Interesting observation

[Sheep dog]

It's interesting to me why people push two opposing covenants as current.

What I don't understand about the general discussion of Jer 31:31-33 is why some insist on a double verb in the English or the original text version.

The word "make" is the verb in verse 31. The word "new" is an adjective about the covenant. Verse 32 simply doesn't enforce the word "new" as a verb (course of action).

 

[1stcenturylady]

It's interesting to me why people push two opposing covenants as current.

What I don't understand about the general discussion of Jer 31:31-33 is why some insist on a double verb in the English or the original text version.

The word "make" is the verb in verse 31. The word "new" is an adjective about the covenant. Verse 32 simply doesn't enforce the word "new" as a verb (course of action).

You can't just add the New Covenant to the Old Covenant. Here is why:

14 Then the disciples of John came to Him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your disciples do not fast?”

15 And Jesus said to them, “Can the friends of the bridegroom mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast. 16 No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and the tear is made worse. 17 Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”

 

[Sheep dog]

You can't just add the New Covenant to the Old Covenant. Here is why:

14 Then the disciples of John came to Him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your disciples do not fast?”

15 And Jesus said to them, “Can the friends of the bridegroom mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast. 16 No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and the tear is made worse. 17 Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”

I agree, but why is so much effort put into patching up the old garment?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The covenant seems to be in verse 34 “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
Reinforced by verses of the NT Luke 1:77, John 6:45, Romans 11:27, 1 Thessalonians 4:9, Hebrews 8:11-12, Hebrews 10:17, 1 John 2:20, 1 John 2:27.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I agree, but why is so much effort put into patching up the old garment?

Because of sin. We know through Hebrews 12 that without holiness, no man shall see God. At least some of us do. I'm not talking about those who do not believe morality has anything to do with salvation like some of the churches straight out of the Reformation. I'm talking about Messianics and SDA - those who advocate keeping the Ten Commandments, the Old Covenant, especially, the Sabbath - the sign of the Old Covenant.

The New Covenant has everything to do with being filled with the Holy Spirit, which makes sin a non-issue. He makes us dead to sin, and we are no longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit, IF we have the Holy Spirit and experience His power over sin.

 

[Steve Petersen]

You can't just add the New Covenant to the Old Covenant. Here is why:

14 Then the disciples of John came to Him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your disciples do not fast?”

15 And Jesus said to them, “Can the friends of the bridegroom mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast. 16 No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and the tear is made worse. 17 Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”

wine = teaching
wineskins = disciples.

You will find that the material surrounding this passage is about disciples.

New Wine and Old Wineskins

 

[Sheep dog]

The covenant seems to be in verse 34 “They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
Reinforced by verses of the NT Luke 1:77, John 6:45, Romans 11:27, 1 Thessalonians 4:9, Hebrews 8:11-12, Hebrews 10:17, 1 John 2:20, 1 John 2:27.

Usually people try to use verse 34 to prove the old covenant is still enforce. Are you suing it this way? Or are you talking about something else?

I made sure I read your verses. Need you to talk about them so I can see where you're coming from.

 

[1stcenturylady]

wine = teaching
wineskins = disciples.

You will find that the material surrounding this passage is about disciples.

New Wine and Old Wineskins

Yes, but it goes further than that. It is why the SIGN of the New Covenant is the CUP. 1 Corinthians 11:25

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Usually people try to use verse 34 to prove the old covenant is still enforce. Are you suing it this way? Or are you talking about something else?

I made sure I read your verses. Need you to talk about them so I can see where you're coming from.

In what way would it apply to the old covenant? I have given the verses to use to apply it to the new covenant where the purpose is to be spiritually led.

 

[1stcenturylady]

In what way would it apply to the old covenant? I have given the verses to use to apply it to the new covenant where the purpose is to be spiritually led.

Yes, the New Covenant has everything to do with the SPIRIT, not the letter in our own strength.

 

[Sheep dog]

Because of sin. We know through Hebrews 12 that without holiness, no man shall see God. At least some of us do. I'm not talking about those who do not believe morality has anything to do with salvation like some of the churches straight out of the Reformation. I'm talking about Messianics and SDA - those who advocate keeping the Ten Commandments, the Old Covenant, especially, the Sabbath - the sign of the Old Covenant.

The New Covenant has everything to do with being filled with the Holy Spirit, which makes sin a non-issue. He makes us dead to sin, and we are no longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit, IF we have the Holy Spirit and experience His power over sin.

Those churches teaching morality has nothing to do with Christianity are recoiling badly about the law. I understand this. The law is bondage as Paul says in Galatians. I like the liberty I have in Jesus he talks about. In another thread someone talks about abolishing God's moral law that precedes the old covenant and then promptly cites a verse clearly about "the law" - old covenant. They're mixing God's law with Israel's covenant. Yes that covenant is also God's law. The issue is covenant. Jesus give a new commandment in Jn 13:34. When asked about this in relation to "the law" it seems to be ignored.

I agree with your second paragraph and wonder in awe why some focus so hard on sin as the issue. The only thing I can think of is the legal bondage of the law. That is a misuse of the law IMHO.

 

[Sheep dog]

In what way would it apply to the old covenant? I have given the verses to use to apply it to the new covenant where the purpose is to be spiritually led.

Verse 34 is used to try and enforce the law denying the new covenant because everyone in the world isn't compliant with what? good behavior? I do like their goal of perfect peace. That simply isn't what the law is about. I used to attend a church that preached "kingdom now" theology. Simply can't buy into that upon reading the Bible.

I do agree with your idea about those verses applying to the new covenant. That really means to me they are limited to those in the new covenant, not applicable to every living person.

 

[PeaceJoyLove]

You can't just add the New Covenant to the Old Covenant. Here is why:

14 Then the disciples of John came to Him, saying, “Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but Your disciples do not fast?”

15 And Jesus said to them, “Can the friends of the bridegroom mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast. 16 No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and the tear is made worse. 17 Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”

They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:

Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

In the beginning, when Adam and the woman perceived they were naked and ashamed, God made them coverings of skin...it is the flesh/carnal that must wear out that the NEW be revealed (that always was from the beginning...)the eyesight change (perception) when they were no longer enclosed in the garden...God's glory hidden...when the flesh waxes old, wears out, then the spiritual can come (again)...The day of salvation is always today...for God is outside of linear time as man perceives.

Psalm 58 speaks to the fast...as it relates to "Hast thou eaten...." and "Where art thou?" questions asked in the garden...to take thought is to eat of it...

Adam ate the feast prepared by his helper (the woman) that brought separation from God. We are called to the wedding feast prepared by the father, entering through the door (to HIS rest) reclining at the table being served...and the new helper promises to reveal the Truth to our inner most being...

 

[Sheep dog]

wine = teaching
wineskins = disciples.

You will find that the material surrounding this passage is about disciples.

New Wine and Old Wineskins

So why do some insist on putting the "new wine" in old wine skins?

 

[1stcenturylady]

It's interesting to me why people push two opposing covenants as current.

What I don't understand about the general discussion of Jer 31:31-33 is why some insist on a double verb in the English or the original text version.

The word "make" is the verb in verse 31. The word "new" is an adjective about the covenant. Verse 32 simply doesn't enforce the word "new" as a verb (course of action).

In a nutshell can you expound a little on the other thread, what is being said, and what you believe?

 

[Steve Petersen]

So why do some insist on putting the "new wine" in old wine skins?

Some old wine skins can take it. Nicodemus, f'rinstance.

 

[Sheep dog]

Well at least some interesting posts so far. I just can't relate a single one of them to the OP.

 

[bugkiller]

It's interesting to me why people push two opposing covenants as current.

What I don't understand about the general discussion of Jer 31:31-33 is why some insist on a double verb in the English or the original text version.

The word "make" is the verb in verse 31. The word "new" is an adjective about the covenant. Verse 32 simply doesn't enforce the word "new" as a verb (course of action).

I've kinda argued what you're saying except I've never taken the double verb approach. I've shown the word "made" as a verb and the word "new" as an adjective through lexicons. Yes some here often try and make the word "new" the verb. This is done because both the verb and adjective are spelled the same in English. Context give definition and meaning to a word. I agree about v 32.

I've noticed no one wants to engage you on your statement.

Side tracking is the norm here.

bugkiller

 

[Doug Melven]

There are people who are offended by salvation being all of grace through faith.
They feel they must have to contribute to there own salvation in some way.
Even if that way is just saying I have to do good things to keep salvation.

 

[fhansen]

The New Covenant finally accomplishes in man what the old could not; it fulfills the law, the right way, by grace. The covenant involves God, 'apart from Whom we can do nothing', placing His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, rather than man attempting righteousness on his own, as if that were ever possible to achieve. This begins as man, from the least to the greatest, comes to know Him, personally, directly, and so turn back to Him. This knowledge of God, Whom Jesus came to reveal, implies and involves faith, which establishes this relationship or communion with Him in response to His calling. This communion, itself, is a critical aspect of man's justice, the right order of things for us.

The NC doesn't revoke the OC by the way; it simply makes it obsolete by replacing it with a new and better covenant.