What if one of the deceptions Jesus warned of, from men who come in His Name, who claim HE is truly the Christ, is a deception taught regarding HIS NEW Covenant?
If I were to go to the Creator the New Covenant and listen to how HE, Himself, Defines it, I find a whole different Covenant than is taught by "many" religious men who come in His Name.
Let's see how God Himself defines HIS Own New Covenant.
Jer. 31:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel;
OK, here it is!! From the Holy Scriptures itself. No Levite Priests or modern preachers to define it for us. The Christ of the Bible, in HIS Tender Mercy, tells us exactly what HIS NEW Covenant is. It's almost as if HE knew religious men would pollute it so HE wanted to make sure and go on record as to what HIS New Covenant is.
"
After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."
So then if this is a NEW Covenant, how were God's Laws Administered before "After those days"? If HE Himself, administers HIS LAWS in the New Covenant, then who administered them in the Old Covenant?
Did God make a Covenant with Israel to administer God's Laws on Mt. Sinai? Or did He make a Covenant with Levi to Minister before Him on Israel's behalf? So before "after those days" His People "received HIS Law" by the Levite Priest. Was there any other way? Could I go get the Book of the Law and read it for myself? No, according to the Holy Scriptures God made a Covenant with Levi for the administration of His Laws, and now God is saying that "after those days" Levi won't be the administrator any more, the Christ Himself will write God's Laws on the hearts of His People.
If you can find Scriptures who show this understanding as wrong, please provide them.
How else does God, the Creator of God's New Covenant, define it?
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
So again, if God Himself is going to atone for the sins of His People "After those days", (New Covenant) then how were the sin's of the People forgiven
before this time? (Old Covenant)
Did God make a Covenant with Israel to atone for their own sins? Or did God make a Covenant with Levi, separating Him from the rest of the Tribes of Israel, to administer God's Laws and perform sacrificial "works" for the justification and atonement of men who transgressed God's Commandments?
So we see here that the Word of God which became Flesh created a New Covenant consisting of 2 things.
#1. How God's Laws are administered.
#2. How Transgressions of these Laws are forgiven.
Both exclusive duties of the Levitical Priesthood. So it seems according to the God of the bible, it was the Levitical Priesthood which "changed". A Priesthood "ADDED" 430 years after Abraham obeyed, because of Transgressions, "til the Seed should come". A Priesthood which "foreshadowed" what the Messiah would do for HIS People. A Law Abraham did not have, as Levi wasn't even born until long after Abraham's death.
Yet, according to "many" who come in His Name, God's New Covenant wasn't about the administration of God's Laws, No, they teach is was about the elimination of them, the replacement of them.
Heb. 7-10 are chapters in the New Testament which further define and explain the New Covenant.
Heb. 7:
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) (Before "after those days") what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
So here is the only verse in the entire Bible which mentions a change in the Law because of the New Covenant of God. The Christ, again in His Tender Mercy, defines in great detail exactly what the "change in the Law" is and why. Almost as if HE knew there would be "other voices" in the garden who would try to convince men that God took His Law away "after those days".
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
God's Priesthood Covenant was exclusively given to Levi on Mt. Sinai. No member of another tribe of Israel could partake in God's Priesthood. For Jesus, from the Tribe of Judah, to become the High Priest it was necessary to change the Priesthood Law regarding;
#1. Who was to administer God's Laws
#2. How Transgression of these Laws are forgiven.
The Old Covenant that became obsolete was the Levitical Priesthood, with it's sacrificial "works of the Law" for atonement, and the Levites exclusive ownership of the Book of the Law that they alone, according to the Covenant God made with them, could even touch.
In the New Covenant we have access to God's Law directly. No more Levite Priests or preachers to corrupt it as they did. We now have a High Priest who shed HIS Own Blood once and for all. No more taking a turtle dove to a Levite Priest who would then perform sacrificial "works" for the forgiveness of our sins. No more temples made of wood and stone, because God's Temple is in the minds of His People.
It seems clear when we read His Definition of His New Covenant.
But in the religions of the land I am born into, there is a different new covenant taught. A covenant not found in the Holy Scriptures. A Covenant where God eliminates His Laws, instead of writing them on our hearts. A covenant that destroys the Law and Prophets, something Jesus said not to even think.
I don't think we should reject or refuse God's New Covenant in favor of a covenant taught by the "other voice" in the garden.
There is a huge difference between how God defines His Own New Covenant, and how ancient religious tradition of men defines His New Covenant.
I think we should consider these things in a discussion about "New Covenant Theology".
Food for thought