Israel?

[GLJCA]

DDUB, You said,

We're in agreement!!! Let's look closely though at what you're actually saying.
Part I) "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry,"

This is the first part of the statement, and it lists what was OBTAINED.
obtain; tugchano (strong's 5177)
1) to hit the mark
a) of one discharging a javelin or arrow
2) to reach, attain, obtain, get, become master of
3) to happen, chance, fall out
a) to specify, to take a case, as for example
4) to meet one
5) of he who meets one or presents himself unsought, any chance, ordinary, common person
6) to chance to be
So this is what hit the mark, what was reached, happened,... OBTAINED. A more excellent ministry was obtained, and nothing else. "More excellent" means that what was already there, was made "more excellent". Consider that, even by your view, the New Covenant wasn't there yet. So the New Covenant CANNOT be the "more excellent ministry". What was already there? The Old Covenant. So obviously the Old Covenant is the ministry made "more excellent".

You have to take these scriptures out of the context of the chapter to make your belief fit. The context of chapters 8,9 & 10 is contrasting the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The contrast between what the Old Covenant could not do to make the hearers perfect before God and how the New Covenant through the blood of Christ has made those who are sanctified perfect in Christ.

You are mistakenly thinking that Christ made the Old Covenant better and no where does it say that. The better covenant is the one that replaced the Old Covenant.
Heb 8:7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
This chapter and into the next chapter shows that the Old Covenant could not make the hearers perfect before God (Heb 9:9) while the first tabernacle was standing. The first tabernacle was the temple made with human hands which passed away, never to return because now the tabernacle is Christ.

The context of the chapters 8, 9, & 10 show that the blood of bulls and goats required in the Old Covenant was contrasted with the spotless blood of Christ which brought in the New Covenant.

Notice verse 18 says that the first testament was dedicated without blood which destroys your idea that Christ's blood made the Old Covenant better.

Christ obtained a more excellent ministry because He is the mediator of a better covenant based on better promises, which is the New Covenant. The Bible never says that Christ is the mediator of the Old Covenant only the New. Nor does it say, except in your imagination, that Christ made the Old Covenant better.

Chapters 8, 9, & 10 contrast the Old Covenant which was dedicated without blood and the New Covenant which was dedicated, established, and in force by the blood of Christ.

Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15 [Whereof] the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Notice how the writer says that Christ's offering perfected forever them that are sanctified, then he goes on to say that the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us, for after that he said before..... and he brings in Jer 31:31-35 while writing to the same Christians. He is writing to members of the Church of Jesus Christ not Jews who are AntiChrist.

Again for you to make your belief fit you have to take the scriptures out of context big time. In context there is no way that the New Covenant is not in effect.

GLJCA

 

[holdon]

Formally the New Covenant will be made with Judah and Israel, per Jeremiah 31 after Jesus' return just before the 1000 year reign. It is not made with us, who belong to the Church.
Although not formally applicable to us, it is applicable in a spiritual way. 2 Cor 3:6, and as such administered to us by the Apostles. This implies also a difference: Israel will receive the law written into their hearts; but in our hearts the Spirit writes the person of Christ. (2 Cor 3:1-6; 17ss).
Hebrews mentions it specifically because they were particularly interested as being a remnant from the Israelites (comp Rom 11:5) and they were in need to be pointed to the spiritual rather than being focused on the earthly things.
The New Covenant rests on Jesus' sacrifice.
We have similar blessings like future Israel under the New Covenant, because we are under the Mediator of that New Covenant and He is our life.

 

[GLJCA]

I asked you,

I would like for you to show me scripture proving that we are not heirs to all of the promises given to Abraham and his seed, Christ?

We Gentiles are not because the Bible tells us over and over and over again that we are heirs of the SINGLE PROMISE. Here you go;
Rom 4:13 For the promise (SINGULAR), that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law [be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise (SINGULAR) made of none effect:
Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise (SINGULAR) might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise (SINGULAR) are counted for the seed.
Gal 3:14 That the blessing (SINGULAR) of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise (SINGULAR) of the Spirit through faith.
Gal 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise (SINGULAR).
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise (SINGULAR).
Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise (SINGULAR), having no hope, and without God in the world:
Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise (SINGULAR) in Christ by the gospel:

If Paul was telling the Galatians that they only inherit one promise that God gave Abraham and Christ, which was salvation by faith, then poor Isaac will only inherit that one promise also.
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

I doubt that this verse will change your mind but I can only hope that you will see that your belief is in error.

GLJCA

 

[GLJCA]

Formally the New Covenant will be made with Judah and Israel, per Jeremiah 31 after Jesus' return just before the 1000 year reign. It is not made with us, who belong to the Church.
Although not formally applicable to us, it is applicable in a spiritual way. 2 Cor 3:6, and as such administered to us by the Apostles. This implies also a difference: Israel will receive the law written into their hearts; but in our hearts the Spirit writes the person of Christ. (2 Cor 3:1-6; 17ss).
Hebrews mentions it specifically because they were particularly interested as being a remnant from the Israelites (comp Rom 11:5) and they were in need to be pointed to the spiritual rather than being focused on the earthly things.
The New Covenant rests on Jesus' sacrifice.
We have similar blessings like future Israel under the New Covenant, because we are under the Mediator of that New Covenant and He is our life.

Hi Holdon,

We are discussing if the New Covenant is in effect for us today or not. I noticed that you say that the New Covenant is in effect to us spiritually. Could you explain how that is?

How can you as a Gentile, I am assuming, claim the promises of forgiveness of sins, you calling God your God and God writing His Word into your heart spiritually but not physically, since the promises were not to you?

GLJCA

 

[GLJCA]

Holdon,

2 Cor 3:3 [Forasmuch as ye are] manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

Isn't this a direct reference to Jer 31:33? How could Paul be applying this promise to Gentiles?
I believe that Paul here is making a contrast between the Old Testament and the New Testament. God has made us able ministers of the New Testament with the law written in the fleshly tables of our heart.

I don't understand how someone can spiritually appropriate a promise but not physically appropriate it.
Does that mean that my sins are spiritually forgiven but not physically?
I can spiritually call God my God but not physically?
I can spiritually say that I am one of God's people but not physically?

GLJCA

 

[holdon]

Holdon,

2 Cor 3:3 [Forasmuch as ye are] manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

Isn't this a direct reference to Jer 31:33? How could Paul be applying this promise to Gentiles?
I believe that Paul here is making a contrast between the Old Testament and the New Testament. God has made us able ministers of the New Testament with the law written in the fleshly tables of our heart.

I don't understand how someone can spiritually appropriate a promise but not physically appropriate it.
Does that mean that my sins are spiritually forgiven but not physically?
I can spiritually call God my God but not physically?
I can spiritually say that I am one of God's people but not physically?

GLJCA

Are you in the land of Israel now?

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah: for I will pardon their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more. 31:35 Thus saith Jehovah, who giveth the sun for light by day, the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for light by night, who stirreth up the sea so that the waves thereof roar, -- Jehovah of hosts is his name: 31:36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith Jehovah, the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. 31:37 Thus saith Jehovah: If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off the whole seed of Israel, for all that they have done, saith Jehovah. 31:38 Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that the city shall be built to Jehovah, from the tower of Hananeel unto the corner-gate. 31:39 And the measuring line shall yet go forth before it unto the hill Gareb, and shall turn toward Goath. 31:40 And the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the torrent Kidron, unto the corner of the horse-gate toward the east, shall be holy unto Jehovah: it shall not be plucked up, nor overthrown any more for ever.

 

[GLJCA]

Hi Holdon,

Are you in the land of Israel now?

I guess I don't understand the significance of your question. What difference does it make if I am in Israel now or not? There are many Jews today that are not living in Israel yet still claim that they are Abraham's seed.

I can say though that I am a part of Covenant Israel by virtue of my relationship with Christ and His shed blood of the New Covenant. I have been grafted into the Olive tree (Rom 11), covenant Israel, along with the believing Jews, such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc. Remember only the unbelieving Jews were cut off in Romans 11, the believing ones remained in Covenant Israel.

The kingdom was taken away from the unbelieving nation of Israel (Matt 21:43) and given to a holy nation who brings forth fruit thereof.(1 Pet 2:9) The unbelieving nation of Israel became a nation of AntiChrists and are no longer the people of God.

You and I today can claim forgiveness of sins because we are grafted into the olive tree, covenant Israel. Otherwise you nor I have any right to claim that God is our God. We have no right to claim that God has written His laws in our hearts. We have no right to claim forgiveness of sins because Jesus Christ was God's provision of the promises that He made to Israel in Jer 31.

God promised a New Covenant to Covenant Israel and the blood of Jesus was the fulfillment of that promise. The death of Christ made the covenant in force, and established it because it takes the death of the testor to make the testament of force.

God promised forgiveness of sins and the blood of the New Covenant was the fulfillment of that promise. We physically claim the promise of the forgiveness of sins because of the blood of the New Covenant offered to all those who are in Covenant Israel. If you have believed in Christ you have been grafted into Covenant Israel.(Rom 11)

If you nor I can claim those promises physically as well as spiritually then we are all lost in our sins.

Paul told the Galatians that they were the children of Promise just as Isaac was. We, who have placed our faith in Christ, are joint-heirs of all the promises that God gave to Abraham and his seed, Christ. The promise of salvation by faith, the promise of forgiveness of sins, the promise of calling God our God, the promise of God writing His law in our hearts was given to Covenant Israel but some unbelievers in Covenant Israel rejected it and therefore they were cut off. Only those who believe in the Messiah will receive the promises of God.

Can you show me one scripture that says that Gentiles are not heirs of ALL the promises that God gave to Abraham and Christ? I can show you scripture that plainly says that we are.
Gal 3:26-29 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

DDub keeps mistakenly thinking that we Gentiles only recieve one promise but what he doesn't see or realize is that all of the promises are contained in that one promise of salvation by faith.

One can not have salvation by faith without the shed blood of Christ providing the forgiveness of sins. The blood of the New Covenant was God's provision of that promise.

One can not have salvation by faith unless God calls me one of His people because it is God who gives us the faith to believe.

That one promise of salvation by faith does not stand alone nor can it. All of the Covenant promises that God gave to Abraham and Christ live or die together. If you are not in the Covenant today then you are lost and are outside of the commonwealth of Israel but if you are believer the blood of Christ has taken away the wall of partition and made you one with the commonwealth of Israel.

Eph 2:12-13 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14-15 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;

We were outside of the covenants of promise before we placed our faith in Christ but now we are made one with the commonwealth of Israel. It just can't get plainer than that.

GLJCA

 

[holdon]

Can you show me one scripture that says that Gentiles are not heirs of ALL the promises that God gave to Abraham

That's why I asked whether you were living in Israel now.

And if not, why don't you go ahead and move there and claim the land based on the promises to Abraham, if indeed those promises are for you......

The New Covenant with Israel:

1. "At the end of the days" Jer 30:24
2. The restoration of Israel will be after the great tribulation. 30:7
3. The unbelieving part of the people will be judged. 30:11; 31:30
4. Other enemy peoples will be judged and subjugated. 30:8,11,16
5. The Messiah, the Son of David will be there in their midst. 30:9,21
6. Not only the 2 tribes but also the 10 tribes shall return to the land. 30:3ss; 31:9,15,27,31
7. Righteousness, joy and peace will reign in Israel, without being ever again disturbed. 30:18-20; 31:4-7, 12-15, 24ss, 38-40.

 

[GLJCA]

Just in case your thinking that I am saying that Israel is no longer God's people I am not. I am saying that unbelieving Israel is not God's people. Believing Israel has always been and will always be considered God's olive tree.

Jer 11:16 The LORD called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, [and] of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.

If God would have cut off all of Israel then Jer 31:36 would happen but He didn't. He only cut off the unbelieving element in Covenant Israel. The believing remnant of God is still very much Covenant Israel and now the believing Gentiles have been and are being grafted into Covenant Israel daily.(Rom 11)

When Israel according to the flesh is no longer a nation the children of the promise are counted for the seed
Rom 9:6-8 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Paul told the Galatian Church that they were children of promise (Gal 3:29). He also told them that they were children of promise just as Isaac was a child of promise.(Gal 4:28) It is interesting that Paul would say in Rom 9 that the children of direct bloodline(flesh) were not necessarily the children of God but the children of promise were counted for the seed of Abraham.

GLJCA

 

[holdon]

Just in case your thinking that I am saying that Israel is no longer God's people I am not. I am saying that unbelieving Israel is not God's people. Believing Israel has always been and will always be considered God's olive tree.

Jer 11:16 The LORD called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, [and] of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.

If God would have cut off all of Israel then Jer 31:36 would happen but He didn't. He only cut off the unbelieving element in Covenant Israel. The believing remnant of God is still very much Covenant Israel and now the believing Gentiles have been and are being grafted into Covenant Israel daily.(Rom 11)

When Israel according to the flesh is no longer a nation the children of the promise are counted for the seed
Rom 9:6-8 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Paul told the Galatian Church that they were children of promise (Gal 3:29). He also told them that they were children of promise just as Isaac was a child of promise.(Gal 4:28) It is interesting that Paul would say in Rom 9 that the children of direct bloodline(flesh) were not necessarily the children of God but the children of promise were counted for the seed of Abraham.

GLJCA

But nor the Galatians nor you went back to the land Israel.

 

[GLJCA]

That's why I asked whether you were living in Israel now.

And if not, why don't you go ahead and move there and claim the land based on the promises to Abraham, if indeed those promises are for you......

Oh that is what you meant. Well what do you make of this verse.
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

When was Abraham promised that he would inherit the world?

Do you think that God may have promised him more than just a little sliver of land in the middle east?

Maybe that is why when Abraham dwelt in the land of promise he dwelt in tents because he knew that God had more in store for him.
Heb 11:9-10 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as [in] a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God.
He was looking for a city with foundations whose builder and maker is God.
Eph 2:19-20 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];
Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
That sounds a lot like the New Jerusalem or the heavenly Jerusalem, which is the Church of Jesus Christ.
Heb 12:22-23 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Do you think that maybe we as children of promise have inherited the earth along with Abraham and Christ and that is why the church was given the commission to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature?

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

GLJCA

 

[GLJCA]

But nor the Galatians nor you went back to the land Israel.

Nope didn't have to because I am of the Covenant Israel right here where I live. Not by my bloodline, nor because of my geography, but by the New Covenant blood of Christ shed for me.

GLJCA

 

[holdon]

Oh that is what you meant. Well what do you make of this verse.
Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

When was Abraham promised that he would inherit the world?

But wasn't the physical land promised to him? Or do you think that was all spiritual per Heb 11:9,10.?

And by the way when was the "time of Jacob's trouble" for you? Because that's what precedes the New Covenant with Israel.
And are the enemies of Israel subjected to you?
And is Israel experiencing a peace without end now?

 

[ddub85]

@GLJCA

Quote:
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.
See that? Let there be no doubt. Care to comment?

Excuse me but this scripture is not saying what I asked for. I asked
for an Old Covenant scripture promising salvation to the Gentiles, this
one is speaking of blessing not salvation. Can you admit that there is
a difference between blessing and salvation?

GLJCA,
You're missing the point. The blessing here IS salvation. God justified
(made righteous through faith) Gentiles through this Old Covenant
blessing to Abraham. Paul is telling us clearly that the blessing given
here, which includes Gentiles, IS salvation.

The children of Israel who died in the wilderness were blessed with
along with Caleb and Joshua but that didn't mean they were saved. In
fact the Bible says that they did not enter into God's rest because of
unbelief.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what Paul says here. Were
they justified through faith? No. The promise, the blessing Paul is
speaking of in Gal 3:8 is salvation (justification, made righteous
through faith).

You can not give me one scripture because there isn't one. There is
no reference giving Gentiles salvation except in the New Covenant blood
of Christ.

I just did. But notice that you don't have one scripture which says
salvation came to Gentiles through the New Covenant. You don't even
have one scripture which says the New Covenant is for Gentiles. You
don't even have one scripture that says Gentiles become Israel when
saved. You don't even have one scripture which says the New Covenant
has begun. Need I continue?

Even the scripture that you presented in Heb 9:15 speaks against you.

In what way? It says that the forgiveness of sins were under the Old
Covenant. That is exactly what I'm saying. So how could it possibly
speak against me? Since you disagree with that, it speaks against you ,
not me.

God Bless!

 

[ddub85]

@ GLJCA

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are
called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has
occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the
first covenant. For where a covenant is involved, the death of the one
who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death,
since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.
Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

I noticed in your defintion of "of force" that you did not stay
choose the word that was consistent with the context of chapters 8,9, &
10.

Excuse me? I used the Greek definition of the word used in the Bible.
Does it come any more consistent than that?
Quote:
So a testament is stable, firm, sure, trusty, "ESTABLISHED". You are
stating it as if it is "in force", or obtained. See the difference? So
the New Testament was established when Christ shed His blood, and on
that we agree. But obtained? No. That's NOT what the Bible says.

Heb 8:17 For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise
it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Let's insert the words of the definition into this verse unlike what
you did.
For a testament is stable, firm, sure, trusty after men are dead:
otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testor liveth.
I am stating the same thing that the Bible is stating my brother. I am
saying that the New Testament is stable, firm, sure, trusty after the
testor, Christ, died. Your supposed difference in the definition does
not have a leg to stand on.

I have no supposed difference with what you just said. I agree with
what you just said. It's only when you attempt to say the testament has
begun, that it has been obtained, which the Bible DOES NOT say, that I
object.

If the New Testament was not in effect today then it would not be
stable, firm, sure, trusty.

Now you have spoken an untruth, and I object.
The Bible doesn't say the New Testament is in effect today. It says it
has been established, it is stable, firm, sure, trusty. That IS NOT
saying it is "in effect today". Those are two different things. To be
"in effect today", it would have to be "obtained", and that IS NOT the
word the Bible uses. It's NOT what is being said.

Also I noticed that you did not define "takes effect". This scripture
says that a will takes effect only at the death of the testor. Please
define "takes effect"?
This ought to be good!!

I already have. It''s the same definition as "of force" because it's
the same Greek word "egkainizo".
dedicate; egkainizo (strong's 1457)
1) to renew
2) to do anew, again
3) to initiate, consecrate, dedication
The Bible says it's been dedicated, and you contradict that by saying
it has begun.
Was it good?
Quote:
A covenant was inaugurated with the blood of Christ. But the New
Covenant wasn't inaugurated with the blood of Christ.

Speaking of good. This comment to HeyMikey is classic Dispensational.
Like a dog chasing his tail. Please tell us what covenant was
inaugurated with the blood of Christ?

I'll do better than that. I'll let the BIBLE tell you;

Hbr 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own
blood he entered in once into the holy place, having OBTAINED eternal
redemption [for us].
Hbr 8:6 But now hath he OBTAINED a more excellent ministry

This is what the BIBLE (not me!!!) has said was inagurated. This is
what was begun, what was put in effect. Can you show any scripture
which says the New Covenant was obtained? Of course not.

1 Cor 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had
supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye,
as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.
inaugurate
1 : to induct into an office with suitable ceremonies
2 a : to dedicate ceremoniously : observe formally the beginning of
<inaugurate a new school> b : to bring about the beginning of
Do you pick the part of the definition that fits your belief and throw
out the rest?

No, but you do. The proof is your next statement-

Jesus brought about the beginning of the New Covenant.

That is an untrue statement. This is what Jesus says; "This cup is
the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in
remembrance of me."

This is what you hear; "This is my blood, the beginning of the New
Testament, the making of Gentiles into Israel, the bringing in of
Gentiles into Jer 31, and the end of the Old Testament."
Jesus said none of this in that statement, othere than His blood was
shed for the New Testament! Look at all you READ INTO what was said!

He dedicated ceremoniously the New Covenant.

Finally a plausible statement.

Jesus observed formally the beginning of the New Covenant. All of
them apply. You can't just pick the one you think applies to your
belief. Well I guess you can but you will be in error.

And here is your error. Jesus doesn't say the New Covenant began. The
Bible never uses the word began with the New Covenant. The Bible never
says the New Covenant was "obtained". Established? Sure. Obtained? No.
It never says this, but you do. It clearly says that salvation,
redemption of sins, a more excellent ministry, justification, were
obtained. The New Covenant? It never says such a thing. Yet, you
continue to insist it says the New Covenant began with NO SCRIPTURE to
support such a statement.

For shame.

God Bless!

 

[ddub85]

@ GLJCA

DDUB, You said,
Quote:
We're in agreement!!! Let's look closely though at what you're actually
saying.
Part I) "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry,"
This is the first part of the statement, and it lists what was
OBTAINED.
obtain; tugchano (strong's 5177)
1) to hit the mark
a) of one discharging a javelin or arrow
2) to reach, attain, obtain, get, become master of
3) to happen, chance, fall out
a) to specify, to take a case, as for example
4) to meet one
5) of he who meets one or presents himself unsought, any chance,
ordinary, common person
6) to chance to be
So this is what hit the mark, what was reached, happened,... OBTAINED.
A more excellent ministry was obtained, and nothing else. "More
excellent" means that what was already there, was made "more
excellent". Consider that, even by your view, the New Covenant wasn't
there yet. So the New Covenant CANNOT be the "more excellent ministry".
What was already there? The Old Covenant. So obviously the Old Covenant
is the ministry made "more excellent".

You have to take these scriptures out of the context of the chapter
to make your belief fit.

Then why don't you list what was out of context. Was a more excellent
ministry obtained? Yes or no? Does something already have to be there
in order for it to become more excellent? Yes or no? Was the Old
Covenant already there? Yes or no? So please be specific. What was out
of context? If you can't be specific, then you're not being truthful
about what I said.

The context of chapters 8,9 & 10 is contrasting the Old Covenant and
the New Covenant. The contrast between what the Old Covenant could not
do to make the hearers perfect before God and how the New Covenant
through the blood of Christ has made those who are sanctified perfect
in Christ.

The contrast isn't Old Covenant to New Covenant, it's law and grace.
The proof of that is in this question; what changes are made from the
Old Covenant to the New Covenant? What did God change within those two
covenants? Please answer that question.
Perfection in Christ is salvation by grace through faith. That is an
Old Covenant promise.

You are mistakenly thinking that Christ made the Old Covenant better
and no where does it say that.

Let's stick with the words of the Bible; Christ made the Old Covenant
"more excellent". In order for something to become "more excellent", it
has to already be there. I can't make a new thing more excellent than
it already was, because it didn't previously exist. So Christ made
something already there, more excellent. The Old Covenant was already
there, the New Covenant was not (by your own account!). So what was
made "more excellent" was the Old Covenant.

The better covenant is the one that replaced the Old Covenant.

Replaced? The Bible never says the Old Covenant was replaced. You
made that up. The Bible says the Old Covenant was made more excellent,
and ALSO Christ is the mediator of a better covenant (the New
Covenant), which was ESTABLISHED upon better promises.
So the Old Covenant was OBTAINED, and the New Covenant was ESTABLISHED.
Do you see the different words used for each in Hbr 8:6? Why do you
think the writer used the two different words with two different
meanings for each? Because he meant it that way.

Heb 8:7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should
no place have been sought for the second.
This chapter and into the next chapter shows that the Old Covenant
could not make the hearers perfect before God (Heb 9:9) while the first
tabernacle was standing. The first tabernacle was the temple made with
human hands which passed away, never to return because now the
tabernacle is Christ.

You are confusing the law with the Old Covenant. They are not the
same thing. The Old Covenant came 430 years before the law. Don't
confuse the two things. The writer is referring to the law in Hbr 9:9,
NOT the Old Covenant.

The context of the chapters 8, 9, & 10 show that the blood of bulls
and goats required in the Old Covenant was contrasted with the spotless
blood of Christ which brought in the New Covenant.

These weren't requirements of the Old Covenant, these were
requirements of the law. The Old Covenant was grace through faith. The
law and the Old Covenant are two different things.

Notice verse 18 says that the first testament was dedicated without
blood which destroys your idea that Christ's blood made the Old
Covenant better.

There are a few problems with this statement. First, the Bible
doesn't say "testament" here in the scripture. It says "the first", and
it's not talking about testament. It's speaking about the first
tabernacle, as stated in Hbr 9:2,6,and 8. The "first" being spoken of
is the tabernacle, not testament.
Second, this verse is saying that the first tabernacle was dedicated
with blood (the blood of animals).
Third, Hbr 9:15 makes crystal clear that the blood of Christ brought
the redemption of sins in the Old Covenant.

Christ obtained a more excellent ministry because He is the mediator
of a better covenant based on better promises, which is the New
Covenant.

You have just superceded the writer of Hebrews, and created your own
gospel. This is what YOU say, and it contradicts what the writer says.
You have taken creative license, and CHANGED the words of the writer in
order to CHANGE the meaning of what was said. Notice that YOU say
Christ obtained a more excellent ministry BECAUSE He is the mediator of
a better covenant. The writer of Hebrews says Christ obtained a more
excellent ministry, and He ALSO established a better covenant upon
better promises. These are two different statements with two different
meanings. You are contradicting the Bible, and creating your own
gospel.

The Bible never says that Christ is the mediator of the Old Covenant
only the New.

Great point. The Bible says that Christ is the REDEEMER of the Old
Covenant. It is in place, it is active. There is nothing to mediate. It
is finished. That's why the Bible doesn't say Christ is the mediator.
The mediation is finished.
Where does the Bible say that Christ is the Redeemer of the New
Covenant?

Nor does it say, except in your imagination, that Christ made the Old
Covenant better.

Again, let's stick with what the Bible says. He made the Old Covenant
"more excellent". You seem to be arguing that He made the New Covenant
more excellent. How do you make something that isn't there more
excellent? It doesn't make sense. Also, how do you make something more
excellent, then establish that same thing upon better promises? It
doesn't make sense.

Chapters 8, 9, & 10 contrast the Old Covenant which was dedicated
without blood and the New Covenant which was dedicated, established,
and in force by the blood of Christ.

You are confusing the law with the Old Covenant. The law was
dedicated with the blood of animals, the Old Covenant was obtained with
the blood of Christ, and the New Covenant was established with the
blood of Christ. That's what chapters 8,9, and 10 say.

Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that
are sanctified.

This is saying that the law couldn't sanctify, but Christ could and
did. Read the chapter.

15 [Whereof] the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he
had said before,
16 This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days,
saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their
minds will I write them;
Notice how the writer says that Christ's offering perfected forever
them that are sanctified, then he goes on to say that the Holy Ghost
also is a witness to us, for after that he said before..... and he
brings in Jer 31:31-35 while writing to the same Christians.

He is writing to the Hebrews, the ones Jer 31 was written to. Do you
see v. 17? It is a quote of OT scripture written to and about the
Hebrews, repeated by Paul about the Hebrews in Rom 11. He's not
speaking about Gentiles here.

He is writing to members of the Church of Jesus Christ not Jews who
are AntiChrist.

Say what?!?!?!?!?!
Do you realize that the church BEGAN with the Jews? Do you realize that
salvation was to the Jew FIRST??? Do you realize that the Savior, the
Redeemer, the Lamb, the Lion, the Messiah, the Christ, the One the
entire book is written of,... IS A JEW???
You'd better do some serious soul searching. This CT propaganda seems
to have you in total confusion.

Again for you to make your belief fit you have to take the scriptures
out of context big time. In context there is no way that the New
Covenant is not in effect.

YET, you don't have one scripture which says it's in effect. I have
several that say the Old Covenant is in effect, that salvation came
under the Old Covenant, that the Old Covenant was promised to both Jew
and Gentile, that the Old Covenant was obtained, and that it is still
in effect.
And again, be specific when you say I take scripture out of context. If
you can't do that, then stop accusing me of something I'm not doing.

God Bless!

 

[ddub85]

@ GLJCA

If Paul was telling the Galatians that they only inherit one promise
that God gave Abraham and Christ, which was salvation by faith, then
poor Isaac will only inherit that one promise also.
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
I doubt that this verse will change your mind but I can only hope that
you will see that your belief is in error.

Not so. Isaac was a part of the promises given to Abraham in Gen
12:1-3. We Gentiles were given the single promise, which is in Gen
12:3. In other words, we all, Jew and Gentile, receive the promise of
salvation. So we, as Isaac was, are the children of that promise, which
Paul pulled out amongst the promises made. But the others are to the
Jews, and therefore Isaac partakes of those.
However, whether Isaac partakes of those or not, it doesn't change the
fact that we, as Isaac was, are children of the Old Covenant promise of
salvation written in Gen 12:3.
There is no error.

God Bless!

 

[ddub85]

GLJCA:

DDub keeps mistakenly thinking that we Gentiles only recieve one
promise but what he doesn't see or realize is that all of the promises
are contained in that one promise of salvation by faith.

The Bible says NOTHING about all of the promises being contained in
that one promise. However, all that one could ever NEED is surely
contained in that one promise, and it's impossible to have MORE than
you receive in that one promise.

One can not have salvation by faith without the shed blood of Christ
providing the forgiveness of sins.

So true.

The blood of the New Covenant was God's provision of that promise.

You say that with NO SCRIPTURE to support it. Hbr 9:15 says Christ obtained eternal redemption for us for the sins under the Old Covenant. But you insist this happened under the New Covenant with no Bible to support it. Therefore, it's your own gospel, and not Bible.

One can not have salvation by faith unless God calls me one of His
people because it is God who gives us the faith to believe.

So true.

That one promise of salvation by faith does not stand alone nor can it.

It stands on Christ. What you fail to realize is that if you have Christ, if you are in Christ, you have the best of the best. There is nothing better, higher, more, greater,... If you have Christ, you have the very best. Salvation doesn't stand alone, it stands on Christ.

All of the Covenant promises that God gave to Abraham and Christ live
or die together.

They live together, they don't die at all. But the Bible specifically says we are fellowheirs, receiving what we've been allotted/assigned. Does your word override that? Are we to take what you say, and disregard what the Bible says? You want to make yourself Israel, and disregard what the Bible says because you think they have something better than you do. Israel has the same Christ we Gentiles have, and there is nothing more or better. When you realize that, you'll begin to see the truth.

If you are not in the Covenant today then you are lost
and are outside of the commonwealth of Israel but if you are believer
the blood of Christ has taken away the wall of partition and made you
one with the commonwealth of Israel.

Yes, in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek according to the single promise.

God Bless!

 

[GLJCA]

But wasn't the physical land promised to him? Or do you think that was all spiritual per Heb 11:9,10.?

No, the promise was to Abraham and his seed, which is Christ (Gal 3:16). We who believe are joint-heirs with Christ in those promises.(Rom 8:17) The promises of God are applied to Gentiles by virtue of their relationship with Christ.

The false teaching that the land promise was to the blood seed of Abraham is just that, false. A Gentile in the OT being circumcised and obeying God's law to the best of his ability was included in the Children of God and considered an Israelite, even though he was a Gentile.
Ex 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof

There is no such things as a physical heir to the promises of God. The heirs have always been those that love and obey God. Paul was explicit concerning what a Jew is in Rom 2: 28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God
So does that mean that even Jew's spiritually inherit the promises of God since the true circumcision is of the heart and in the spirit?


GLJCA

 

[GLJCA]

DDUB you must not be reading the scriptures that I am presenting. I guess if you don't read them you can keep maintaining that I am not presenting them.

I said, You can not give me one scripture because there isn't one. There is no reference giving Gentiles salvation except in the New Covenant blood
of Christ.
You answered, I just did. But notice that you don't have one scripture which says salvation came to Gentiles through the New Covenant. You don't even
have one scripture which says the New Covenant is for Gentiles. You don't even have one scripture that says Gentiles become Israel when saved. You don't even have one scripture which says the New Covenant
has begun. Need I continue?

No the scripture you gave does not say what you are trying to maintain. There is no scripture that gives Gentiles salvation in the Old Covenant. All you can refer to in Gal 3 which doesn't say that at all. Don't you find it amazing that there is no other reference that backs what you say that Gal 3 is talking about? Dispys are notorious for taking scripture out of context as a proof text.

I have also given you several scriptures showing conclusively that the Gentiles have salvation because of the New Covenant body and blood of Christ. Here is one that I have shared several times but you have never commented on why Paul wrote this to Gentiles.
1Cor 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
Paul was writing to Gentiles telling them that Christ's body and Christ's blood was the New Testament given for them. How plain do you need it?

Isn't it interesting that these Gentiles could be guilty of the body and the New Covenant blood of the Lord yet they can not be a part of the New Covenant? What a silly thought!
1Cor 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Paul told the Corinthian Gentile Christians that they were ministers of the New Testament.
2Co 3:6 ¶ Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
Really how could they be ministers of something that they are not part of?

How many scriptures do you need? I have more. Of Course, I have already given you much more than you have presented yet you keep saying that I don't give you scripture.

GLJCA