The New Covenant

Christian Gedge said:

You know as well as I do that Paul was referring to the covenant given to Abraham. The covenant given to the patriarchs is the same covenant that Daniel said must be confirmed, and is the same one that was confirmed by the sacrifice of Christ.

Click to expand...

God made a covenant with Abraham, I agree.

But God did not make the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:8) with Abraham.

You cannot insert the New Covenant as and when you feel like it, into scripture.

JussiOlavi said:

This is what I'm in and with. The new covenant is in the blood of Jesus. The new covenant is established in the blood of Jesus. Everyone who has received the blood of Jesus is in the new covenant.

Click to expand...

Do you have scripture for all those claims?

Guojing said:

If that is really the case, you don't wonder why Paul did not talk about the New Covenant extensively to us in the Body of Christ, in all his salvation doctrine?

The only time he mentioned the word covenant, in relation to salvation from sins, happens to be Romans 11:27, and it was clear in the context that it refers to a future salvation of sins for the nation Israel, when Christ returns, which is in line with what Peter stated in Acts 3:19-21, and of course Hebrews 8:12.

And the popular "one time" in non KJV translations of 2 Cor 3:6, which use the word "new covenant", instead of KJV term, new testament, people latch on to that one verse from non KJV translation, to form the entire doctrine of Salvation is an integral part of the New Covenant. They go hand in glove.

Doesn't this make anyone wonder its actual validity?

Click to expand...

The word in question in 2 Corentheans 3:6 is
διαθήκης (diathēkēs). Strong's 1242.
The question is how many verses contain διαθήκης and how is it applied in each instance?

Strong's Greek: 1242. διαθήκη (diathéké) -- 33 Occurrences

As can be seen for some reason the KJV translators sometimes translated διαθήκης as "testament" and other times as "covenant". Whereas other major translations are consistent in translating διαθήκης as "covenant".

So the question is, were the KJV translators right and the others wrong, or vice versa?

Here's something fun to go through:
Covenant (in the New Testament) - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway

MMXX said:

The word in question in 2 Corentheans 3:6 is
διαθήκης (diathēkēs). Strong's 1242.
The question is how many verses contain διαθήκης and how is it applied in each instance?

Strong's Greek: 1242. διαθήκη (diathéké) -- 33 Occurrences

As can be seen for some reason the KJV translators sometimes translated διαθήκης as "testament" and other times as "covenant". Whereas other major translations are consistent in translating διαθήκης as "covenant".

So the question is, were the KJV translators right and the others wrong, or vice versa?

Here's something fun to go through:
Covenant (in the New Testament) - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway

Click to expand...

that is subjective so I leave it up to you.

but the point remains, why do you form an entire doctrine for the body of Christ based on a single verse from Paul?

Guojing said:

that is subjective so I leave it up to you.

but the point remains, why do you form an entire doctrine for the body of Christ based on a single verse from Paul?

Click to expand...

It's not subjective if it's explored objectively.

And I posted links that cover multiple verses.

BTW the new covenant doctrine wasn't formed by me. Or Christan Gedge.

MMXX said:

It's not subjective if it's explored objectively.

And I posted links that cover multiple verses.

BTW the new covenant doctrine wasn't formed by me. Or Christan Gedge.

Click to expand...

For me, when in doubt, I take the kjv but I don’t insist others follow the same rule

that is why I said it’s up to you

Guojing said:

For me, when in doubt, I take the kjv but I don’t insist others follow the same rule

that is why I said it’s up to you

Click to expand...

When I'm in doubt I check the Greek lexicon.

What I would try figuring out is, was there a difference in the meaning of "testament" and "covenant" to the KJV translators, or did they see both as interchangeable and meaning the same thing?

For instance what is the Old Testament about? Isn't it about God's covenant with Israel?

MMXX said:

What I would try figuring out is, was there a difference in the meaning of "testament" and "covenant" to the KJV translators, or did they see both as interchangeable and meaning the same thing?

Click to expand...

They were and are interchangeable, because they were and are simultaneously true.

Those who are in Christ experience the New Covenant, which is a bidirectional relationship with Him characterized by His free gift of salvation and the power to live for Him extended to us; and our acceptance of His free gift by faith, and the power to live for Him by faith and obedience.

Those who are in Christ also experience the New Testament, of which Christ is both Testator and Heir, in whom all of God's promises are yes and amen, and with whom we are joint-heirs.

Guojing said:

but the point remains, why do you form an entire doctrine for the body of Christ based on a single verse from Paul?

Click to expand...

Try another one from Paul.


Try one from Peter.

In other words, he confirmed the covenant by guaranteeing first option to the children of the covenant then afterward by granting the good news to the Gentiles as he had promised all those years before. Yes, the scriptures tell us we are under the New Covenant.

keras said:

Romans 11:27 is a direct quotation from Isaiah 59:20-21.
It says the Lord will redeem those in Jacob, [his descendants] who repent of their rebellion.
We see in Zechariah 12:11-14 that a few remaining families in Jerusalem, will mourn for Jesus, but Zechariah 13:8-9, Isaiah 6:11-13, Romans 9:27, all say only a small remnant will survive.

The belief of a general Jewish restoration is never stated in the Bible.
We Christians ARE the Israelites of God, His 'nation', the one which bears the proper fruit. Matthew 21:43

Click to expand...

In the other thread, we disagree on this. I believe the Body of Christ is separate from the nation Israel. But there is no need to go through the disagreement again in this thread.

But I find it interesting that you are holding a version of replacement theology but at the same time, also holding to the doctrine that the New Covenant has not yet been made with us.

Christian Gedge said:

Try one from Peter.

“Men of Israel … you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’ When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”
(Acts 3:12, 25-26)​

In other words, he confirmed the covenant by guaranteeing first option to the children of the covenant then afterward by granting the good news to the Gentiles as he had promised all those years before. Yes, the scriptures tell us we are under the New Covenant.

Click to expand...

I agree that the prophetic program was for the nation of Israel to accept the New Covenant, by repenting and believing in Jesus as their Messiah (Acts 3:19-26).

Once the nation Israel accepted the New Covenant, all of us gentiles were supposed to be believers thru the Jews (Zechariah 8:23), thus fulfilling the covenant God made with Abraham in Acts 3:25 and Genesis 12:3, as you had earlier quoted.

But as Paul stated in Romans 11, and the events of Acts 7 went, the nation Israel rejected Christ and stoned Stephen, thereby committing the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51).

So the New Covenant could not have been made with the nation Israel, hence the prophetic program was not fulfilled.

We in the Body of Christ are now saved thru Israel's fall (Romans 11:11), which is a mystery program (Romans 16:25, Ephesians 3:9), and not thru the New Covenant.

So your conclusion "Yes, the scriptures tell us we are under the New Covenant" is unscriptural.

MMXX said:

When I'm in doubt I check the Greek lexicon.

What I would try figuring out is, was there a difference in the meaning of "testament" and "covenant" to the KJV translators, or did they see both as interchangeable and meaning the same thing?

For instance what is the Old Testament about? Isn't it about God's covenant with Israel?

Click to expand...

I have already posted a link for you before

How are we “able ministers of the new testament?”

keras said:

Ezekiel 34:25 I shall make a Covenant with them for their peace and prosperity..

Click to expand...

There are subtle statements that Jesus said during His time on earth - as He was confirming God's covenants - that were nods to prophecies of the coming Messiah. This is one of them that's relevant to this Ezekiel passage:

Guojing said:

I agree that the prophetic program was for the nation of Israel to accept the New Covenant, by repenting and believing in Jesus as their Messiah (Acts 3:19-26).

Click to expand...

Jesus himself chose those from Israel who would kick start it a long time ago. They are referred to as his disciples...who would preach a new arrangement to the nations of the whole world. Israels full restoration would always fall short without the gentile inclusion being complete. One blessed flock of NT sheep.


[ Once the nation Israel accepted the New Covenant, all of us gentiles were supposed to be believers thru the Jews (Zechariah 8:23), thus fulfilling the covenant God made with Abraham in Acts 3:25 and Genesis 12:3, as you had earlier quoted.]


And those he chose and saved through his blood have bore a lot of fruit to this day.

Guojing said:

I have already posted a link for you before

How are we “able ministers of the new testament?”

Click to expand...

No offence but I'd rather go by something more academic than some mystery person's blog.

jeffweedaman said:

Jesus himself chose those from Israel who would kick start it a long time ago. They are referred to as his disciples...who would preach a new arrangement to the nations of the whole world. Israels full restoration would always fall short without the gentile inclusion being complete. One blessed flock of NT sheep.

Click to expand...

This is another popular doctrine that is unscriptural, the Body of Christ is not the little flock. Paul never called us the little flock, nor did he ever call us sheep.

The Little flock refers to the remnant of the nation Israel that did believe in Jesus as their Messiah (Matthew 21:43, 1 Peter 5:2, Romans 9:6).

After the Jerusalem Council event in Acts 15, James, Peter and John agreed to confine their ministry to this little flock (Galatians 2:9)

MMXX said:

No offence but I'd rather go by something more academic than some mystery person's blog.

Click to expand...

That is why I don't want to play the "appeal to authority" game.

All of us already know which authority we accept and which we reject.