Did Christ come to establish a New or Renewed Covenant with Israel?

[LittleLambofJesus]

According to what I have heard from Messianic Jews, they say Christ simply "renewed" the Covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 instead of making it "new".
What are the views of those here concerning that? Thanks

 

[wayseer]

I disagree with both alternatives.

Jesus did not come to establish anything. What he came for was to alert Judaism to the singular self-righteous position that believed Yahweh was to serve the elites.

 

[awakened777]

He came to establish the new covenant.

 

[Optimax]

New.

However they stumbled at the cornerstone, Jesus, and continue with a "veil" over their "eyes" until that veil is removed. That will not occur until Daniels 70th week arrives, thats the seven year period of great tribulation.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

It was a new covenant but it was renewed. To renew is to regenerate, to improve, or to make new again. The old covenant was improved upon. Shadows were replaced by the reality. So while it is new, it was a renewed covenant. Daniel 9:27 says he would confirm the covenant. The Old Covenant had a high priest. Did God remove a high priest in the New Covenant or did he get a better high priest.

 

[BrotherBob]

Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH," See Jeremiah 31:31

 

[Frogster]

It was a new covenant but it was renewed. To renew is to regenerate, to improve, or to make new again. The old covenant was improved upon. Shadows were replaced by the reality. So while it is new, it was a renewed covenant. Daniel 9:27 says he would confirm the covenant. The Old Covenant had a high priest. Did God remove a high priest in the New Covenant or did he get a better high priest.

Kainos..not neos, not only new in time, but unused, unprecedented..


Hebrews 8:8 NASB
For finding fault with them, He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;

Effect in the greek…sunteleo 4931
Definition:
1) to end together or at the same time
2) to end completely
2a) bring to an end, finish, complete
3) to accomplish, bring to fulfilment
3a) to come to pass
4) to effect, make, (conclude)
5) to finish5a) to make an end of
5b) to bring to an end5c) destroy

New,in the greek. kainos 2537

Definition:
1) new1a) as respects form
1b) as respects substance1b1) of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of

 

[Frogster]

It was a new covenant but it was renewed. To renew is to regenerate, to improve, or to make new again. The old covenant was improved upon. Shadows were replaced by the reality. So while it is new, it was a renewed covenant. Daniel 9:27 says he would confirm the covenant. The Old Covenant had a high priest. Did God remove a high priest in the New Covenant or did he get a better high priest.

What do you notice, as you read these verses?

Heb 2:2 For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution,

Heb 10:17 then he adds,
“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”

 

[Frogster]

New.

However they stumbled at the cornerstone, Jesus, and continue with a "veil" over their "eyes" until that veil is removed. That will not occur until Daniels 70th week arrives, thats the seven year period of great tribulation.

Where in the text, does it indicate, that the 70th week is over 2000 years in the future?

Nevermind, lets not derail, just sayin...


I supose you think that the temple in Ez will restore the levitical priesthood again, and keep out gentiles?


Nevermind, lets not derail.

 

[Frogster]

I disagree with both alternatives.

Jesus did not come to establish anything. What he came for was to alert Judaism to the singular self-righteous position that believed Yahweh was to serve the elites.

1 Cor 11.23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

 

[Optimax]

Where in the text, does it indicate, that the 70th week is over 2000 years in the future?

Nevermind, lets not derail, just sayin...


I supose you think that the temple in Ez will restore the levitical priesthood again, and keep out gentiles?


Nevermind, lets not derail.

Silly!!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thanks to everyone who has posted so far.
In case anyone is wondering why I started this thread, it is because of another thread that mistranslated some verses, leaving out "new" in them.
Here is the thread if anyone is interested.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7515454-5/#post56441441
New Covenant or Covenant?

 

[hedrick]

The problem is that it's referred to both ways. Jer 31:31 talks about a new covenant, but Romans talks about being grafted into Israel, suggesting a new era in an existing covenant. If people like Wright are right, the argument behind Romans is that God is acting to make good on his covenant promises.

Is it possible that you can look at it both ways?

 

[Frogster]

Silly!!

read 1 cor 1, in paul's mind, the day was about to be, there goes a 2000 years in the future mindset writing style.

Anyway, fun chatting with ya bro.

7 so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Frogster]

The problem is that it's referred to both ways. Jer 31:31 talks about a new covenant, but Romans talks about being grafted into Israel, suggesting a new era in an existing covenant. If people like Wright are right, the argument behind Romans is that God is acting to make good on his covenant promises.

Is it possible that you can look at it both ways?

well, at the same time, no way paul thought that gentiles are grafted into Moses. Don't forget, who had to learn? Not the gentiles.

23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.

 

[Frogster]

Thanks to everyone who has posted so far.
In case anyone is wondering why I started this thread, it is because of another thread that mistranslated some verses, leaving out "new" in them.
Here is the thread if anyone is interested.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7515454-5/#post56441441
New Covenant or Covenant?

tis a good thread.

Jeremiah 31:32 (Show me Jeremiah 31)
not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord.

 

[wayseer]

1 Cor 11.23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Certainly, that is what Paul tells us but we know Paul never met Jesus in the flesh and he certainly was not present in the upper room at the time.

 

[Hentenza]

Brand new. No renewal since the terms of the covenant are not the same as the old.

 

[SummaScriptura]

The covenants:

• Noahic
• Abrahamic
• Mosaic
• Davidic
• New

There are a few other more narrow covenants in there I believe, like one with Phineas.

 

[razeontherock]

The problem is that it's referred to both ways. Jer 31:31 talks about a new covenant, but Romans talks about being grafted into Israel, suggesting a new era in an existing covenant. If people like Wright are right, the argument behind Romans is that God is acting to make good on his covenant promises.

Is it possible that you can look at it both ways?

You mean we gotta beat our swords into plowshares, and we can't argue over silliness? Like if Jer 31 was understood beforehand, in that sense it could be renewed? But it was still new wine put only in new wineskins beginning in Acts 2?

But ... I don't need a PhD for that ... how am I gonna look all cool now?!?