Covenants

[Apollos1]

Hey ddub –

The theme of Galatians is salvation through faith. As a rough outline, Paul gives salutation in chapters 1-2, deals with the doctrinal in chapters 3-4, and gives personal in chapters 5-6.

Galatians 1:6-9 – The problem – some were perverting the gospel of Christ and attempting to be justified by the law and not by faith in Christ – 2:16. These are the two aspects that Paul deals with in Galatians: the law (that pertaining to flesh and bondage) and faith in Christ (that pertaining to the promise, freedom, and Spirit).

Back at Galatians 4…

Galatians 4:24 - "Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants; one from mount Sinai…”

Allegories are used to clarify or explain what has already been taught or said – as was done prior in chapters 3 and 4. Paul is speaking only about TWO covenants, one which was from Sinai. The covenant from Sinai is the “old” covenant made with Israel, and Israel only.

(Deut. 5: 2 - “Jehovah our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 Jehovah made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.”)

Ddub said - And you are making a couple of mistakes. The Bible tells us clearly
that the covenant came 430 years before the law; (with…)

Gal 3:17 - And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

I haven’t made any mistake. It appears you know how scripture distinguishes between the two covenants. My use of the word “old” in respect to the covenant given at Sinai is employed in respect to the time the covenant was active – not promised. Paul tells us that a covenant or promise was made to Abraham [in prospect] 430 years before the covenant at Sinai was made. That promise to Abraham… “in you shall all the nations be blessed…” Galatians 3:8 which is from Genesis 12:3)would not be made possible for another 1900 years. Christ had to die on the cross to make this covenant possible. Perhaps reading Hebrews 9:18-22 would be of some help as seeing when a covenant has actually been inaugurated.

Of course Paul’s point in 3:17 is to tell us that the covenant made at Sinai did not nullify the promise made to Abraham – and there were reasons for the giving of the Sinai covenant.

ddub said - The Bible also tells us clearly that this Old Covenant wasn't just to Jews, but to Gentiles also;


The covenant based on faith in Christ is indeed for all nations today. If I understand what you saying, the covenant/promise made with Abraham is the “old” covenant because it was promised before the covenant at Sinai – and therefore to you, it is older. If so, I have never known anyone to take this view. My experience is that the covenants are spoken about from the respective point in time when inaugurated.

My use of “old” and “new” as it relates to the two covenants is in harmony with that used by inspiration in the Hebrew letter. For instance, see…

Hebrews 8:8 – “For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah…”

-and-

Hebrews 8:13 – “In that he says, A new covenant he has made the first old.”

Jesus is the mediator of the NEW covenant (Heb. 12:24). If you think this is not the covenant that resulted from the promise made to Abraham 1900 years previous to Christ’s dying on the cross, as we read about in Galatians 3 & 4, then please explain which new covenant Hebrews 8:13 is talking about, and tell me how many covenants Jesus is the mediator of. While you are at it, you can tell me which covenant Jesus made “old”.

Hebrews 9:15 – “And for this cause [Jesus] is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.”

The “promise of the eternal inheritance”… through the “seed” of Abraham, as promised to Abraham.

I trust this helps…

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos1

Hey ddub –
The theme of Galatians is salvation through faith. As a rough outline,
Paul gives salutation in chapters 1-2, deals with the doctrinal in
chapters 3-4, and gives personal in chapters 5-6.

I couldn't agree more.

Galatians 1:6-9 – The problem – some were perverting the gospel of
Christ and attempting to be justified by the law and not by faith in
Christ – 2:16. These are the two aspects that Paul deals with in
Galatians: the law (that pertaining to flesh and bondage) and faith in
Christ (that pertaining to the promise, freedom, and Spirit).

Exactly. It's the law vs. grace through faith in Christ. I believe we
are in total agreement on this point.

Back at Galatians 4…
Galatians 4:24 - "Which things contain an allegory: for these women are
two covenants; one from mount Sinai…”
Allegories are used to clarify or explain what has already been taught
or said – as was done prior in chapters 3 and 4.

What was taught in chapters 3 and 4 is that we can't be justified by the law, and that that justification comes through grace by faith in Jesus Christ under the Abrahamic Covenant, which includes Gentiles.

Paul is speaking only about TWO covenants, one which was from Sinai.

Okay...

The covenant from Sinai is the “old” covenant made with Israel, and
Israel only.

How so? Paul doesn't call this the "old" covenant, so why should we?
Please take note that Paul is comparing the law to the covenant made
with Abraham (Gal 3:18), NOT the New Covenant.

(Deut. 5: 2 - “Jehovah our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3
Jehovah made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us,
who are all of us here alive this day.”)

Yes, and notice he never referred to it as the "old" covenant.

Ddub said - And you are making a couple of mistakes. The Bible tells
us clearly that the covenant came 430 years before the law;(with…)
Gal 3:17 - And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed
before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty
years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none
effect.
I haven’t made any mistake. It appears you know how scripture
distinguishes between the two covenants. My use of the word “old” in
respect to the covenant given at Sinai is employed in respect to the
time the covenant was active – not promised. Paul tells us that a
covenant or promise was made to Abraham [in prospect] 430 years before
the covenant at Sinai was made. That promise to Abraham… “in you shall
all the nations be blessed…” Galatians 3:8 which is from Genesis
12:3)would not be made possible for another 1900 years. Christ had to
die on the cross to make this covenant possible. Perhaps reading
Hebrews 9:18-22 would be of some help as seeing when a covenant has
actually been inaugurated.

Apollos, in Gal 3 the comparison made here is the law vs. the
covenant made to Abraham. The New Covenant WAS NOT made to Abraham.
Maybe this is where we are disagreeing. Are you considering the
Abrahamic Covenant to be the New Covenant?

Of course Paul’s point in 3:17 is to tell us that the covenant made
at Sinai did not nullify the promise made to Abraham – and there were
reasons for the giving of the Sinai covenant.

Yes, and Paul wanted us to know that the promise WAS MADE (ratified,
but not yet in effect), and could not be annulled. It was going to come
into effect regardless of the covenant which came 430 years later. That
could not be stopped.

ddub said -The Bible also tells us clearly that this Old Covenant
wasn't just to Jews, but to Gentiles also;
The covenant based on faith in Christ is indeed for all nations today.
If I understand what you saying, the covenant/promise made with Abraham
is the “old” covenant because it was promised before the covenant at
Sinai – and therefore to you, it is older.

No. I consider it the "old" covenant because it is the FIRST covenant
to bring grace (faith in Christ bringing salvation) to all. The covenant being discussed here is a covenant of redemption given to all. It is the covenant that saves all from the law. Also, we know that the "old" covenant will vanish away. The law, however, will not (Mt. 5:18).
Therefore, the law cannot be the "old" covenant.

If so, I have never known anyone to take this view. My experience is
that the covenants are spoken about from the respective point in time
when inaugurated.

If by "inaugurated" you mean "begun", then please tell me when the
Abrahamic Covenant began, and when the "new" covenant began.

My use of “old” and “new” as it relates to the two covenants is in
harmony with that used by inspiration in the Hebrew letter. For
instance, see…
Hebrews 8:8 – “For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days
come, saith the Lord, That I will make a new covenant with the house of
Israel and with the house of Judah…”

I don't think so. The Abrahamic Covenant includes Gentiles, whereas
this covenant DOES NOT. It is made to Israel and Judah ONLY.

-and-
Hebrews 8:13 – “In that he says, A new covenant he has made the first
old.”

Again, I don't think so. You consider the "old" to be the law, and
the "new" covenant DOES NOT make the law "ready to vanish away"
according to Jesus Christ (Mt. 5:18).

Jesus is the mediator of the NEW covenant (Heb. 12:24). If you think
this is not the covenant that resulted from the promise made to Abraham
1900 years previous to Christ’s dying on the cross, as we read about in
Galatians 3 & 4, then please explain which new covenant Hebrews 8:13 is
talking about, and tell me how many covenants Jesus is the mediator of.

No problem . Hbr 8:13 is speaking about the Abrahamic Covenant in
terms of it being made "old", and ready to vanish away. Again, it
CANNOT be the law according to Jesus Christ (Mt. 5:18).
Jesus is the Mediator of both the "old" and "new" covenants. His blood
serves for both. Hbr 9:12 tells us that He "OBTAINED" eternal
redemption for us with His blood, which is under the Abrahamic
Covenant. Hbr 9:15 tells us that His blood also ratified the "new" for
those called who "MIGHT RECEIVE" (as opposed to "obtained" under the
"old") eternal redemption.

While you are at it, you can tell me which covenant Jesus made “old”.

When the New Covenant comes about, the "old" (Abrahamic) will vanish away.

Hebrews 9:15 – “And for this cause [Jesus] is the mediator of a new
covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the
transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been
called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.”
The “promise of the eternal inheritance”… through the “seed” of
Abraham, as promised to Abraham.

--The Abrahamic portion is "that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant", showing the blood of Jesus Christ was for the Abrahamic Covenant. When you read Hbr 9, it becomes very clear that Jesus' blood wan't for the law, which was ratified by the blood of animals. So obviously the law isn't the "first covenant" being spoken of here.

The New Covenant being spoken of then, is a DIFFERENT covenant from the Abrahamic Covenant.

I trust this helps…

No doubt about it. Thanks for your plain and simple explanation of your view on this issue. It helps all of us immensely. I hope my responses help you to understand how I see it. I look forward to your reply.

God Bless!

 

[Apollos1]

Hey Ddub –

Thanks for the continued informative discussion…

Last time…
Apollos said - Galatians 4:24 - "Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants; one from mount Sinai…”Allegories are used to clarify or explain what has already been taught or said – as was done prior in chapters 3 and 4.
Ddub said - What was taught in chapters 3 and 4 is that we can't be justified by the law, and that that justification comes through grace by faith in Jesus Christ under the Abrahamic Covenant, which includes Gentiles.

Okay, but let’s not loose the fact that Paul was teaching about TWO covenants in 4:24: one covenant from Sinai of bondage -and- one of faith and freedom.

Apollos said - Paul is speaking only about TWO covenants, one which was from Sinai.
Ddub said - Okay...

But is this really “okay” with you? If I understand you correctly, you are speaking in terms of THREE covenants where Paul is actually comparing only two – Gal. 4:24.

Apollos said - The covenant from Sinai is the “old” covenant made with Israel, and Israel only.
Ddub said - How so? Paul doesn't call this the "old" covenant, so why should we?
Please take note that Paul is comparing the law to the covenant made with Abraham (Gal 3:18), NOT the New Covenant.

First - from my last post I think you have seen WHY I call the Sinai covenant the “old”… the main references being taken from Hebrews chapter 7,8, and 9, specifically Hebrews 8:13 - In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.
The context of the passage will show that “old” here makes reference to the Sinai covenant and “new” makes reference to Christ’s covenant.

I have also made reference that Christ said in Luke 22:20 that His covenant was the NEW covenant, as Paul affirms in 1 Cor. 11:25 as well as 2 Cor. 3:6. As said in my last post, my use of “old” and “new” is in harmony with scripture. (Paul certainly never calls the covenant with Abraham “old” does he?)

Second, I take note that Paul IS comparing the Sinai covenant with Christ’s new covenant in Galatians 3 & 4. Specifically at verse 3:8 & 18 Paul alludes to the promise made to Abraham only to show that faith and our inheritance came through this promise, not the law. Christ’s covenant was the result/fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham – all nations of the world would be blessed - by faith in Christ – thus the promise was kept. The law/Sinai covenant was a temporary addition until faith in Christ came – there was no faith provision and no inheritance through the law, but only through Christ. This is the comparison Paul makes.

This is why Paul can finish in chapter 4 with the allegory of TWO covenants – one of bondage and no inheritance (the Sinai covenant) and one of faith, freedom, and inheritance (Christ’s covenant). The promise made to Abraham does not fit into the allegory.
- - - - - - - - - -


Ddub said - Apollos, in Gal 3 the comparison made here is the law vs. the covenant made to Abraham. The New Covenant WAS NOT made to Abraham. Maybe this is where we are disagreeing. Are you considering the Abrahamic Covenant to be the New Covenant?

The beginning of the New Covenant (Christ’s covenant) was the fulfillment of that promise made to Abraham. This is precisely how Paul could say that the “gospel” was preached to Abraham. When Christ’s covenant for all nations came about, the promise made to Abraham, that all nations would be blessed through him, was kept AND salvation by faith ion Christ began.

(It may be interesting to note that God planned to save man through faith in Christ Jesus before the promise was made to Abraham. God often made covenants based on actions God had made prior to the inception of the covenant.)
- - - - - - - - - -

Ddub said - No. I consider it [the covenant made with Abraham] the "old" covenant because it is the FIRST covenant to bring grace (faith in Christ bringing salvation) to all. The covenant being discussed here is a covenant of redemption given to all. It is the covenant that saves all from the law. Also, we know that the "old" covenant will vanish away. The law, however, will not (Mt. 5:18). Therefore, the law cannot be the "old" covenant.

But why call the promise to Abraham “old” when no one else calls it that? The covenant made with Abraham was a promise to Abraham only - that through his seed all nations of the earth would be blessed. That’s it! What that “blessing” was or how such would be accomplished was still unknown. When Christ came and established His (the New) covenant, this promise of blessing to all nations through Abraham’s seed was fulfilled. It was Christ’s (the New) covenant that secured “blessing” for all nations, including those that were under the law. According to the context of Hebrews 8:13 the Sinai covenant is the “old” covenant to pass away by virtue of Christ’s covenant (the “new”) being established. (cf. 2 Cor. 3:7,11)

Ddub said - If by "inaugurated" you mean "begun", then please tell me when the
Abrahamic Covenant began, and when the "new" covenant began.

The promise made to Abraham was about 1921 BC.
The Law, the “old” covenant given at Sinai was made about 1491 BC.
The New Covenant mediated by Christ began on Pentecost in Acts 2. This covenant consummated the promise to Abraham, and began the events that would reduce the old Sinai covenant to inactivity. (cf. Gal. 3:24-25, Romans 7:4,6)


Apollos said - My use of “old” and “new” as it relates to the two covenants is in harmony with that used by inspiration in the Hebrew letter. For instance, see…Hebrews 8:8 – “For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah…”
Ddub said - I don't think so. The Abrahamic Covenant includes Gentiles, whereas this covenant DOES NOT. It is made to Israel and Judah ONLY.

My use of old and new is in harmony. I say that the Gentiles became beneficiaries because of the promise made to Abraham, this by yet another covenant based on faith in Christ – which is what the NEW covenant is all about. The prophecy of Jeremiah (Jer. 31;31, Heb. 8:8-12) was spoken to a Jewish audience but never limited to just the Jews. The New covenant was for all nations through “promise” (Gal. 3:14) - the promise made to Abraham. If the covenant Jeremiah spoke of is not the New (Christ’s) covenant WHICH covenant do you think this is? I guess you know of a “new” covenant that God was going to make with Israel only? Please deal with the scripture.
- - - - - - - - - -

Apollos said - Hebrews 8:13 – “In that he says, A new covenant he has made the first old.”
Ddub said - Again, I don't think so. You consider the "old" to be the law, and the "new" covenant DOES NOT make the law "ready to vanish away" according to Jesus Christ (Mt. 5:18).

Please deal with the scripture. It says the “new” made the first “old”. The next part of this verse says is was ready, nigh, at hand – to vanish/disappear.

Let me now deal with your verse…

Matthew 5:17 - “Think not that I am come todestroythe law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy,but to fulfill.
18:“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Luke 24:44- And he said unto them, These are my words which I spake unto you,
while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written
in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me.

1.) Jesus said He came to fulfill the law and the prophets in verse 17.
2.)In verse 18 Jesus said the Law would stand – until He fullfilled ALL.
3.) Jesus said He had fullfilled ALL.

Conclusion: Thus, with all things having been fulfilled the Law and the prophets were ready to pass away.

Hebrews 10:9 – “… He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”
- - - - - - - - - -
continued below...

 

[Apollos1]

(continued...)

Apollos said - Jesus is the mediator of the NEW covenant (Heb. 12:24). If you think this is not the covenant that resulted from the promise made to Abraham 1900 years previous to Christ’s dying on the cross, as we read about in Galatians 3 & 4, then please explain which new covenant Hebrews 8:13 is talking about, and tell me how many covenants Jesus is the mediator of.
Ddub said - Hbr 8:13 is speaking about the Abrahamic Covenant in terms of it being made "old", and ready to vanish away. Again, it CANNOT be the law according to Jesus Christ (Mt. 5:18).

First – this did not answer my questions. Which NEW covenant would this be?
How many covenants was Christ the mediator of ? Had you answered these questions you would probably not be so confused as to what Hebrews 8:13 was talking about.

Second - No way, Hebrews 8:13 can not be talking about the covenant with Abraham – the passage is devoid of any context for such. Let’s take a CLOSE look and get the CONTEXT!

Hebrews 8:

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt; For they continued not in my covenant, And I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, And on their heart also will I write them: And I will be to them a God, And they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his fellow-citizen, And every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: For all shall know me, From the least to the greatest of them.

12 For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And their sins will I remember no more.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.

Take note that the latter part of Chapter 7 and first part of Chapter 8 is contrasting the superior priesthood of Jesus with that priesthood of the Sinai covenant, which in 8:7 is referred to as the “first covenant”. The context is quite clear – you should read it! Continuing in the same context of contrasting the “first covenant” – see 8:7 (which is the one Moses mediated) with the “new covenant” – see 8:6 (mediated by Christ), the conclusion is read in 8:13. You can only be confused at this point if your brand of theology demands you must be.

Hebrews 10:9 – “He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second…”

I have already answered your remark about Matt. 5:18 – see above.
- - - - - - - - - -

Because you did not understand that as used in scripture the “old” covenant is the Sinai covenant and the “new” covenant is the covenant of Christ, the remainder of your remarks in your last post need to be corrected to be in harmony with scripture…

Ddub said - Jesus is the Mediator of both the "old" and "new" covenants.

Not at all.
God mediated the covenant/promise made with Abraham directly.
Moses was the mediator for the covenant given at Sinai. (Aka: the “old”).
Christ was the mediator of His covenant (aka: the “new”) – the One mediator between God and man.

Ddub said - His blood serves for both. Hbr 9:12 tells us that He "OBTAINED" eternal redemption for us with His blood, which is under the Abrahamic Covenant.

Christ’s blood “serves” only for redemption, not for ratification. The covenant/promise made to Abraham is not at all in view in this context.

Ddub said - Hbr 9:15 tells us that His blood also ratified the "new" for those called who "MIGHT RECEIVE" (as opposed to "obtained" under the "old") eternal redemption.

No! This verse does not mention anything about what His blood “ratified”, nevertheless anything about “also”. Please be more careful with your verses!

Ddub said - When the New Covenant comes about, the "old" (Abrahamic) will vanish away.

You are yet to produce one verse that shows the promise to Abraham was ever called or referred to as the “old” covenant. Above I have shown handily by context that any reference to the “old” was about the Sinai covenant.

Given such passages as 2Cor 3:6, 1Cor 11:25, Hebrews 9:15, and Hebrews 12:24 show that the NEW testament is a reality ! You need an update Ddub !

Hebrews 9:15 – “And for this cause [Jesus] is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.”

If the NEW covenant is not a reality now, we have no redemption now.
See Hebrews 9:16-22.

Ddub said - The Abrahamic portion is "that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant", showing the blood of Jesus Christ was for the Abrahamic Covenant. When you read Hbr 9, it becomes very clear that Jesus' blood wan't for the law, which was ratified by the blood of animals. So obviously the law isn't the "first covenant" being spoken of here.

Once again, the promise to Abraham is not in the context of this verse and is NEVER referred to as the “old” covenant in scripture.
By context of the passage, the “first covenant” (or “old”) refers to the covenant given at Sinai by Moses.
The promise to Abraham was fulfilled when “all nations” could be blessed through Abraham’s seed. This reality of “blessing” was accomplished by Christ (Abraham’s seed) with His death on the cross and a NEW covenant being mediated – which was for “all nations”.

But you are right that Jesus’ blood was not for “the law”, it was for the ratification of the NEW covenant, and the redemption made possible only by the NEW covenant!

I wish you the best in your attempt to harmonize your thoughts with scripture!

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos1

Hey Ddub –
Thanks for the continued informative discussion…

Thank you! It sure is refreshing to speak with someone willing to honestly and openly defend his position with the Word of God.

Okay, but let’s not loose the fact that Paul was teaching about TWO covenants in 4:24:...

Correct. Two covenants:
1. The law, the covenant from Sinai
2. Grace by faith to all through Christ under the Abrahamic Covenant.
Please note that there is NOWHERE in the Bible where Gentiles are included in the New Covenant. Paul in Gal 4 is speaking of a covenant that includes Gentiles.

But is this really “okay” with you?

Most definitely it's ok with me. I site only TWO covenants that Paul is speaking of; the law and the Abrahamic Covenant in Gal 3&4.
**

If I understand you correctly, you are speaking in terms of THREE covenants ...

I don't know how you come to three. I only mention two in reference to this statement by Paul. However, you seem to include the law, the Abrahamic Covenant, and the New Covenant as you refer to this statement by Paul. Is that true? (I'm not saying you do, I'm just asking to attain more clarity).

First - from my last post I think you have seen WHY I call the Sinai covenant the “old”… the main references being taken from Hebrews chapter 7,8, and 9, specifically Hebrews 8:13

This is the very verse that annuls the law as being the first covenant in v. 13. According to Jesus Christ;
Mat 5:17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
The law IS NOT "becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away."

The context of the passage will show that “old” here makes reference to the Sinai covenant and “new” makes reference to Christ’s covenant.

Are you sure? First of all, BOTH covenants (Abrahamic, New) are Christ' covenants. Hbr 8:7 refers to these two covenants:
1. The one obtained
2. The one established
The law isn't included in the verse, and the Abrahamic Covenant is (the obtained). Notice the context- We have the law with it's pattern and being a shadow of heavenly things in 8:1-5. "BUT NOW" comes what Christ has "OBTAINED", and ALSO that which was "ESTABLISHED". V. 6 changes the context from the law into the two covenants of grace; the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant. Therefore, the context of v. 13 is in regards to these two covenants.
Also, consider this;
Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual:
My point here being that the law is holy, just, good, spiritual,... and NOT vanishing away. The New Covenant is not a replacement of the law, it doesn't replace the law. Could Paul possibly be describing something that is faulty? What I see in this statement is something without fault. So what was the fault with the law that you see? Please explain. The law will remain AFTER the New Covenant. As a matter of fact, the law is a big part of the New Covenant. So how could the New Covenant then replace the law? If the law vanished away, the New Covenant would have to vanish as well.
However, in saying this I am aware that the context of the book is a comparison of the law to the New Covenant, as it is written about the Hebrews, the only ones with the law and the New Covenant. However, in this instance the writer qualifies that he's speaking of the two covenants of grace; the one OBTAINED, and also the one ESTABLISHED.

I have also made reference that Christ said in Luke 22:20 that His covenant was the NEW covenant, as Paul affirms in 1 Cor. 11:25 as well as 2 Cor. 3:6.

There is no question that the New Covenant is the covenant of Christ. But so is the Abrahamic Covenant! Do you question that? Christ ratified, ..."established" the Abrahamic Covenant before He fulfilled it. It belongs to HIM. Or are you saying that the Abrahamic Covenant is also the New Covenant? Please explain. I'll address the scriptures you list a little later.

As said in my last post, my use of “old” and “new” is in harmony with scripture. (Paul certainly never calls the covenant with Abraham “old” does he?)

I don't believe your use of "old" and "new" is in harmony with scripture because scripture eliminates the law as the old covenant. Just look at Gal 3:17;
Gal 3:17 And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
As you can see in this scripture, the COVENANT IS NOT THE LAW. They are two separate entities according to this scripture. There was the covenant, then there was the law 430 years later. It is CLEAR that the law isn't the old covenant.

Second, I take note that Paul IS comparing the Sinai covenant with Christ’s new covenant in Galatians 3 & 4.

??? Huh ??? This ENTIRE chapter is filled with the Abrahamic covenant (only Christ is mentioned more), and there is no mention of the New Covenant. So I can only come to the conclusion that you feel the Abrahamic Covenant is the New Covenant. Is that your belief? Are they the same covenant in your theological belief? If not, I don't understand your statement.

Specifically at verse 3:8 & 18 Paul alludes to the promise made to Abraham only to show that faith and our inheritance came through this promise, not the law.

Exactly right. This is the promise to ABRAHAM, not the the promise of the New Covenant. They are two separate covenants. It is a comparison of the Abrahamic Covenant to the law.

Christ’s covenant was the result/fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham – all nations of the world would be blessed - by faith in Christ – thus the promise was kept. The law/Sinai covenant was a temporary addition ...

Agreed. Yet,... the New Covenant isn't included in this. You've just described a comparison of the law to the Abrahamic Covenant.

This is why Paul can finish in chapter 4 with the allegory of TWO covenants –

Correct!!!

The promise made to Abraham does not fit into the allegory.

The promise made to Abraham doesn't fit??? Abraham is breathed all over these two chapters. The promise to Abraham is the essence of this scripture, beginning with Gal 3:6, up to and through Gal 4:28! This, maybe more than anywhere else, is all about Abraham and the covenant made with him. There is NO MENTION of the New Covenant in these two chapters. Therefore, it's baffling that you would come to this unsubstantiated conclusion. The evidence against your stance here is simply OVERWHELMING.
- - - - - - - - - -

The beginning of the New Covenant (Christ’s covenant) was the fulfillment of that promise made to Abraham.

Really? What scripture says so? Where do you find that in the Bible? It's true, there is a correlation between the old and new covenants, but according to the Bible, they are TWO SEPARATE COVENANTS. The correlation between the two, by the way, would be Christ.
When did the Abrahamic Covenant begin? I believe you said the New Covenant began at pentecost, so when did the AC begin?

This is precisely how Paul could say that the “gospel” was preached to Abraham. When Christ’s covenant for all nations came about, the promise made to Abraham, that all nations would be blessed through him, was kept AND salvation by faith ion Christ began.

Hence, the beginning of the ABRAHAMIC covenant. There is no mention of the New Covenant beginning here (or anywhere for that matter). And again, it's clear that these are separate covenants.

(It may be interesting to note that God planned to save man through faith in Christ Jesus before the promise was made to Abraham.

Yes, but it is the first and ONLY time, through the Abrahamic Covenant, that God included Gentiles in the plan of salvation. And that is a major distinction between the Abrahamic covenant and all others. If there was only the law and the New Covenant, how would we Gentiles be saved? We would not be included.
- - - - - - - - - -

But why call the promise to Abraham “old” when no one else calls it that?

Because I believe that right is still right, even if none of us do it, while wrong is still wrong, even if all of us do it. And I believe that to be in harmony with scripture (i.e. Rom 3:10). I call it that because I believe the Bible calls it that.

The covenant made with Abraham was a promise to Abraham only - that through his seed all nations of the earth would be blessed. That’s it! What that “blessing” was or how such would be accomplished was still unknown. When Christ came and established His (the New) covenant, this promise of blessing to all nations through Abraham’s seed was fulfilled.

There are a couple of problems in your statement. What that blessing would accomplish was unknown to us, but not unknown to God. He knew what it meant. Also, Christ OBTAINED the Abrahamic covenant, a more excellent ministry than the law. You just acknowledged that, by the way, when you mentioned that we would then know what that blessing was. He also established a separate covenant with better promises according to Hbr 8:6 (New Covenant).
It seems you're brushing right over the Abrahamic Covenant as if it doesn't really exist. You seem to be blurring it's beginning with the New Covenant, as if they are somehow one and the same.

It was Christ’s (the New) covenant that secured “blessing” for all nations, including those that were under the law.

What scripture? I have to vehemently disagree with you here unless you can produce a scripture which supports your statement that the New Covenant secures a blessing for all nations. I don't believe there is any such scripture in the Bible. I ask you to please substantiate that statement with scripture.

According to the context of Hebrews 8:13 the Sinai covenant is the “old” covenant to pass away by virtue of Christ’s covenant (the “new”) being established. (cf. 2 Cor. 3:7,11)

The context, established in Hbr 8:7, is the obtained covenant (Abrahamic), and the established covenant (New Covenant). That is the context of Hbr 8:13.

The promise made to Abraham was about 1921 BC.

When did the covenant BEGIN, not when the promise was made. This doesn't answer the question.

The Law, the “old” covenant given at Sinai was made about 1491 BC. The New Covenant mediated by Christ began on Pentecost in Acts 2. This covenant consummated the promise to Abraham, and began the events that would reduce the old Sinai covenant to inactivity. (cf. Gal. 3:24-25, Romans 7:4,6)

One major problem is that Hebrews tells us that the New Covenant hasn't yet come, and it was written after Pentecost. That pretty much eliminates your position that this is when the New Covenant began.
The scriptures you listed never mention the New Covenant.

My use of old and new is in harmony. I say that the Gentiles became beneficiaries because of the promise made to Abraham, this by yet another covenant based on faith in Christ – which is what the NEW covenant is all about.

I'll begin with those two early words you use;"I say". What you say is pretty much irrelevant (same for what I say also, by the way). The Bible DOES NOT SAY that Gentiles become beneficiaries of the New Covenant. The Bible says that Gentiles are included in the Abrahamic Covenant- that's it! We must rely upon what the Bible says. We can't just morph Gentiles into the New Covenant because we feel that is the way it should be. We Gentiles ARE NOT included in the New Covenant in God's word, the Bible.

The prophecy of Jeremiah (Jer. 31;31, Heb. 8:8-12) was spoken to a Jewish audience but never limited to just the Jews.

Hbr 8:8 " I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:"
It says to Israel and Judah, and NO ONE ELSE is included, ever. It's extremely exclusive, right there in scripture, everywhere it's spoken of in the Bible.

The New covenant was for all nations through “promise” (Gal. 3:14) - the promise made to Abraham.

Paul in v. 8, clearly states that this is the Abrahamic Covenant. There is nothing said about this possibly being the New Covenant. The New Covenant, according to scripture, is not for all nations. That is summarily false.

If the covenant Jeremiah spoke of is not the New (Christ’s) covenant WHICH covenant do you think this is? ...

That scripture is surely the New Covenant, and it was repeated by the author of Hebrews, and in that repitition even there is absolutely no mention of Gentiles being included in the New Covenant. If Gentiles were to be included, the Bible would surely tell us so. It does not. We Gentiles are included in the Abrahamic Covenant, and absolutely no mention in the New Covenant, not even when the New Covenant is spoken of in the Bible AFTER we Gentiles are included in God's plan.
- - - - - - - - - -

Please deal with the scripture. (Hbr 8:13)

The new made the first old, and the law is going nowhere. The old is vanishing, and the law is not. Therefore, the old is not the law.
By the way, the New Covenant says that the law will be laced in our hearts, minds, etc. How could we possibly be under it if we've never been given the law? Please explain.
When you add the fact that the writer in v.7 speaks of the covenant "obtained", and also the other "established", you have your first and second in context.

Let me now deal with your verse…
Matthew 5:17 -18, Luke 24:44-
1.) Jesus said He came to fulfill the law and the prophets in verse 17.
2.)In verse 18 Jesus said the Law would stand – until He fullfilled ALL.
3.) Jesus said He had fullfilled ALL.

No, Jesus said He fulfilled all things "CONCERNING ME", meaning those things that specifically addressed HIM. He said something entirely different about the law, even that it will not pass until heaven and earth pass. It's truly obvious that heaven and earth have not passed, wouldn't you agree? Please try again.

Conclusion: Thus, with all things having been fulfilled the Law and the prophets were ready to pass away.
Hebrews 10:9 – “… He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”

Did heaven and earth pass? Of course not. That point alone makes your conclusion incorrect.
- - - - - - - - - -
continued below...

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos1

First – this did not answer my questions. Which NEW covenant would this be?

There is only one New Covenant, expressed in Jer 31 and Hbr 8. THAT is the New Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant IS NOT the New Covenant, and Gal 3 & 4 say no such thing.

How many covenants was Christ the mediator of ?

I'm not sure about the answer to that question, but it's a fact that Jesus is the Mediator of both the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant.

Had you answered these questions you would probably not be so confused as to what Hebrews 8:13 was talking about.

I'm not confused at all. I'm very clear regarding the verse. It can't be the law because the law wasn't waxing old and vanishing away. It can't be the law vanishing away if the law is the centerpiece of the covenant. It can't be the law if the law isn't what's "obtained" in v. 6.

Second - No way, Hebrews 8:13 can not be talking about the covenant with Abraham – the passage is devoid of any context for such. Let’s take a CLOSE look and get the CONTEXT!
Hebrews 8:7-13
Take note that the latter part of Chapter 7 and first part of Chapter 8 is contrasting the superior priesthood of Jesus with that priesthood of the Sinai covenant, which in 8:7 is referred to as the “first covenant”.

You're beginning with an incorrect premise. The first covenant being spoken of is the one "obtained" in v. 6, as compared to the one "established" in v. 6. Those would be the first and second covenants being spoken of in vv. 7-8. This is in harmony gramatically with scripture, by the way.

The context is quite clear – you should read it! Continuing in the same context of contrasting the “first covenant” – see 8:7 (which is the one Moses mediated) with the “new covenant”

You should probably carefully consider your position here. The covenant being spoken of has fault. The law, in contrast, is holy and righteous, without fault. Could you explain this contradiction please?
(In the spirit of honesty, I admit that this is a little tricky for both of our positions. However, I can answer this dilemma in my view. Let's see if you can do so).

– see 8:6 (mediated by Christ), the conclusion is read in 8:13. You can only be confused at this point if your brand of theology demands you must be.

There is no confusion regarding Christ being the Mediator of the New Covenant. However, He's not the Mediator of the New Covenant ONLY. He is also the Mediator of the Abrahamic Covenant as well. Do you disagree with that? If so, please explain.

Hebrews 10:9 – “He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second…”

Correct. He DOES NOT take away the law according to HIM. The problem with the Abrahamic Covenant for Jews is that the law is in the way. The solution to the problem by the New Covenant is that the law is incorporated into their being, NOT taken away. The law IS NOT taken away in the New Covenant, it is incorporated.
- - - - - - - - - -

Because you did not understand that as used in scripture the “old” covenant is the Sinai covenant and the “new” covenant is the covenant of Christ, the remainder of your remarks in your last post need to be corrected to be in harmony with scripture…

As has been clearly shown, the "old" covenant cannot be the law.
1. Gal 3:17 tells us that the law IS NOT the covenant.
2. The law IS NOT to be taken away when the New Covenant begins. As a matter of fact, the law is a major part of the New Covenant.
These are just a couple of the many reasons.
Ddub said - Jesus is the Mediator of both the "old" and "new" covenants.

Not at all.
God mediated the covenant/promise made with Abraham directly.
Moses was the mediator for the covenant given at Sinai. (Aka: the “old”).

You're basing this upon an incorrect premise that the law is the Old Covenant, and the two proof texts above prove your position incorrect.

Christ was the mediator of His covenant (aka: the “new”) – the One mediator between God and man.

Are you saying that the Abrahamic Covenant wasn't between God and man? Was it any less between God and man than the New Covenant? If so, please explain.

Christ’s blood “serves” only for redemption, not for ratification.

Then please explain why Hbr 9:18 says a covenant is ratified with blood.

The covenant/promise made to Abraham is not at all in view in this context.

Hbr 9:26 says He put away sin by His sacrifice. Hbr 9:15 says that He died for the sins under the first testament. He's speaking about the Abrahamic Covenant because there is no forgiveness of sins and eternal inheritance under the law.
By the way, this is yet ANOTHER proof that the law isn't the first covenant, and the Abrahamic Covenant is the first covenant.

(Re: Hbr 9:15)No! This verse does not mention anything about what His blood “ratified”, nevertheless anything about “also”. Please be more careful with your verses!

V. 16-18 tells us that there must be blood for there to be a testament to be ratified. We know that Jesus is the Mediator of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 15:17) and therefore His blood that ratified the covenant at His death (further verified by Hbr 9:15 stating that He died for the sins of the first testament).
The "also" is a reference to the inclusion of the New Covenant in Hbr 8:6.

You are yet to produce one verse that shows the promise to Abraham was ever called or referred to as the “old” covenant.

You say that as if you've shown a verse that shows the law as the "old" covenant. (LOL)
But yes I have, I gave you Hbr 9:15;"... for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament,..."
We see here that the first covenant is the Abrahamic Covenant as it is the covenant in which sins are forgiven and there is eternal inheritance. It can ONLY be the Abrahamic Covenant.

Above I have shown handily by context that any reference to the “old” was about the Sinai covenant.

And here again the same scripture, Hbr 9:15 lays to rest any thought of the first covenant being the law. There is no forgiveness of sins under the law. Also, Gal 3:17 tells us that the law was added to the covenant. On top of that, we Gentiles could not be a part of either covenant (old or new) because they both contain the law, and we Gentiles don't have the law! Need I continue?

Given such passages as 2Cor 3:6, 1Cor 11:25, Hebrews 9:15, and Hebrews 12:24 show that the NEW testament is a reality ! You need an update Ddub !

2Cor 3:6 states that we are MINISTERS (servers, waiters... the food isn't served to the waiter!) of the New Covenant, NOT under the New Covenant.
2Cor 11:25; You'll have to read Mt 26:29 to understand what Jesus said concerning this, that He will not drink it new UNTIL THAT DAY... That day is obviously not yet.
Hbr 12:24; I don't see how you think that helps your argument. You'll need to explain that to me.
**

Hebrews 9:15 – “And... " If the NEW covenant is not a reality now, we have no redemption now.
See Hebrews 9:16-22.

Not true if the Abrahamic Covenant brings redemption, and it does. Not only that, but the New Covenant is the ONLY covenant that brings salvation to ALL. And surely that's what we have now, redemption for all.
On the other hand, if the law and the New Covenant are the Old and New Covenants, then we Gentiles are totally left out. We're not grafted into the law! We don't have the law! Both of these covenants have the law! Could you somehow please explain this?

Once again, the promise to Abraham is not in the context of this verse and is NEVER referred to as the “old” covenant in scripture.
By context of the passage, the “first covenant” (or “old”) refers to the covenant given at Sinai by Moses.

Hbr 9:12; Christ OBTAINED redemption. There is no redemption of the transgressions for ANYONE through the law. Therefore, it cannot be the law.

The promise to Abraham was fulfilled when “all nations” could be blessed through Abraham’s seed. This reality of “blessing” was accomplished by Christ (Abraham’s seed) with His death on the cross...

Correct! Had you stopped here, we would be in agreement.

... and a NEW covenant being mediated – which was for “all nations”.

Simply untrue. Speaking of "context", the New Covenant was never given to Abraham's seed. There is no such scripture. All nations aren't included in the New Covenant in scripture. That is fiction, and has nothing to do with the Bible. The true context, according to the Bible, is "all nations" included in the Abrahamic Covenant, and Israel and Judah ONLY in the New Covenant. That is SUBSTANTIATED, TRUE, VERIFIABLE, UNDENIABLE BIBLE. So your belief must somehow find a way to be in harmony with this scripture, or it's simply not of God.

But you are right that Jesus’ blood was not for “the law”, it was for the ratification of the NEW covenant, and the redemption made possible only by the NEW covenant!

Then please tell me, whose blood ratified the Abrahamic Covenant? Who is the Mediator of that covenant? When did the Abrahamic Covenant begin? Did it ever begin?
Also, you said redemption is only by the New Covenant. In this verse, we see redemption by the Abrahamic Covenant;
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.
How do you explain this? This is salvation for all nations. So how could your statement possibly be true?

I wish you the best in your attempt to harmonize your thoughts with scripture!

I pray you see the harmony with scripture in my responses to your points. I look forward to observing how you see my view.

God Bless!

 

[Apollos1]

Ddub –

Thanks again for the discussion about covenants. It is of vital importance we know which covenant is for those wanting to be disciples of Christ today.

It appears to me that in most places where the Sinai Covenant (SC) is under discussion in scripture, you automatically default saying the context must be about the Abrahamic Covenant (AC). In all kindness, this you are doing in an attempt to maintain the SC for yourself today. Read the passages for what they say, not with an agenda to keep the SC or some part of it alive today for your religious practice.

Follow context and do not skew context for the sake of maintaining preconceptions. Your “defaulting” will not harmonize within scripture and will create for you an errant theology. Do not “borrow” characteristics of Christ’s new covenant (NC) and apply them to the AC either. This further obfuscates what is otherwise clear teaching in scripture. Let’s take an even closer look at context previously covered...
- - - - - - - - - -

Ddub said - Correct. [Paul was talking about] Two covenants:[Gal. 4:24]
1. The law, the covenant from Sinai
2. Grace by faith to all through Christ under the Abrahamic Covenant.

Paul does mention Abraham and the promise made to him in Galatians 3. But I have already shown, that, while Paul alludes to the AC showing the NC (gospel) coming about because of a promise made to Abraham, Paul never compares the AC to the SC or the NC in Galatians 3 or 4. I would think at this point you would want to dig into that passage and attempt to actually prove your point instead of continuing to only assert such.

Second, the AC was NEVER a covenant based on “grace by faith” through Christ. You have said this twice without any scriptural support. You may want to provide scripture – if you have any – for this thought. Please take note that I will be pressing you for specific passages for your assertions. Claims without proof will be pointed out!

POINT ->>> See Galatians 3:23 - But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

This verse says BEFORE faith in Christ came that the Jews had “no way out” (from sin) under the law. The Jews did not have “faith in Christ”, the “faith” which was “afterwards” revealed – that is, faith in Christ was revealed after the law was given. Therefore, you to explain your statement above how “grace by faith through Christ” was possible under the AC, since the AC came long BEFORE the law, and “the law” came before “faith in Christ” !

Application: In Galatians 3 & 4, when Paul mentions “faith”, Paul is speaking of “faith in Christ” under the NC - see Gal. 3:22 & 24. The AC can not be the context in the passage as “faith” was revealed AFTER the AC and SC were given.

(Hmmm, notice “grace” is not mentioned in chapters 3 or 4. But Paul uses the word in Gal 5:4 when telling those that would attempt to be justified by following the law (SC) that they “are fallen from grace”! Attempts to follow “the law” VOID the grace of God – Gal. 2:20 !)

In fact, you may have overlooked that Paul writes in Galatians how the SC (the law):
3:19 - Added UNTIL the “Seed” comes – only for a time, it was temporary in nature.
3:23 – “hemmed in” the Jews from escaping sins.
3:24 – Served a job as a “tutor” (moral guardian) “to bring us” to Christ.
3:25 – Now that faith has come (not before) – no longer under that “tutor” – “the law” served its given purpose and now ceases and is no longer needed - this is Paul’s point here!

The NC based on faith in Christ has come and no one serves under the SC from this point. Thus Paul continued with the allegories in chapter 4 – the SC (bondage under law) versus the NC (freedom through faith). There is nothing here to question as to which covenants Paul is writing about.
- - - - - - - - - -

A few points to be made about the AC…


Parties: This covenant was made with Abraham.
Provisions: The promise – ALL nations would be blessed through Abraham.
The consummation: The promise was kept with Abraham by sending Christ through which ALL nations (not just the Jews) blessed through Abraham’s seed (Christ).

NEW Covenant: This is how God made possible the blessing of ALL nations – a new covenant based on faith in Christ.
Salvation through faith in Christ is a provision of the NC – not the AC – not the SC.
The NC – not the AC or the SC – was “ratified” with the BLOOD of Jesus Christ !!!

###Don’t attempt to extend the covenants beyond the original parties or beyond the original provisions.
- - - - - - - - - -

Ddub said - Please note that there is NOWHERE in the Bible where Gentiles are included in the New Covenant. Paul in Gal 4 is speaking of a covenant that includes Gentiles.

Can you be this naive about the plan of salvation and the NC ?

Act 11:1 Now the apostles and the brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
Act 11:18 Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life
.
Act 13:46 And Paul and Barnabas spake out boldly, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to you. Seeing ye thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. ---AND---
Act 18:6 And when they opposed themselves and blasphemed,[Paul] shook out his raiment and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.

Act 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee[Jesus] for a light of the Gentiles, That thou shouldest be for salvation unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Act 13:48 And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Act 15:3 They therefore, being brought on their way by the church, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
Act 15:7 And when there had been much questioning, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Brethren, ye know that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act 15:17 That the residue of men[Jews] may seek after the Lord, And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called…

Act 26:20- [Paul] declared both to them of Damascus first [see Acts 9:19-20] and at Jerusalem [see Acts 9:26] , and throughout all the country of Judaea [see Acts 11:27-30], and also to the Gentiles [see Acts 11:25 thru Acts 28], that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance.
Act 26:23 how that the Christ must suffer, and how that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles.
Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that this salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles: they will also hear.

Rom 15:27 Yea, it hath been their good pleasure; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe it to them also to minister unto them in carnal things
.
Eph 3:6 to wit, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel…

Gal 3:28 - There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.

Points to be made are:

What the disciples taught (look at Acts 8:4 and connect at Acts 11:19) the Jews, they also taught to the Gentiles – throughout Acts, including Paul.

Paul wrote the Corinthians first from Ephesus (Acts 19) and then again from Macedonia (Acts 20), and it was within this time frame of Acts. Paul mentions that it was the NEW covenant (see 1 Cor. 11:23-26 – see especially verse 25 –and- 2 Cor 3:6) that Christ gave His blood for and that the disciples ministered under.

The New covenant was not just for the Jews. The Gentiles were “fellow-everything” as the grace of God goes. God made no disctinction as you attempt to make.

continued below...

 

[Apollos1]

Now to continue with specific passages and specific application from the book of Hebrews…

Apollos said - The context of the passage [Heb 8:7] will show that “old” here makes reference to the Sinai covenant and “new” makes reference to Christ’s covenant.
Ddub said - Are you sure? First of all, BOTH covenants (Abrahamic, New) are Christ' covenants.
Hbr 8:7 refers to these two covenants:
1. The one obtained
2. The one established
The law isn't included in the verse, and the Abrahamic Covenant is (the obtained). Notice the context- We have the law with it's pattern and being a shadow of heavenly things in 8:1-5. "BUT NOW" comes what Christ has "OBTAINED", and ALSO that which was "ESTABLISHED". V. 6 changes the context from the law into the two covenants of grace; the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant. Therefore, the context of v. 13 is in regards to these two covenants.


However, in saying this I am aware that the context of the book is a comparison of the law to the New Covenant, as it is written about the Hebrews, the only ones with the law and the New Covenant. However, in this instance the writer qualifies that he's speaking of the two covenants of grace; the one OBTAINED, and also the one ESTABLISHED.

I regret to say you have co-mingled passages and contexts here that have resulted in errant thinking. Let’s deal directly with the passage to avoid any more confusion on your part…

Heb 8:4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are those who offer the gifts according to the law;
Heb 8:5 who serve that which is a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even as Moses is warned of God when he is about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern that was showed thee in the mount.
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a ministry the more excellent, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt; For they continued not in my covenant, And I regarded them not, saith the Lord… ASV

First, didn’t God make the covenant with Abraham?
What blood was shed for the AC ? >>>Scripture please!

Second, you said “1. the one obtained” ??? The verse does not say this! It says in 8:6 that CHRIST has OBTAINED a MINISTRY better (than that of the Levitical priesthood) – not that He obtained a covenant. This CONEXT of ministry goes all the way back to the beginning of Chapter 7 ! (Of course, there was no MINISTRY under the AC !) Please read what the passage says, not what you want it to say.

Verse 4 – Christ could not be a priest on earth because He was not of the tribe of Levi.
Verse5 – Levites “served the copy” (the law/SC) as given to Moses at Sinai.
Verse 6 – Christ has obtained a BETTER ministry than the Levites through a BETTER covenant (NC) enacted on BETTER promises than those of the covenant given to Moses (the SC). It does not say Christ “ obtained” a covenant - lol!
Verse 7 – If “the first” (SC) covenant (there is no other covenant in the perview of the CONTEXT) was “faultless” (in a word – could have saved men) then the second, the better, the NC would not have been needed.
Verse 8 – Finding fault with the Israelites God prophesied through Jeremiah that a NEW covenant would be made – the better one mentioned in verse 6.
Verse 9 – This NEW covenant would not be like the one made at SINAI !

CONTEXT is so important !!!

Third, you said “2. the one established”. This is from chapter 10:9 not chapter 8 !!! You need to pay closer attention.

Heb 10:9 then hath he said, Lo, I am come to do thy will. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Did you establish some connection between the two verses?

Fourth, your remark about verse 13 fails because you have no context to support your statement.

8:13 In that he says, a new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.

From the context of chapter 8, verse 13 sayS… The NEW covenant mediated by Christ on better promises (8:6) and promised BY God (8:8) - made that “first” covenant given (8:5), by Moses (8:4), with “fault” (8:8), given out of Egypt (Sinai)(8:9) OLD !!! There is no question here as to which covenant is which.

The expression “first covenant” is used three times in the book of Hebrews – 8:7, 9:1, and 9:18. The context for 8:7 I have given above. The other two are:

Heb 9:1 Now even a first covenant had ordinances of divine service, and its sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world.

Heb 9:18 Wherefore even the first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood.

You say that the “first” covenant is the Abrahamic Covenant. So prove it!
1.) WHAT are the ordinances and/or divine service, and sanctuary of the AC ???
2.) Where, what time, and with what BLOOD was the AC dedicated or ratified ???

You see, the AC had NONE of these things. But the Covenant given at Sinai did!

Therefore the context is, and the Hebrew writer is speaking of the SC, the OLD covenant when he says “first” covenant.

Fifth, the word “grace” or “covenants of grace” can not be found in chapter 8 of Hebrews. It is not in the context.
- - - - - - - - - -

One more item before I finish today.

Apollos said –
Let me now deal with your verse…
Matthew 5:17 -18

1.) Jesus said He came to fulfill the law and the prophets in verse 17.
2.)In verse 18 Jesus said the Law would stand – until He fullfilled ALL.
3.) Jesus said He had fullfilled ALL. – Luke 24:44.

Ddub said - No, Jesus said He fulfilled all things "CONCERNING ME", meaning those things that specifically addressed HIM. He said something entirely different about the law, even that it will not pass until heaven and earth pass. It's truly obvious that heaven and earth have not passed, wouldn't you agree? Please try again.

Lol – this seems rather disingenuous. What was Jesus talking about in Matthew 5?
Jesus was talking about the law passing away! That’s the topic. Jesus told them that the certainty of the law was such that heaven and earth would pass before the law would… UNTIL… Until what? UNTIL all things be accomplished. This context of the law passing continues in many of the following verses of Matthew 5.

Jesus said He came to fulfill the law and the prophets.
Jesus reminded the disciples of what He had said in Luke 24 – and
Jesus said He had accomplished those things.
Just as Paul said in Galatians 3:24-25 that “the law” was to bring us to Christ.
Christ has come – He accomplished all things to provide salvation through faith.
We are no longer under the tutor – the law.

It appears to me that you are clinging to the law instead of Christ, and changing plain Bible teaching to do so.

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos1

Ddub –
Thanks again for the discussion about covenants. It is of vital importance we know which covenant is for those wanting to be disciples of Christ today.

I couldn't agree with you more.

It appears to me that in most places where the Sinai Covenant (SC) is under discussion in scripture, you automatically default saying the context must be about the Abrahamic Covenant (AC).

Any examples? I believe I only say that when it can be substantiated.

In all kindness, this you are doing in an attempt to maintain the SC for yourself today. Read the passages for what they say, not with an agenda to keep the SC or some part of it alive today for your religious practice.

I, personally, have no need for the law. However, it is very much alive today to many of the Jews. Besides, how can you possibly argue that it's not alive and it's at the very heart of the NC? You don't have an NC without the law. Please explain.

Follow context and do not skew context for the sake of maintaining preconceptions. Your “defaulting” will not harmonize within scripture and will create for you an errant theology. Do not “borrow” characteristics of Christ’s new covenant (NC) and apply them to the AC either. This further obfuscates what is otherwise clear teaching in scripture. Let’s take an even closer look at context previously covered...

No problem. I don't believe I've done any of that, and you cite no examples of such a thing so far. I will state up front that I agree here with you, and if I'm in fact doing such a thing, please confront me and I will respond. I'm just not aware of where you see this.
- - - - - - - - - -
Ddub said - Correct. [Paul was talking about] Two covenants:[Gal. 4:24]
1. The law, the covenant from Sinai
2. Grace by faith to all through Christ under the Abrahamic Covenant.

Paul does mention Abraham and the promise made to him in Galatians 3. But I have already shown, that, while Paul alludes to the AC showing the NC (gospel) coming about because of a promise made to Abraham,...

Huh??? You showed the NC coming about because of the AC? I must've missed that (lol). Could you please repeat that here? I don't believe you've shown any such thing. I believe I would've remembered that.

Paul never compares the AC to the SC or the NC in Galatians 3 or 4. I would think at this point you would want to dig into that passage and attempt to actually prove your point instead of continuing to only assert such.

Paul shows the clear separation of the SC to the AC in Gal 3;
Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law(SC), or by the hearing of faith(AC)?
Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham(AC).

Gal 3:12 And the law(SC) is not of faith(AC): but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
This is a clear comparison of the AC to the SC in Gal 3. To deny that is being something less than truthful I believe. If you see it differently, please clearly explain.

Second, the AC was NEVER a covenant based on “grace by faith” through Christ.

Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that 'God would justify the heathen through faith', preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
These verses show clearly that the AC was grace by faith through Christ. There is no other way to grace but through Christ.

You have said this twice without any scriptural support. You may want to provide scripture – if you have any – for this thought. Please take note that I will be pressing you for specific passages for your assertions. Claims without proof will be pointed out!

With all due respect, I suggest you point elsewhere, as this one is clear as day.

POINT ->>> See Galatians 3:23 - But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

This is true. However, the promise of faith was in the AC, ratified by Christ in Gen 15, and inaugurated by Christ on the cross with His blood (Gal 3:8).

This verse says BEFORE faith in Christ came that the Jews had “no way out” (from sin) under the law. The Jews did not have “faith in Christ”, the “faith” which was “afterwards” revealed – that is, faith in Christ was revealed after the law was given. Therefore, you to explain your statement above how “grace by faith through Christ” was possible under the AC, since the AC came long BEFORE the law, and “the law” came before “faith in Christ” !

Gal 3:17 And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
This verse tells us that Christ CONFIRMED the promise, and the the law which came after, could not annul the promise. The promise was to come about regardless of the law, as the promise was confirmed by Christ through Abraham.

Application: In Galatians 3 & 4, when Paul mentions “faith”, Paul is speaking of “faith in Christ” under the NC - see Gal. 3:22 & 24. The AC can not be the context in the passage as “faith” was revealed AFTER the AC and SC were given.

These verses say no such thing. As a matter of fact, there is no mention of the NC here. But if you're looking for a confirming verse, just read Gal 4:28;
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

This verse confirms that WE are under the same promise as Isaac, and Isaac is under the promise given to his father, Abraham, which is the AC. No doubt about it. Unless of course you'd like to argue that Isaac is under the NC.

(Hmmm, notice “grace” is not mentioned in chapters 3 or 4. But Paul uses the word in Gal 5:4 when telling those that would attempt to be justified by following the law (SC) that they “are fallen from grace”! Attempts to follow “the law” VOID the grace of God – Gal. 2:20 !)

I would argue that being blessed, blessedness, redemption, justification through faith, receiving the Spirit,... ALL of these are tantamount to grace. Do you disagree?

In fact, you may have overlooked that Paul writes in Galatians how the SC (the law):
3:19 - Added UNTIL the “Seed” comes – only for a time, it was temporary in nature.
3:23 – “hemmed in” the Jews from escaping sins.
3:24 – Served a job as a “tutor” (moral guardian) “to bring us” to Christ.
3:25 – Now that faith has come (not before) – no longer under that “tutor” – “the law” served its given purpose and now ceases and is no longer needed - this is Paul’s point here!

Yes, and the SC is not the AC. So I'm not really sure how this is relevant.

The NC based on faith in Christ has come and no one serves under the SC from this point.

OK, now I must call upon you to do what you called upon me to do. Please provide scripture which states that the NC has come.
Concerning the SC, I believe people can serve whatever they like. Some even serve Satan. However, serving anything other than Christ, even serving the law, can bring only death. There are Jews today who serve the law.

Thus Paul continued with the allegories in chapter 4 – the SC (bondage under law) versus the NC (freedom through faith). There is nothing here to question as to which covenants Paul is writing about.

There is no mention at all of the NC. The conversation in chs. 3 & 4 are about Abraham and the AC. So I agree that there is no question as to which covenants Paul is writing about in Gal 3 & 4. It's the AC.
- - - - - - - - - -

A few points to be made about the AC…
Parties: This covenant was made with Abraham.
Provisions: The promise – ALL nations would be blessed through Abraham.
The consummation: The promise was kept with Abraham by sending Christ through which ALL nations (not just the Jews) blessed through Abraham’s seed (Christ).

Agreed.

NEW Covenant: This is how God made possible the blessing of ALL nations – a new covenant based on faith in Christ.
Salvation through faith in Christ is a provision of the NC – not the AC – not the SC.

Incorrect. Gal 3 tells us this is a promise to Abraham, word for word practically with what you just said. The blessing to ALL NATIONS is only made under the AC, and NEVER mentioned along with the NC in the Bible. So SURELY this is a provision of the AC. As a matter of fact, YOU say as much in your statement above. And Gal 3:8 says that it's justification through faith".

The NC – not the AC or the SC – was “ratified” with the BLOOD of Jesus Christ !!!

Agreed. However, the AC was ratified by Christ (Gen 15), and inaugurated by the BLOOD of Christ (Gal 3, Hbr 8:6, 9:12).

Don’t attempt to extend the covenants beyond the original parties or beyond the original provisions.

It seems that you're attempting to do this by claiming that Gentiles are somehow under the NC even though the Bible says no such thing. Also, when you claim that the NC extends to ALL NATIONS, and the Bible does not. Again I call upon you to adhere to your opening statement and list scripture which says that Gentiles are under the NC.
- - - - - - - - - -
Ddub said - Please note that there is NOWHERE in the Bible where Gentiles are included in the New Covenant. Paul in Gal 4 is speaking of a covenant that includes Gentiles.

Can you be this naive about the plan of salvation and the NC ?
Act 11:1 Now the apostles and the brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.

NO NEW COVENANT.

Act 11:18 Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life

NO NEW COVENANT.

Act 13:46 And Paul and Barnabas spake out boldly, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first be spoken to you. Seeing ye thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. ---AND---
Act 18:6 And when they opposed themselves and blasphemed,[Paul] shook out his raiment and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.

NO NEW COVENANT.

Act 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee[Jesus] for a light of the Gentiles, That thou shouldest be for salvation unto the uttermost part of the earth.

NO NEW COVENANT.

Act 13:48 And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

NO NEW COVENANT.

Act 15:3 They therefore, being brought on their way by the church, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

NO NEW COVENANT.

Act 15:7 And when there had been much questioning, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Brethren, ye know that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

NO NEW COVENANT.

Act 15:17 That the residue of men[Jews] may seek after the Lord, And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called…

NO NEW COVENANT.

Act 26:20- [Paul] declared both to them of Damascus first [see Acts 9:19-20] and at Jerusalem [see Acts 9:26] , and throughout all the country of Judaea [see Acts 11:27-30], and also to the Gentiles [see Acts 11:25 thru Acts 28], that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance.
Act 26:23 how that the Christ must suffer, and how that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles.
Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that this salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles: they will also hear.

NO NEW COVENANT.

Rom 15:27 Yea, it hath been their good pleasure; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe it to them also to minister unto them in carnal things

NO NEW COVENANT.

Eph 3:6 to wit, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel…

NO NEW COVENANT.

Gal 3:28 - There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.

NO NEW COVENANT. You have listed NO SCRIPTURE which associates the NC with anything said. None of these scriptures invoke the NC.

Points to be made are:
What the disciples taught (look at Acts 8:4 and connect at Acts 11:19) the Jews, they also taught to the Gentiles – throughout Acts, including Paul.
Paul wrote the Corinthians first from Ephesus (Acts 19) and then again from Macedonia (Acts 20), and it was within this time frame of Acts.

The point here is that NONE of the verses listed say Gentiles are under the NC. The ONLY covenant that connects Jews and Gentiles is the AC. Period. YOU are claiming that Gentiles are connected to, even under, the NC, and the Bible says no such thing.

Paul mentions that it was the NEW covenant (see 1 Cor. 11:23-26 – see especially verse 25 –and- 2 Cor 3:6) that Christ gave His blood for...

OK,

... and that the disciples ministered under.

Incorrect. It says no such thing. "Ministers of", NOT "ministered under". I'll have to refer you to your own advise; "Follow context and do not skew context for the sake of maintaining preconceptions. Your “defaulting” will not harmonize within scripture and will create for you an errant theology."

The New covenant was not just for the Jews.

Scripture?

The Gentiles were “fellow-everything” as the grace of God goes. God made no disctinction as you attempt to make.

I believe the Bible says that Gentiles were fellowheirs, thereby privy to what we've been allotted/assigned. NOT "fellow-everything" as you have claimed outside of the context of the Bible.

continued below...

 

[ddub85]

@Apollos1

I regret to say you have co-mingled passages and contexts here that have resulted in errant thinking. Let’s deal directly with the passage to avoid any more confusion on your part… First, didn’t God make the covenant with Abraham?

Yes He did, but Christ ratified it.

What blood was shed for the AC ? >>>Scripture please!

I just asked YOU this question, and you ignored (missed?) it. I'll be happy to answer it after you do.

Second, you said “1. the one obtained” ??? The verse does not say this! It says in 8:6 that CHRIST has OBTAINED a MINISTRY better (than that of the Levitical priesthood) – not that He obtained a covenant. This CONEXT of ministry goes all the way back to the beginning of Chapter 7 ! (Of course, there was no MINISTRY under the AC !) Please read what the passage says, not what you want it to say.

You're correct, that is what it says. However, I don't believe that changes anything. My point pertains to the fact that he's speaking of two different things.
First, He obtained a better ministry than that of the law. Therefore, this cannot be the law, and is not the better covenant. Second, there is a ministry in the AC because there is grace, redemption, and those who minister this salvation. He "obtained" one, and "established" another.

Verse 4 – Christ could not be a priest on earth because He was not of the tribe of Levi.
Verse5 – Levites “served the copy” (the law/SC) as given to Moses at Sinai.
Verse 6 – Christ has obtained a BETTER ministry than the Levites through a BETTER covenant (NC)...

Once again, you're taking liberty with scripture. It never says a better ministry was obtained "THROUGH" a better covenant, it says the more excellent ministry was "obtained", and also the better covenant was "established". Please, as you have suggested, let's stay in context.

... enacted on BETTER promises than those of the covenant given to Moses (the SC). It does not say Christ “ obtained” a covenant - lol!

The point is that He "obtained" a better ministry, and ALSO He "established" a better covenant. The NC was never "obtained", only "established". This is verified with every mention of the NC in the Bible. NEVER is it said to have been "obtained", or "begun". That's simply not what the Bible says.

Verse 7 – If “the first” (SC) covenant (there is no other covenant in the perview of the CONTEXT) was “faultless” (in a word – could have saved men) then the second, the better, the NC would not have been needed.

The "first" here in v. 7 cannot be the law simply because the Bible says that the law is faultless. That would be a direct contradiction, and surely you don't believe that, do you? So tell me, what do you consider the "first" to be here in v. 7?
And yes, there is another covenant in the perview of the context, the one in which the better ministry was "obtained".

Verse 8 – Finding fault with the Israelites God prophesied through Jeremiah that a NEW covenant would be made – the better one mentioned in verse 6.

Why doesn't God tell us that it has begun?

Verse 9 – This NEW covenant would not be like the one made at SINAI !
CONTEXT is so important !!!

Yes, but it will be exactly like the AC, other than the law. The difference is the law. Yes, context is so important!!! Gentiles don't have the law, and the NC does! Please explain this in context.

Third, you said “2. the one established”. This is from chapter 10:9 not chapter 8 !!! You need to pay closer attention.
Heb 10:9 then hath he said, Lo, I am come to do thy will. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Did you establish some connection between the two verses?

There is no reason to establish a connection between the two, as they have two different contexts. As I told you, Hebrews is a contrast between the SC and NC, as it is written to the Jews. However, in Hbr 8:6, the context is about the covenant in which the better ministry was obtained.
Also, in context, when it says "taketh away", it means to move out of the way.

Fourth, your remark about verse 13 fails because you have no context to support your statement.
8:13 In that he says, a new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.
From the context of chapter 8, verse 13 sayS… The NEW covenant mediated by Christ on better promises (8:6) and promised BY God (8:8) - made that “first” covenant given (8:5), by Moses (8:4), with “fault” (8:8), given out of Egypt (Sinai)(8:9) OLD !!! There is no question here as to which covenant is which.

Only if you totally ignore v. 6 and what has been obtained isn't the SC or NC. Only if you believe the AC was never obtained. Only if you ignore the fact that the law is faultless, and what you're considering the law has fault. Only if you ignore what is being plainly stated by the Bible.

The expression “first covenant” is used three times in the book of Hebrews – 8:7, 9:1, and 9:18. The context for 8:7 I have given above.

Dealt with above.

The other two are:
Heb 9:1 Now even a first covenant had ordinances of divine service, and its sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world.

This "first" obviously doesn't refer to the old covenant. It's clearly speaking aobut the first tabernacle. Just read Hbr 9:6. (See how easy it is to get things out of context?).
Heb 9:18 Wherefore even the first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood.
So here we have three "firsts" with three different meanings.

You say that the “first” covenant is the Abrahamic Covenant. So prove it!

I said the first in v. 13 is not the law, and the obvious proof I gave was that the law isn't waxing old and vanishing away according to Jesus (Mt. 5).
1.) WHAT are the ordinances and/or divine service, and sanctuary of the AC ???
I never made this claim, so why would I verify it?

2.) Where, what time, and with what BLOOD was the AC dedicated or ratified ???

The AC was dedicated/ratified in Gen 15. I already told you that.

You see, the AC had NONE of these things. But the Covenant given at Sinai did!

The AC was dedicated/ratified in Gen 15, and I will answer the blood question after you do so (only fair since you missed that question earlier).

Therefore the context is, and the Hebrew writer is speaking of the SC, the OLD covenant when he says “first” covenant.

Well as you can see, you're INSINUATING a postion based upon information that obviously isn't correct. You must first deal with all of the concerns before professing truth. As you can see, your position on the word "first" isn't correct.

Fifth, the word “grace” or “covenants of grace” can not be found in chapter 8 of Hebrews. It is not in the context.

And this is important because...
- - - - - - - - - -

One more item before I finish today.
Apollos said –
Let me now deal with your verse…
Matthew 5:17 -18
1.) Jesus said He came to fulfill the law and the prophets in verse 17.
2.)In verse 18 Jesus said the Law would stand – until He fullfilled ALL.
3.) Jesus said He had fullfilled ALL. – Luke 24:44.
Ddub said - No, Jesus said He fulfilled all things "CONCERNING ME", meaning those things that specifically addressed HIM. He said something entirely different about the law, even that it will not pass until heaven and earth pass. It's truly obvious that heaven and earth have not passed, wouldn't you agree? Please try again.
Lol – this seems rather disingenuous. What was Jesus talking about in Matthew 5?
Jesus was talking about the law passing away! That’s the topic. Jesus told them that the certainty of the law was such that heaven and earth would pass before the law would… UNTIL… Until what? UNTIL all things be accomplished. This context of the law passing continues in many of the following verses of Matthew 5.
Jesus said He came to fulfill the law and the prophets.
Jesus reminded the disciples of what He had said in Luke 24 – and
Jesus said He had accomplished those things.
Just as Paul said in Galatians 3:24-25 that “the law” was to bring us to Christ.
Christ has come – He accomplished all things to provide salvation through faith.
We are no longer under the tutor – the law.

So... if the law passed, then WHY, under the NC, is Jesus placing it in the hearts and minds of the recipients? You're contradicting yourself! How can you on the one hand say that the law is passed, and on the other hand say we're under a covenant in which the law is at the very center of it? That would be totally and 100% contradictory. I don't know if there's anything like that in the Bible.
Also, could you please explain how Gentiles can have the law in their hearts and minds under the NC, yet not have the law as the Bible claims?

It appears to me that you are clinging to the law instead of Christ, and changing plain Bible teaching to do so.

I'm not clinging to the law at all. The NC is made up of the law. It is the law that is placed into those under the NC.
BUT, the Bible clearly states that we Gentiles DO NOT HAVE THE LAW. So if Gentiles don't have the law, and those under the NC have the law, how can Gentiles possibly be under the NC? Could you please explain that for me?

Christ’s blood “serves” only for redemption, not for ratification.

Then please explain why Hbr 9:18 says a covenant is ratified with blood.

By the way, here are a few questions from my last post you didn't answer;
Then please tell me, whose blood ratified the Abrahamic Covenant? Who is the Mediator of that covenant? When did the Abrahamic Covenant begin? Did it ever begin?
Also, you said redemption is only by the New Covenant. In this verse, we see redemption by the Abrahamic Covenant;
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.
How do you explain this? This is salvation for all nations. So how could your statement possibly be true?

Then please tell me, whose blood ratified the Abrahamic Covenant? Who is the Mediator of that covenant? When did the Abrahamic Covenant begin? Did it ever begin?

On the other hand, if the law and the New Covenant are the Old and New Covenants, then we Gentiles are totally left out. We're not grafted into the law! We don't have the law! Both of these covenants have the law! Could you somehow please explain this?

Let me just say that I truly appreciate your honesty and sincerity in your responses. I'm thoroughly enjoying our discussion. I hope you are also.

God Bless!

 

[mercutio1562]

interesting.

 

[Apollos1]

Ddub, thanks again for the opportunity to discuss matters pertaining to covenants.

Apollos said - It appears to me that in most places where the Sinai Covenant (SC) is under discussion in scripture, you automatically default saying the context must be about the Abrahamic Covenant (AC). [AC = Abrahamic Covenant / SC = Sinai Covenant / NC – New Covenant.]

Ddub said - Any examples? I believe I only say that when it can be substantiated.

I believe this has happened in our discussion at Galatians 3 & 4, as well as Hebrews 7,8,9, & 10. I say in all of these references the SC is compared and/or contrasted with the NC, with the AC never being contrasted.

Ddub said - I, personally, have no need for the law.

I see that as a good thing.No one today has responsibility to keep that covenant.

Ddub said - However, it is very much alive today to many of the Jews.

The law was given only to the Jews but not even they should observe it today as God desires to establish a NEW covenant with them as well as all nations.

Ddub said - Besides, how can you possibly argue that it's not alive and it's at the very heart of the NC?

I am not certain I understand this remark. But Matt.5:18, 2Cor3, Romans 7, and Heb 1-13 among other passages tell us that the law has been abrograted!

Ddub said - You don't have an NC without the law. Please explain.

Of course we do. Being a NEW covenant, it stands with it own with a better mediator, promises, ministry, sacrifices, and provisions. The NC has no need of, is not dependent upon, and is separate from that “old” covenant given at Sinai to the Jews only. See Hebrews 1-13.
- - - - - - - - - -

Ddub said - You showed the NC coming about because of the AC? I must've missed that (lol). Could you please repeat that here?
Gal. 3:8 tells us all nations of the world were to be blessed through Abraham. 3:14 tells us that this blessing comes upon the Gentiles “in Christ”. By blessing all nations “in Christ” which is accomplished through the NC (more on this below), God at the same time fulfilled the covenant with Abraham.

Ddub said - Paul shows the clear separation of the SC to the AC in Gal 3;
Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law(SC), or by the hearing of faith(AC)?
Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham(AC).
Gal 3:12 And the law(SC) is not of faith(AC): but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
This is a clear comparison of the AC to the SC in Gal 3. To deny that is being something less than truthful I believe. If you see it differently, please clearly explain.

Your explanation violates the context. At this point you are merely presuming that “hearing of faith” is part of the AC and then blindly assert what you believe.
What evidence did you present to show that the “hearing of faith” makes reference to the AC? None.
I wish that you had “dug in” as I had asked you to and attempted to establish your assertion that Paul is speaking in reference to the AC. But you chose rather to quote the scripture and just assert that Paul is speaking about the AC. You need to show from the context that the “hearing of faith” is making reference to the AC as you want to claim.

Now I ask…

WHAT was Paul preaching to the Galatians ? (see Galatians 1:23).
Faith in Christ -OR- faith in Abraham? (How can you miss the context of the entire book?)

Within the context of the book of Galatians, the word “faith” is used 22 times. I checked and EVERY time this word is used it is in the context of “faith” in Christ – not Abraham or the covenant made with Abraham. For example:

Galatians 2:20 - I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me. Then in a few verses Paul says…

Galatians 3:2 - This only would I learn from you. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Were the Galatians to put their faith in Christ… or Abraham? It is that simple.
And if it is “in Christ” we are “sons of God” (3:26) through what arrangement is this accomplished? The AC had no such provisions.
Was the SPIRIT received under the covenant made with Abraham? Oh no!
Was “FAITH” in Christ known at the time of Abraham? Oh no!
You have agreed that “faith” came later, even AFTER the law was given. So the “hearing of faith” in Galatians 3 is something other than what pertains to the AC.
- - - - - - - - - -

Apollos said - Second, the AC was NEVER a covenant based on “grace by faith” through Christ

Ddub said - Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that 'God would justify the heathen through faith', preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
These verses show clearly that the AC was grace by faith through Christ. There is no other way to grace but through Christ.
Again, you quote a scripture then give only assertion to support your claim.
And oddly enough, GRACE is never mentioned in any of these verses – so I see you have no problem with INsertion or assertion. Let’s revisit these verses…

Verse 7 – They which are of FAITH – would that be faith in Christ or Abraham? You must be Christ’s before you are the seed of Abraham – see 3:29.

Verse 8 – Preached the “gospel”… Is there a “gospel” of Abraham or is it the gospel of Christ? ALL nations are blessed “in CHRIST” – not Abraham.

Verse 9 – They which be of FAITH in Christ… or in Abraham - are blessed?

You state above that grace is obtained only through CHRIST, yet you claim Paul is talking about the covenant with Abraham which came long before that grace appeared.

When are you going to support your position Ddub?
- - - - - - - - - -

Apollos said - POINT ->>> See Galatians 3:23 - But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
[The AC came before the SC, the SC came before FAITH in Christ came…]

Ddub said - This is true. However, the promise of faith was in the AC, ratified by Christ in Gen 15, and inaugurated by Christ on the cross with His blood (Gal 3:8).

Why do you contradict yourself? You said the AC was based on “grace through faith” in your last post. Now you want to mitigate what you said by saying here that the “promise of faith” was in the AC. Which is it Ddub? Paul said faith did not come UNTIL Christ came therefore the AC was not a covenant based on faith in Christ! In reality, the AC based based only upon a promise of blessing.

Second, Genesis 15 says NOTHING about the AC being “ratified”, nevertheless being “ratified” by Christ.

Third, Gal. 3:8 says NOTHING about inauguration, the cross, or the blood of Christ. It tells us the gospel (glad tidings) of all nations being blessed was preached to Abraham. Once again you are reading what is not there to read.

Fourth, there was no “promise of faith” in the AC. All nations being blessed through Abraham’s seed was promised – and no man knew how this would be accomplished until after Christ came.
- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - -
continued below...

 

[Apollos1]

Part #2.

Apollos said - This verse says BEFORE faith in Christ came… The Jews did not have “faith in Christ”, the “faith” which was “afterwards” revealed – that is, faith in Christ was revealed after the law was given. Therefore, you need to explain your statement above how “grace by faith through Christ” was possible under the AC, since the AC came long BEFORE the law, and “the law” came before “faith in Christ” !

Ddub relied - Gal 3:17 And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
This verse tells us that Christ CONFIRMED the promise, and the the law which came after, could not annul the promise. The promise was to come about regardless of the law, as the promise was confirmed by Christ through Abraham.

The promise was given by God, and Paul tells us here that this was “in Christ”, meaning God would accomplish the blessing “in Christ” – which was not known for another 1900 years. When it was made possible for “all nations to be blessed” through faith in Christ through the NC, the promise of the AC was culminated.

We are blessed today by “faith in Christ”, which is accomplished through His NC that He ratified and shed His blood for.
- - - - - - - - -

Apollos said -Application: In Galatians 3 & 4, when Paul mentions “faith”, Paul is speaking of “faith in Christ” under the NC - see Gal. 3:22 & 24. The AC can not be the context in the passage as “faith” was revealed AFTER the AC and SC were given.

Ddub said - These verses say no such thing. As a matter of fact, there is no mention of the NC here. But if you're looking for a confirming verse, just read Gal 4:28;
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

This verse confirms that WE are under the same promise as Isaac, and Isaac is under the promise given to his father, Abraham, which is the AC. No doubt about it. Unless of course you'd like to argue that Isaac is under the NC.

You missed Paul’s point at 4:28. Did you not say that the “promise” was through “faith in Christ” ? Paul does! Therefore Isaac could NOT have been under the SAME promise because Christ had not come yet. Isaac was a child of promise (of physical inheritance) because he was the physical seed of Abraham. Christians are “children of promise” (to inherit eternal life) through the promise accomplished in Christ – as spiritual children.

Issac’s promise came through the physical – the Christian’s promise comes through the spiritual, ei. faith in Christ. Issac had no opportunity to have faith in Christ. It appears that it is YOU that would have us believe Issac is under the NC – lol !
- - - - - - - - - -

Apollos said - (Hmmm, notice “grace” is not mentioned in chapters 3 or 4. But Paul uses the word in Gal 5:4 when telling those that would attempt to be justified by following the law (SC) that they “are fallen from grace”! Attempts to follow “the law” VOID the grace of God – Gal. 2:20 !)

Ddub said - I would argue that being blessed, blessedness, redemption, justification through faith, receiving the Spirit,... ALL of these are tantamount to grace. Do you disagree?

This is not the point is it? You are presenting ideas OUTSIDE of the CONTEXT of this passage (Gal. 3) about “grace by faith”. I was showing the only place Paul uses the word “grace” was in Gal. 5:4 where he shows that attempts to follow “the law” VOIDS the grace of God – the two are incompatible. Got the point now?
- - -
Apollos said -In fact, you may have overlooked that Paul writes in Galatians how the SC (the law):
3:19 - Added UNTIL the “Seed” comes – only for a time, it was temporary in nature.
3:23 – “hemmed in” the Jews from escaping sins.
3:24 – Served a job as a “tutor” (moral guardian) “to bring us” to Christ.
3:25 – Now that faith has come (not before) – no longer under that “tutor” – “the law” served its given purpose and now ceases and is no longer needed - this is Paul’s point here!

Ddub said - Yes, and the SC is not the AC. So I'm not really sure how this is relevant.

It is relevant to show that the SC is no longerauthoritative for anyone today and that something else not seen before called “faith” took its place.
- - - - - - - - - -

Apollos said - The NC – not the AC or the SC – was “ratified” with the BLOOD of Jesus Christ !!!

Ddub said - Agreed. However, the AC was ratified by Christ (Gen 15), and inaugurated by the BLOOD of Christ (Gal 3, Hbr 8:6, 9:12).

Genesis 15 does not say that Christ ratified anything. You are yet to show HOW and where was the AC “ratified” by Christ ? This is just more of your assertion.
- - - - - - - - - -


Ddub said - Please note that there is NOWHERE in the Bible where Gentiles are included in the New Covenant. Paul in Gal 4 is speaking of a covenant that includes Gentiles.

You treated all of the passages I gave last time quite superficially. So let’s take this comment of yours a step further. I am hoping you can offer more substance this time.
From my last post I quoted… Acts 11:1,18, 13:46,47,48, 15:3,7,17, 18:6, to include:

Act 26:20- [Paul] declared both to them of Damascus first [see Acts 9:19-20] and at Jerusalem [see Acts 9:26] , and throughout all the country of Judaea [see Acts 11:27-30], and also to the Gentiles [see Acts 11:25 thru Acts 28], that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance.
-If the Gentiles are under a different covenant than the Jews, how could Paul teach the Gentiles and the Jews the SAME thing for this 20 year period ???

Act 26:23 how that the Christ must suffer, and how that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles.
Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that this salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles: they will also hear.
-The Gentiles and Jews received the SAME salvation. How can this be true if they are saved by different covenants?


Rom 15:27 Yea, it hath been their good pleasure; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, they owe it to them also to minister unto them in carnal things…
What “spiritual things” did the Gentiles share with the Gentiles? HOW was such possible if they were being blessed through separate covenants?

Gal 3:28 - There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.
All are ONE in Christ Jesus? Your “dual” covenant belief (Gentiles under the AC and Jews under the NC) violates this verse. Do you believe in “religious” segregation?

Eph 3:6 - to wit, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel…

Fellow heirs - Both Jew and Gentile receive/share of the SAME inheritence. Oh my!
Fellow members of the body. There is only ONE body and both Jews and Gentiles are in that body. The only way into that body is by Christ.
Fellow partakers… ofTHE PROMISE in Christ Jesus!!!!! Jew and Gentile are “fellow partakers” of the promise.
So I was right – the Gentiles are “fellow-everything” with the Jews. This also explains why Paul taught the Gentiles the SAME thing he taught the Jews, huh?
- - - - - - - - - -

Apollos said - Paul mentions that it was the NEW covenant (… 2 Cor 3:6)… …that the disciples ministered under.

Ddub said - Incorrect. It says no such thing. "Ministers of", NOT "ministered under".

It appears you attempt to make a distinction where there is no difference.

2 Corinthians 3:6 – “…[God] also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit…”

So you are saying that Paul was a minister OF the NEW covenant, but Paul did not minister UNDER that New covenant, right? This is just silly - lol! Do you have any more quibbles?
- - - - - - - - - -
continued.....

 

[Apollos1]

Part #3.

Apollos said - …you said “1. the one obtained” ??? The verse does not say this! It says in 8:6 that CHRIST has OBTAINED a MINISTRY better (than that of the Levitical priesthood) – not that He obtained a covenant. This CONEXT of ministry goes all the way back to the beginning of Chapter 7 ! (Of course, there was no MINISTRY under the AC !)

Ddub said - You're correct, that is what it says. However, I don't believe that changes anything. My point pertains to the fact that he's speaking of two different things.

It changes everything you said! First you attempted to establish a context between Hebrews 8:6 and 10:9 saying both spoke of covenants and that one was the AC and the other the SC. And you want to say it doesn’t change anything??? Lol!

Everything you said in reference to these two contextually unrelated passages was wrong, and you application as to which covenant Hebrews 10:9 spoke of was wrong! Yes, it changes all of that.

Hebrews 10:9 – “[Jesus] taketh away the first, that he may establish the second…”

The “first”, from the context, is the SC. The “second”, by context, is the NC.

This “ministry” of Christ also shows that “the law” had to be abrogated and another law instituted for Christ both to minister and become a priest. IF the law were still in effect Christ could NOT do either as the law (SC) would prohibit this because Christ was not a Levite – He was of the tribe of Judah. To this point the Hebrew writer said

Hebrews 7:12 - For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The SC was vanishing! The AC made no such provision for ministry. Neither the AC or the SC made such provisons for Christ to serve in the capacity He needed to in order to be our Saviour! Therefore no more AC and no more SC.
- - -


Ddub said - First, He obtained a better ministry than that of the law. Therefore, this cannot be the law, and is not the better covenant.

Hebrews 8:6 - But now hath he obtained a ministry the more excellent, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises.

It says it IS the “better covenant”. Just read what it says above so I can go on…

Ddub said - Second, there is a ministry in the AC because there is grace, redemption, and those who minister this salvation. He "obtained" one, and "established" another.

There is? WHERE is it? You assume “grace, redemption, and those who minister” was a part of the AC. NOW is the time to prove your assertions.
As for that “obtained/established” mess you created for yourself – are you now saying this pertains to two different ministries and not covenants? Will you attempt to prove this as well? Lol!

Ddub said - Once again, you're taking liberty with scripture. It never says a better ministry was obtained "THROUGH" a better covenant, it says the more excellent ministry was "obtained", and also the better covenant was "established".

I have not taken any liberty at all. Just read Hebrews 8:6… again.

Ddub said - The point is that He "obtained" a better ministry, and ALSO He "established" a better covenant. The NC was never "obtained", only "established". This is verified with every mention of the NC in the Bible. NEVER is it said to have been "obtained", or "begun". That's simply not what the Bible says.

Let’s check and see if you are right…
Hebrews 9:14 – “… how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

This says Christ IS the mediator of a NEW covenant – not that He is going to be!

Hebrews 12:24says Christ IS the mediator of a NEW covenant and you can not mediate something that does not exist.

Christ shed His blood to ratify that covenant – Heb. 9:12-28. Cf. 1 Cor. 11:25.
The promise is available ONLY through “faith in Christ” – see Gal. 3:22.
- - -

Apollos said –[Hebrews 8] Verse 7 – If “the first” (SC) covenant (there is no other covenant in the perview of the CONTEXT) was “faultless” (in a word – could have saved men) then the second, the better, the NC would not have been needed.

Ddub said - The "first" here in v. 7 cannot be the law simply because the Bible says that the law is faultless. That would be a direct contradiction, and surely you don't believe that, do you? So tell me, what do you consider the "first" to be here in v. 7?

What? I said the “first” was the SC – that is the context. You say it is not the SC and you claim the NC has not come yet, so you must think this is the AC, because it is the only one you have left. This leaves you with quite a problem, huh? Or is there some mysterious FOURTH covenant that you have not shared with me yet???

But the bigger problem you have is not understanding how “fault” is used here. This is not saying the SC had any faults, but as compared to the NC it was not “faultless” because the SC could not save men. The word is used as a comparative quality. This should clear a lot of things up for you.

Ddub said - And yes, there is another covenant in the perview of the context, the one in which the better ministry was "obtained".

LOL ! You have already said that “obtained” pertained to the MINISTRY of Christ (see above) and not to a covenant. When will you be consistent? But as for proving which is the “first”, see verses 4 & 5 and note the CONTEXT = “those who offer gifts according to the law”…. AND about Moses building the tabernacle according to the pattern as shown in the mount. The “first” by CONTEXT is the Sinai covenant, unless you know of some other “mount” we should be concerned with here.
- - -

Apollos said - Verse 8 – Finding fault with the Israelites God prophesied through Jeremiah that a NEW covenant would be made – the better one mentioned in verse 6.

Ddub said - Why doesn't God tell us that it has begun?

God does! As shown above – see Hebrews 9:14 and 12:24.

Apollos said - Verse 9 – This NEW covenant would not be like the one made at SINAI !
CONTEXT is so important !!!

Ddub asserted - Yes, but it will be exactly like the AC, other than the law.

Assertion alert!!! Scripture please!
- - -

Apollos said - Fourth, your remark about verse 13 fails because you have no context to support your statement.
8:13 - In that he says, a new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.
From the context of chapter 8, verse 13 sayS… The NEW covenant mediated by Christ on better promises (8:6) and promised BY God (8:8) - made that “first” covenant given (8:5), by Moses (8:4), with “fault” (8:8), given out of Egypt (Sinai)(8:9) OLD !!! There is no question here as to which covenant is which.

Ddub said - Only if you totally ignore v. 6 and what has been obtained isn't the SC or NC. Only if you believe the AC was never obtained. Only if you ignore the fact that the law is faultless, and what you're considering the law has fault. Only if you ignore what is being plainly stated by the Bible.

Are you serious? You stated (see above) that WHAT was OBTAINED was a MINISTRY!!!
YOU need to prove that the AC is somewhere in the CONTEXT of Hebrews 8. I have shown that it is NOT! You love to use the word, but you never use CONTEXT to prove anything. It appears you have chosen to ignore CONTEXT and what you say as well.
- - - - - - - - - -
continued...

 

[Apollos1]

Final...

Apollos said –
Matthew 5:17 -18
1.) Jesus said He came to fulfill the law and the prophets in verse 17.
2.)In verse 18 Jesus said the Law would stand – until He fullfilled ALL.
3.) Jesus said He had fullfilled ALL. – Luke 24:44.
Ddub said - No, Jesus said He fulfilled all things "CONCERNING ME", meaning those things that specifically addressed HIM. He said something entirely different about the law, even that it will not pass until heaven and earth pass. It's truly obvious that heaven and earth have not passed, wouldn't you agree? Please try again.
Lol – this seems rather disingenuous. What was Jesus talking about in Matthew 5?
Jesus was talking about the law passing away! That’s the topic. Jesus told them that the certainty of the law was such that heaven and earth would pass before the law would… UNTIL… Until what? UNTIL all things be accomplished. This context of the law passing continues in many of the following verses of Matthew 5.
Jesus said He came to fulfill the law and the prophets.
Jesus reminded the disciples of what He had said in Luke 24 – and
Jesus said He had accomplished those things.
Just as Paul said in Galatians 3:24-25 that “the law” was to bring us to Christ.
Christ has come – He accomplished all things to provide salvation through faith.
We are no longer under the tutor – the law.

Ddub said - So... if the law passed, then WHY, under the NC, is Jesus placing it in the hearts and minds of the recipients?

Because Christ’s law is a “spiritual” law given by the HS that works from the hearts and minds of the disciples that follow Christ. It is “written on the heart” – not on tablets of stone.
- - -

Ddub - Also, could you please explain how Gentiles can have the law in their hearts and minds under the NC, yet not have the law as the Bible claims?

The Jews and Gentiles do not answer to “the law” now. “Faith in Christ” has abrogated that law. They have the “law of Christ” which is something entirely different (not like the law given at Sinai – Heb 8:9). Your misunderstanding and mis-use of the term “the law” has caused you to err.

Paul put it this way…

Romans 6:17 – “But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered…”
- - - - - - - - - -

Then please tell me, whose blood ratified the Abrahamic Covenant?
I don’t know of any scripture that say the AC was ratified by blood. Do you?

Who is the Mediator of that [AC] covenant?
The AC was given by God directly to Abraham. It must be God.

When did the Abrahamic Covenant begin? Did it ever begin?
The promise was made about 1921 BC. When it became possible for all nations to be blessed (this is the only provision of the promise), the promise/covenant was culminated. Today all nations are blessed through the NC made possible by Christ’s death on the cross. The NC fulfills the promise of blessing made in the AC.

Also, you said redemption is only by the New Covenant. In this verse, we see redemption by the Abrahamic Covenant;
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.
The “gospel” is God planned to save man through “faith in Christ” before the foundation of the world. No redemption was possible BEFORE Christ. The AC promised a blessing. The NC gives us the blessing that was promised.

On the other hand, if the law and the New Covenant are the Old and New Covenants, then we Gentiles are totally left out. We're not grafted into the law!

“Grafted into the law”??? Where does this idea come from ???
As for the Gentiles being left out – see above.

I thank you in advance for your patient review of the material I have presented.

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos

The AC promised a blessing - nothing else.

That's incorrect. There are PROMISES (plural) in the AC (Gen 12:1-3).
But what is this "blessing" (singular)? It is salvation THROUGH the covenant with Abraham, just as Paul states in Gal 3:8. Paul clearly states that the scripture of the blessing given to Abraham, which is the AC, is the covenant of justification of ALL NATIONS (Jews and Gentiles).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ddub, thanks again for the opportunity to discuss matters pertaining to covenants.

Thank you for your thoughtful and straight-forward answers.

I believe this has happened in our discussion at Galatians 3 & 4, as well as Hebrews 7,8,9, & 10. I say in all of these references the SC is compared and/or contrasted with the NC, with the AC never being contrasted.

In Gal 3, the AC isn't only referenced, it is at the heart and soul of the chapter. Abraham and his covenant is breathed all through it!!! Are you denying that fact??? To prove it to you, I would almost have to list the entire chapter!!! Are you kiddin' me???
Ddub said - I, personally, have no need for the law.

I see that as a good thing.No one today has responsibility to keep that covenant.

You say that, then say we're under the NC, which has the law. That is contradictory. If you're under the NC, then you must also be under the law.

The law was given only to the Jews but not even they should observe it today...

Up to this point, we agree.

... as God desires to establish a NEW covenant with them as well as all nations.

First, the Bible says NOWHERE that God desires to establish the NC with all nations. My Bible says Israel and Judah. NOWHERE in the Bible are all nations included. You are "asserting", aren't you? If not, please list the scripture.
Second, the NC has the law, and all nations do not. Only Israel and Judah, those promised the NC, have the law. But I see you have a "new law" that God is using in the NC. Could you please list scripture for the "new law", and where God says He's using it under the NC? And apparently ALL are under this law, both Jew and Gentile. Or are you "asserting" again?
Ddub said - Besides, how can you possibly argue that it's not alive and it's at the very heart of the NC?

I am not certain I understand this remark.

Allow me to be more clear. You stated that the law has been "abrogated" and we're under the NC. Yet, the Bible says that the law is a part of the NC. So unless you have scripture stating that there is a different law in the NC than the one Israel and Judah were given, then,...

But Matt.5:18, 2Cor3, Romans 7, and Heb 1-13 among other passages tell us that the law has been abrograted!

Talk about "assertion"!!! NONE of these scriptures say the law has been abrogated. If I'm wrong, please list where these scriptures say such a thing. Also, JESUS CHRIST, the Author, says the law won't pass until heaven and earth pass. Did Jesus change His mind, and contradict Himself? More on this later.
------------------------------------
Ddub said - You don't have an NC without the law. Please explain.

Of course we do.

GOD, re: the NC; "I will put my LAWS into their mind, and write them in their hearts". Again, this is GOD speaking. But you say of course we have an NC without the law. Please explain. Also, you know that Paul is quoting Jeremiah, so whatever law that was spoken of there, is being spoken of here.

Being a NEW covenant, it stands with it own with a better mediator, promises, ministry, sacrifices, and provisions. The NC has no need of, is not dependent upon, and is separate from that “old” covenant given at Sinai to the Jews only. See Hebrews 1-13.

If the NC has no need of the law, then why did God promise it? And if the NC is for someone other than the Jews, what scripture says so? There are NO SCRIPTURES in the Bible which say the NC is for anyone other than the Jews. NONE. If I'm wrong, please list the scripture(s).
- - - - - - - - - -

Your explanation violates the context. At this point you are merely presuming that “hearing of faith” is part of the AC and then blindly assert what you believe.

I assert no such thing. PAUL does the asserting.
Gal 3:2,8 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? ... And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Paul "asserts" that the hearing of faith to all nations is from the promise made to Abraham, which is the AC.

What evidence did you present to show that the “hearing of faith” makes reference to the AC? None.

You're kidding, right? Paul says that this hearing of faith to all nations comes from the AC, the promise to Abraham. Plain, simple, undeniable.

I wish that you had “dug in” as I had asked you to and attempted to establish your assertion that Paul is speaking in reference to the AC.

PAUL tells us he's speaking of the AC. What more could there possibly be?

But you chose rather to quote the scripture and just assert that Paul is speaking about the AC. You need to show from the context that the “hearing of faith” is making reference to the AC as you want to claim.

Paul is speaking about the AC ONLY in Gal 3-8. Paul links faith to the AC as clearly as it can be done. There is no link here to the NC.

Now I ask…
WHAT was Paul preaching to the Galatians ? (see Galatians 1:23).
Faith in Christ -OR- faith in Abraham? (How can you miss the context of the entire book?)

WHAT???!!!??? Apollos, faith in the AC is faith in Christ! That's what Paul is telling you! It is that promise which brings justification through faith, according to Paul. The AC is about Christ! How could you possibly miss that? Do you think Abraham's seed is of the NC only too?

Within the context of the book of Galatians, the word “faith” is used 22 times. I checked and EVERY time this word is used it is in the context of “faith” in Christ – not Abraham or the covenant made with Abraham. For example:

Are you really trying to disassociate Abraham with faith in Christ? Here's a verse with all that you deny;
Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through JESUS CHRIST; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through FAITH.
Abraham's seed is Christ. How does that happen? Through Abraham's covenant with Christ. Abraham sat with Christ, spoke with Christ, supped with Christ. You simply CANNOT disconnect Abraham and Christ.

Galatians 2:20, 3:2 Were the Galatians to put their faith in Christ… or Abraham? It is that simple.

Put faith in Abraham? Why would anyone do that? That isn't even the nature of our discussion (is it?). Our faith is in Christ. What is in question here is if Jesus actually is behind the AC promise He gave, ratified, and obtained, THROUGH Abraham.

And if it is “in Christ” we are “sons of God” (3:26) through what arrangement is this accomplished? The AC had no such provisions.

That would be incorrect. The AC is that provision according to the Bible, which includes all nations.
Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Was the SPIRIT received under the covenant made with Abraham? Oh no!

Oh yes! The blessing of the Spirit came through the promise to Abraham, no question. Again, you're incorrect. Gal 3:14

Was “FAITH” in Christ known at the time of Abraham? Oh no!

Jhn 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad.
Abraham surely had faith in Christ. There's no such thing as a time before Christ. But that's really not what we're discussing here, is it? Paul is attempting to tell you in Gal 3 that faith was promised to the Gentiles THROUGH Abraham at that time. That promise was MADE. But you refuse to hear him.

You have agreed that “faith” came later, even AFTER the law was given. So the “hearing of faith” in Galatians 3 is something other than what pertains to the AC.

Ludicrous (lol). The promise came BEFORE the law. Listen to Paul very carefully;
Gal 3:8,14 And the scripture, foreseeing that 'God would justify the heathen through faith', preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed... That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
I don't possess the ability to refute you any stronger than that. That promise was MADE.
- - - - - - - - - -

Again, you quote a scripture then give only assertion to support your claim.

Gal 3:14 says the blessing of Abraham brought faith through Christ. What more do you want? This is much more than assertion. And I hope you're not arguing that faith through Christ isn't grace.

And oddly enough, GRACE is never mentioned in any of these verses – so I see you have no problem with INsertion or assertion. Let’s revisit these verses…

So you are stating that faith through Christ isn't grace. But I don't want to assume, so please state clearly. Are you arguing that faith through Christ isn't grace?

Verse 7 – They which are of FAITH – would that be faith in Christ or Abraham? You must be Christ’s before you are the seed of Abraham – see 3:29.

Agreed. And maybe I assume too much, because I'm obviously speaking of faith in Christ. The only point I'm arguing here is that this faith in Christ came THROUGH the promise to Abraham, and not through the NC, as the NC is to the Jews, and hasn't come yet (in an attempt to define our conversation. I assumed we agreed on faith in Christ only).
**

You state above that grace is obtained only through CHRIST, yet you claim Paul is talking about the covenant with Abraham which came long before that grace appeared.
When are you going to support your position Ddub?

I've been supporting my position, but you aren't listening. Again... I'm arguing that faith in Christ came THROUGH the AC according to Paul. He makes it crystal clear throughout Gal 3, and vv. 8 & 14 are undeniable, especially in context with the rest of the chapter. The promise was mad BEFORE the law, BEFORE Christ came. The promise is of the AC!
The question is, when will you support your position WITH SCRIPTURE that the NC came, that we're presently under it, that it has a "new law", that it includes Gentiles,... (need I continue?).
- - - - - - - - - -

Why do you contradict yourself? You said the AC was based on “grace through faith” in your last post.

That's what Paul says in Gal 3.
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
You seem to be hung up on what came first. Just read Gal 3:17. The promise was MADE first, and the law, nor anything else, could disannul it. Case closed.
The blessing of Abraham (AC) is Gentiles receiving through Christ the Holy Spirit through faith, which is grace. Tell me, in connection to the above verses, how you disagree with this?

Now you want to mitigate what you said by saying here that the “promise of faith” was in the AC. Which is it Ddub? Paul said faith did not come UNTIL Christ came therefore the AC was not a covenant based on faith in Christ! In reality, the AC based based only upon a promise of blessing.

Apollos, the promise of faith was MADE BEFORE Christ came to Abraham. That promise was MADE by Christ (Gen. 12:3), ratified by Christ (Gen. 15), and obtained by Christ (Gal 3:9). The promise was written into the AC.
Now, can you show me in scripture where the NC has been obtained? Can you show me in scripture where it is given to all nations? Can you show me in scripture where there is a new law associated with it?
Also, you're basically saying that the AC was promised, but never fulfilled. You're saying it was bypassed. Sorry, but that's just not biblical. Can you explain how you come to this conclusion?

Second, Genesis 15 says NOTHING about the AC being “ratified”, nevertheless being “ratified” by Christ.

Gen 15:17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.
I contend that this burning lamp is Christ confirming the AC. That's why, no matter what the actions of Abraham were from that point on, the covenant could not be disannuled because the one who "ratified" this covenant was Christ, and therefore it was His responsibility to see it fulfilled.
To confirm this point as scripture always confirms scripture, Paul states,
Gal 3:17 And this I say, [that] the covenant, that was CONFIRMED before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
This is very solid proof that the AC was confirmed IN CHRIST, as it was the AC which was 430 years before the law. It can be NO OTHER COVENANT.

Third, Gal. 3:8 says NOTHING about inauguration, the cross, or the blood of Christ. It tells us the gospel (glad tidings) of all nations being blessed was preached to Abraham. Once again you are reading what is not there to read.

Gal 3:9 confirms the AC was inaugurated;
Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
In terms of the cross and the blood of Christ, that is how God brought about faith. I wouldn't even think that would be a point of contention. But if they are, then just read Gal 3:20, as Christ is the Mediator of the AC.

Fourth, there was no “promise of faith” in the AC. All nations being blessed through Abraham’s seed was promised – and no man knew how this would be accomplished until after Christ came.

Again, according to Paul, the "promise of faith" was made to Abraham (AC, Gal 3:8). The promise wasn't FULFILLED until after Christ came. You must recognize the difference. God doesn't make a promise and not fulfill it. The promise was MADE and fulfilled under the AC.

continued below...

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos

The NC is for all nations and promises redemption through "faith in Christ".

This is truly "assertion", as you like to say. There are NO SCRIPTURES which say the NC is for all nations. NONE, NOT ONE. If I'm wrong, please list the scripture(s). This is the gospel according to Apollos, NOT the Bible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part #2.

The promise was given by God, and Paul tells us here that this was “in Christ”, meaning God would accomplish the blessing “in Christ” – which was not known for another 1900 years. When it was made possible for “all nations to be blessed” through faith in Christ through the NC, the promise of the AC was culminated.

There are a couple of MAJOR problems with what you say here. First,there are NO SCRIPTURES which say all nations are to be blessed through the NC.
Second, there are NO SCRIPTURES which say the AC was culminated. And please keep in mind that scripture does say that the AC IS NOT the law, as the law came 430 yrs. later.
But to directly address your original question, the AC was "ratified" 1900 yrs. or so earlier, and "inaugurated" when Christ died on the cross. If we are to use your logic, that would mean that the NC began when Jeremiah spoke of it. That just doesn't work.

We are blessed today by “faith in Christ”, which is accomplished through His NC that He ratified and shed His blood for.

You've created this "gospel" on your own. This isn't scriptural. There are NO SCRIPTURES which state that Christ "accomplished" the NC, or that He brought faith through the NC. At the same time, you're denying the clear scriptures which state it came through the AC.
- - - - - - - - -

You missed Paul’s point at 4:28. Did you not say that the “promise” was through “faith in Christ” ? Paul does! Therefore Isaac could NOT have been under the SAME promise because Christ had not come yet.

You are relying on your own logic, and straying away from what the Bible says. Paul SAYS we're under the same promise as Isaac. Therefore, your logic, or "assertions" are irrelevant and unnecessary on the subject. Isaac was after the promise was MADE, and after it was RATIFIED, and therefore could be under the promise. If not, how could those previous to Christ on the cross be saved?
Besides, are you arguing that Isaac is under the NC? It was NOT MADE before Isaac. It was surely not ratified before Isaac.

Isaac was a child of promise (of physical inheritance) because he was the physical seed of Abraham. Christians are “children of promise” (to inherit eternal life) through the promise accomplished in Christ – as spiritual children.

Being of physical inheritance will not make one a seed of Abraham. Without spiritual inheritance, there is no connection to Christ. Isaac would have to be of spiritual inheritance under Christ. Therefore, your reasoning (assertion) will not suffice.

Issac’s promise came through the physical – the Christian’s promise comes through the spiritual, ei. faith in Christ. Issac had no opportunity to have faith in Christ. It appears that it is YOU that would have us believe Issac is under the NC – lol !

Jhn 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad.
Abraham, as did Isaac, had opportunity THROUGH THE PROMISE given to Abraham, which is the AC. The law cannot disannul this promise. It's the promise that Isaac was under. And guess what? "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise."
That is what scripture says.
- - - - - - - - - -

This is not the point is it?

So then it is safe to assume that you agree.

You are presenting ideas OUTSIDE of the CONTEXT of this passage (Gal. 3) about “grace by faith”. I was showing the only place Paul uses the word “grace” was in Gal. 5:4 where he shows that attempts to follow “the law” VOIDS the grace of God – the two are incompatible. Got the point now?

Who spoke of following the law? I'm speaking of being under grace by faith in Christ, like Isaac, under the AC, just as Paul stated. There is no contention by me of anyone following the law, so where is that coming from?
- - -

It is relevant to show that the SC is no longerauthoritative for anyone today and that something else not seen before called “faith” took its place.

I agree! So why are you arguing that point? Our disagreement isn't about faith over law, it's about faith coming through Abraham and the AC or not. Stay on topic!
- - - - - - - - - -

Genesis 15 does not say that Christ ratified anything.

OK, fine. Then who/what was the burning lamp which ratified the AC in Gen 15:17? And what covenant was Christ confirming in Gal 3:17? And what other covennt is Christ Mediator of (Gal 3:20)? Please explain those things for me.

You are yet to show HOW and where was the AC “ratified” by Christ ? This is just more of your assertion.

Gen 15:17, Gal 3:17. Not assertion, but scriptural fact.
- - - - - - - - - -

You treated all of the passages I gave last time quite superficially. So let’s take this comment of yours a step further. I am hoping you can offer more substance this time.
From my last post I quoted… Acts 11:1,18, 13:46,47,48, 15:3,7,17, 18:6, to include:

NONE of these scriptures say Gentiles are included in the NC. Do you dispute that fact? That is the true "substance" we're discussing! You're showing NOTHING that says Gentiles are included in the NC.
You're saying that Christ belongs to the NC only, so all statements about Christ belong to the NC. That is incorrect, and true "assertion".

Act 26:20- [Paul] declared both to them of Damascus first [see Acts 9:19-20] and at Jerusalem [see Acts 9:26] , and throughout all the country of Judaea [see Acts 11:27-30], and also to the Gentiles [see Acts 11:25 thru Acts 28], that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance.
-If the Gentiles are under a different covenant than the Jews, how could Paul teach the Gentiles and the Jews the SAME thing for this 20 year period ???

The Gentiles and Jews are not under a different covenant, and I never stated such a thing. You're "asserting" statements for me now. The AC is for ALL NATIONS, which includes both Gentiles and Jews. The NC is for Jews only, according to the Bible. The difference is that the Jews are also promised the NC, and Gentiles are not.

Act 26:23,28:28 -The Gentiles and Jews received the SAME salvation. How can this be true if they are saved by different covenants?

See above.

Rom 15:27 What “spiritual things” did the Gentiles share with the Gentiles? HOW was such possible if they were being blessed through separate covenants?

See above.

Gal 3:28 - All are ONE in Christ Jesus? Your “dual” covenant belief (Gentiles under the AC and Jews under the NC) violates this verse. Do you believe in “religious” segregation?

There are "dual" covenants as the AC is for ALL NATIONS, and the NC is for Jews, according to the Bible. And yes, God did segregate, but just not in the American form. God segregated a people for Himself in order to show Himself through them. They are the Jews. "Religious" segregation? I don't believe so, but you'd have to define it for me first (unless you mean what I just described).

Eph 3:6 - Fellow heirs - Both Jew and Gentile receive/share of the SAME inheritence. Oh my!

Actually, a fellow heir receives what they've been assigned/allotted. It DOES NOT mean "same inheritance". Where did you get that definition? Is it written in the gospel of Apollos? (lol)

Fellow members of the body. There is only ONE body and both Jews and Gentiles are in that body. The only way into that body is by Christ.
Fellow partakers… ofTHE PROMISE in Christ Jesus!!!!! Jew and Gentile are “fellow partakers” of the promise.

I couldn't agree more. Gentiles are partakers of the promise, just what we've been allotted. What promise? The AC. Can you show where Gentiles have been allotted the NC? Please list that scripture.

So I was right – the Gentiles are “fellow-everything” with the Jews.

Nope, not biblical. As fellow-heirs, Gentiles receive what we've been assigned/allotted. We've been assigned the AC promise given to Abraham in which all nations are to be blessed. That promise includes Christ, and being the seed of Abraham. Gentiles have NOT been assigned the NC. There are NO SCRIPTURES, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA... scripture that says such a thing.

This also explains why Paul taught the Gentiles the SAME thing he taught the Jews, huh?

Yes it does.
- - - - - - - - - -

It appears you attempt to make a distinction where there is no difference.

No difference? Then why don't we just start changing one word in other verses in the Bible! C'mon, you know better than that.

2 Corinthians 3:6 – So you are saying...

No, Paul is saying.

... that Paul was a minister OF the NEW covenant, but Paul did not minister UNDER that New covenant, right? This is just silly - lol! Do you have any more quibbles?

I'm only showing you exactly what the Bible says vs. what you're "asserting" it says. It DOES NOT say that Paul, or anyone else was a minister "under" the NC. That is a fact. Are you suggesting that Paul didn't mean what he said? The Bible doesn'teven say that the NC began!
continued.....

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos

The NC grants the blessing promised through the AC.

What scripture? What Bible? the Apollos gospel? (lol)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part #3.

It changes everything you said! First you attempted to establish a context between Hebrews 8:6 and 10:9 saying both spoke of covenants and that one was the AC and the other the SC. And you want to say it doesn’t change anything??? Lol!

There is no context established between 8:6 and 10:9, there is only the point that they aren't speaking of the same thing. Nothing in my point has changed.

Everything you said in reference to these two contextually unrelated passages was wrong, and you application as to which covenant Hebrews 10:9 spoke of was wrong! Yes, it changes all of that.
Hebrews 10:9 – “[Jesus] taketh away the first, that he may establish the second…”
The “first”, from the context, is the SC. The “second”, by context, is the NC.
This “ministry” of Christ also shows that “the law” had to be abrogated and another law instituted for Christ both to minister and become a priest.

So you're telling me that Christ quoted the law given to Moses, the law the Bible calls perfect, righteous, good,... THAT law, and then all of a sudden there's this "new law" that is now in place, replacing that law, and it's the law that is refered to in the NC.
Are you even serious? On top of that, Jesus HIMSELF says this law, the law of Moses, will not pass until heaven and earth pass. I'm at a loss for words. If this is really what you believe, that is scary. No wonder we can't come to an agreement as a people regarding what the Bible says.

IF the law were still in effect Christ could NOT do either as the law (SC) would prohibit this because Christ was not a Levite – He was of the tribe of Judah. To this point the Hebrew writer said
Hebrews 7:12 - For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

The law is not "in effect", it has been moved out of the way so that grace can abound. It's not gone, it just can't prevent grace any longer by the fact that people can't fulfill it. It has been fulfilled (a sinless life) by Christ, and those in Christ therefore bypass having to fulfill it.
Also, the word "change" in the verse refers to a transfer, or in addition to, not a transformation of the law, as you suggest.

The SC was vanishing!

You're incorrect.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
The AC is vanishing.

The AC made no such provision for ministry.

Christ is the provision for ministry, the one who ratified the covenant in Gen 15:17.

Neither the AC or the SC made such provisons for Christ to serve in the capacity He needed to in order to be our Saviour! Therefore no more AC and no more SC.

Again, you're incorrect;
Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Paul says there is a provision in the AC for Christ to serve as Saviour.
- - -

It says it IS the “better covenant”. Just read what it says above so I can go on…

No, it's not. He "obtained" a more excellent ministry, and "ALSO" He is mediator of a better covenant which has been "established".
Look at this closely. One is obtained, the other established. There is the word "ALSO" between the two establishing the fact that they're two different things. You are denying biblical fact because it doesn't fit your view.

There is? WHERE is it? You assume “grace, redemption, and those who minister” was a part of the AC. NOW is the time to prove your assertions.

Christ has REDEEMED (redemption) us from the curse of the law, so that the blessing of ABRAHAM (AC) could come on the Gentiles THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, allowing all nations to receive the promise of the HOLY SPIRIT through FAITH (grace).
This is what the Bible says, and it clearly contradicts what you're saying. I've clearly proven my statement, and now it's your turn to either prove yours, or agree with what the Bible says.

As for that “obtained/established” mess you created for yourself –

I created no such thing. It says just that right in your Bible. JUST READ IT! I didn't write the Bible, God did. So it's God who created that "obtained/established mess" you refer to.

...are you now saying this pertains to two different ministries and not covenants? Will you attempt to prove this as well? Lol!

One is a ministry, the other a covenant. The point is that there are TWO. How can you miss that?

I have not taken any liberty at all. Just read Hebrews 8:6… again.

I did, and it CONTINUES to say the same thing, that the more excellent ministry was obtained, and the better covenant was established. I don't know what you're reading, but it's obviously not the Bible if yours says a better ministry was obtained "THROUGH" a better covenant. I think you should probably read it... again.

Let’s check and see if you are right…
Hebrews 9:14,15 – This says Christ IS the mediator of a NEW covenant – not that He is going to be!
Hebrews 12:24says Christ IS the mediator of a NEW covenant and you can not mediate something that does not exist.

No one is arguing whether or not the NC exists, or if Christ is the Mediator. We are discussing whether or not it has BEGUN. You're answering the wrong question! You offer NO PROOF that the NC has begun, as I stated. So please, try again.

Christ shed His blood to ratify that covenant – Heb. 9:12-28. Cf. 1 Cor. 11:25.

Ratify? Yes. Begun? NO. Again, you're addressing the wrong point!

The promise is available ONLY through “faith in Christ” – see Gal. 3:22.

Gal 3:22 is speaking about the AC! You accuse me of taking a chapter out of context, and then you respond with this? You've got to take that board out of your eye! (lol).
- - -

What? I said the “first” was the SC – that is the context. You say it is not the SC and you claim the NC has not come yet, so you must think this is the AC, because it is the only one you have left. This leaves you with quite a problem, huh? Or is there some mysterious FOURTH covenant that you have not shared with me yet???
But the bigger problem you have is not understanding how “fault” is used here. This is not saying the SC had any faults, but as compared to the NC it was not “faultless” because the SC could not save men. The word is used as a comparative quality. This should clear a lot of things up for you.

There are two different entities in v. 6. Something was "obtained", and something else was "established". We agree the "established" is the NC. I say the "obtained" was the AC, and it fits perfectly with scripture in every instance. What say ye?

LOL ! You have already said that “obtained” pertained to the MINISTRY of Christ (see above) and not to a covenant. When will you be consistent?

The more excellent ministry came under the AC. That is very consistent. And the ministry is a part of the covenant.

But as for proving which is the “first”, see verses 4 & 5 and note the CONTEXT = “those who offer gifts according to the law”…. AND about Moses building the tabernacle according to the pattern as shown in the mount. The “first” by CONTEXT is the Sinai covenant, unless you know of some other “mount” we should be concerned with here.

The context is determined by v. 6, not what precedes it. You know that. What v. 4 & 5 pertain to is irrelevant if v. 6 mentions another, and it does.
Also, please be aware that the word "covenant" isn't present in v. 7. That word was added, and is not a part of the original text. So the "first" isn't necessarily a reference to a covenant, it's a reference to the "first" in the previous verse.
- - -

God does! As shown above – see Hebrews 9:14 and 12:24.

Hbr 9:14 says not one word about the NC! Hbr 12:24 tells us that Jesus is the Mediator of the NC, which we already know. Neither verse helps your position a bit!
Apollos said - Verse 9 – This NEW covenant would not be like the one made at SINAI !
CONTEXT is so important !!!
Ddub asserted - Yes, but it will be exactly like the AC, other than the law.

Assertion alert!!! Scripture please!

--I "assert" (with scripture, Jer 31, Hbr 8) that there are two differences I see between the two covenants; the people, and the law. Now, I ask you to show where this assertion is incorrect, and what differences you see.

From the context of chapter 8, verse 13 sayS… The NEW covenant mediated by Christ on better promises (8:6) and promised BY God (8:8) - made that “first” covenant given (8:5), by Moses (8:4), with “fault” (8:8), given out of Egypt (Sinai)(8:9) OLD !!! There is no question here as to which covenant is which.

I notice you left out what was "obtained" in v. 6. Why is that? Because v. 6 is the verse which determines the context, and you know that.
Ddub said - Only if you totally ignore v. 6 and what has been obtained isn't the SC or NC. Only if you believe the AC was never obtained. Only if you ignore the fact that the law is faultless, and what you're considering the law has fault. Only if you ignore what is being plainly stated by the Bible.

Are you serious?

Yes I am. VERY serious.

You stated (see above) that WHAT was OBTAINED was a MINISTRY!!!
YOU need to prove that the AC is somewhere in the CONTEXT of Hebrews 8.

I have proven it. Once again, there are TWO different things in v. 6; one obtained, the other established. We agree upon what was "established" is the NC. So what was "obtained"? It's surely not the law. It is the AC, as it is a more excellent ministry than the law, and it is fulfilled by Christ after He ratified it.

I have shown that it is NOT! You love to use the word, but you never use CONTEXT to prove anything. It appears you have chosen to ignore CONTEXT and what you say as well.

Then here's your chance to prove that statement is true. I just listed WITH SCRIPTURE, IN CONTEXT, my position. Let's hear yours, IN CONTEXT, WITH SCRIPTURE, and see how you refute what I say. I'll be looking very closely.
- - - - - - - - - -
continued...

 

[ddub85]

@ Apollos

**The NEW covenant is the covenant for us today...
--Brought to you by the "Apollos Bible", as the real Bible says no such thing. (lol)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final...

Lol – this seems rather disingenuous. What was Jesus talking about in Matthew 5?
Jesus was talking about the law passing away! That’s the topic. Jesus told them that the certainty of the law was such that heaven and earth would pass before the law would… UNTIL… Until what? UNTIL all things be accomplished. This context of the law passing continues in many of the following verses of Matthew 5.
Jesus said He came to fulfill the law and the prophets.
Jesus reminded the disciples of what He had said in Luke 24 – and
Jesus said He had accomplished those things.
Just as Paul said in Galatians 3:24-25 that “the law” was to bring us to Christ.
Christ has come – He accomplished all things to provide salvation through faith.
We are no longer under the tutor – the law.

Let's first begin with your incorrect assessment of Jesus saying the law is accomplished, as in passed away. Jesus would thoroughly disagree with you. As a matter of fact, He does just that.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
You're claiming that this is a claim by Jesus to have the law pass away. The word "destroy" in this verse means;katalyo
1) to dissolve, disunite a) (what has been joined together), to destroy, demolish b) metaph. to overthrow i.e. render vain, deprive of success, bring to naught 1) to subvert, overthrow

Jesus says He WOULD NOT do this to the law. You say this is what He did. Here's what Jesus means by "fulfil";pleroo
1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full
a) to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally
1) I abound, I am liberally supplied
2) to render full, i.e. to complete
Jesus says He will cause the law to ABOUND, the very law you say He replaced. He says He will carry it into effect, bring it to realization, and you say He took it out of effect, and replaced it.
You are saying that Jesus did exactly what He said He wasn't doing. You're obviously totally incorrect. What you're saying about Jesus' statement is directly against what Jesus actually said.

(Previous quote) This “ministry” of Christ also shows that “the law” had to be abrogated and another law instituted for Christ both to minister and become a priest.

We've just seen this statement is totally incorrect, as Jesus DOES NOT abrogate the law. But you're also "asserting" that Jesus institutes a "new law". Could you please list the scripture which holds this "new law"? What you're saying has no biblical base.
As if that's not enough, how about this? How can you argue on one hand that the law has been abrogated by Hbr 8:6, and then argue that the ministry IS the law in Hbr 8:6? You're clearly contradicting yourself.

Ddub said - So... if the law passed, then WHY, under the NC, is Jesus placing it in the hearts and minds of the recipients?

Because Christ’s law is a “spiritual” law given by the HS that works from the hearts and minds of the disciples that follow Christ. It is “written on the heart” – not on tablets of stone.

I have news for you. The law given to Moses is spiritual, holy perfect, righteous, and given by the HS also. As a matter of fact, the law given to Moses is Christ' law, and He gave it to Moses!
You'd really better rethink this whole law thing you got goin'. By the way, I noticed you didn't list any scripture about where this "new law" is in the Bible. What scripture?
- - -
Ddub - Also, could you please explain how Gentiles can have the law in their hearts and minds under the NC, yet not have the law as the Bible claims?

The Jews and Gentiles do not answer to “the law” now. “Faith in Christ” has abrogated that law. They have the “law of Christ” which is something entirely different (not like the law given at Sinai – Heb 8:9). Your misunderstanding and mis-use of the term “the law” has caused you to err.

Not quite. According to Jesus, the law has not been "abrogated". See above. Also, there is no "new law" of Christ, as He endorsed, lived and breathed the Mosaic law during His time on earth. He made that very clear over and over and over again. He NEVER spoke of "abrogating" the law.
In Hbr 8:9, the writer makes it clear that the problem was with the "PEOPLE" not continuing in the covenant, NOT the covenant itself. There's NOTHING about a problem with what the law itself is. So how would this be fixed in the NC? That law will be put into hearts and minds of the people. This law that Jesus wrote, gave, endorsed, quoted, lived and breathed.

Paul put it this way…
Romans 6:17 – “But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered…”

??? Are you now equating the law with sin? I'm not sure I'm following you here.
- - - - - - - - - -

Then please tell me, whose blood ratified the Abrahamic Covenant? I don’t know of any scripture that say the AC was ratified by blood. Do you?

Yes. Jesus is the testator of the AC, ratifying this covenant in Gen 15:17. That makes Him personally responsible for it with His blood. He fulfilled that promise on the cross.
Who is the Mediator of that [AC] covenant?

The AC was given by God directly to Abraham. It must be God.

Gal 3:20 Now a mediator is not [a mediator] of one, but God is one.
If Jesus Christ is not just a Mediator of one as you contend, then clearly He is the Mediator of the New Covenant, and His blood was shed "for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament". So you are correct. It is God indeed.
When did the Abrahamic Covenant begin? Did it ever begin?

The promise was made about 1921 BC.

Not what I asked.

When it became possible for all nations to be blessed (this is the only provision of the promise), the promise/covenant was culminated.

So,... it was never in force, but when it was possible for it to come into force,... it was "culminated". So God made the promise, Jesus ratified it, died on the cross for it, but it never came into force, but instead it was "culminated". So God never fulfilled His promise.
I'm sorry, but what you're saying simply doesn't add up to the standards of Yahweh, the God of the Bible.

Today all nations are blessed through the NC made possible by Christ’s death on the cross. The NC fulfills the promise of blessing made in the AC.

That simply doesn't make sense. God makes a promise to bless all nations through Abraham, then abandons that promise, and blesses everyone through the NC instead. That just doesn't fit the "m.o." of the God of the Bible. God wouldn't just skip over a promise that He made.
Also, you said redemption is only by the New Covenant. In this verse, we see redemption by the Abrahamic Covenant;
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.
On top of that, there are NO SCRIPTURES which say all nations are blessed through the NC.

The “gospel” is God planned to save man through “faith in Christ” before the foundation of the world. No redemption was possible BEFORE Christ. The AC promised a blessing. The NC gives us the blessing that was promised.

So,... the AC, according to the gospel of Apollos, was a promise made by God that was never meant to come to fruition. It was a promise that was made to just go away. Do you really believe that?
Do you realize that the AC is the ONLY promise in the Bible that connects Gentiles to Jesus Christ? Do you realize that this promise is the ONLY salvation to ALL NATIONS? Without it, there is no redemption for Gentiles. The NC is for Israel/Judah ONLY according to the Bible.
On the other hand, if the law and the New Covenant are the Old and New Covenants, then we Gentiles are totally left out. We're not grafted into the law!

“Grafted into the law”??? Where does this idea come from ???

If you're going to eliminate the AC, then that leaves the SC and the NC. Both have the law. According to the Bible, Gentiles do not have the law. That's a problem.
As for the Gentiles being left out – see above.
**

I thank you in advance for your patient review of the material I have presented.

Thanks again for your thoughtful response.

God Bless!

 

[MamaZ]

The new law is That we are now justified through Christ and not the doing of the law.. For by the law can no man be justified,