the word of the Lord. rsv

Fulfillment of Prophecy:

Hebrews 8:13
In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. rsv

RE: The fault in the covenant was with the priesthood or man. Christ is our mediator.
REPLY: The first covenant was put into force because of the disobedience of the Israelites in the desert. They worshiped the calf made of gold instead of worshiping God. Exodus 32

RE: Jesus came only for the lost children of the house of Israel. (Matthew 15:22-28)
REPLY: Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 15:24 Jesus did not have time to evangelize the whole known world. That was not His mission. Luke 24:44 Before He ascended/returned to His Father in heaven, He commissioned His apostles/disciples to preach to the whole known world. Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15

RE: We should seek to follow His covenant, the ten commandments. Jesus walked them perfectly.
REPLY: The specific Ten Commandments of the Old Testament were given only to the Israelites. The Christians have their own Ten Commandments which do include most of the Israelite's Ten Commandments. Jesus obeyed perfectly the spirit of the ten commandments which is not the same as the letter of the ten commandments.

Which specific commandments of the Israelites did Jesus command His followers to keep in order for them to enter into eternal life?

Matthew 19:16-19
And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” rsv

RE: We should imitate Jesus as best as we can.
REPLY: Yes. Romans 12:1-3, 2 Peter 1:1-9

RE: Jesus always kept the Sabbath. We should have faith, keep the Sabbath.
REPLY: Jesus as a Jew under the first covenant kept the spirit of the Sabbath. He did not always keep the letter of the Sabbath. John 5:1-16, Mark 2:23-29

Jesus' death on the cross freed the Jews from the demands of the Sabbath laws. The Gentiles were never bound by the Sabbath laws.

Mark 2:23-29
One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24 And the Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?” 25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: 26 how he entered the house of God, when Abi′athar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” 27 And he said to them, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; 28 so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.” rsv

Colossians 2:8-17
See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in him. 16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. 17 These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. rsv

Christians are comprised of both Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles are not bound by the Sabbath laws of the Jews. All Christians are commanded to keep the Lord's Day. They are not commanded to keep the Sabbath. Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2

Ephesians 2:8-16
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God— 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, who has made us both one, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances (First Covenant), that he might create in himself one new man (Christian) in place of the two (Jew and Gentile), so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body (new covenant Church) through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end. rsv

Hank77 · Jun 23, 2018

tall73 said:
Php 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

It appears to my reading that Paul did not desire his own righteousness. How do you read this?

Paul is talking about being justified. He knows he can't be justified by the law, no matter how well he performs it he will fall short. He puts his faith in Christ, therefore he trusts he is justified by God because of his faith.

The Covenant with Israel

Sophia7's husband

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

Sophia7's husband

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

Newbie

Sophia7's husband

Newbie

Sophia7's husband

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Striving to win the prize...

Well-Known Member

Similar threads