New Covenant

[ddub85]

You dont understand the bible, and when Jesus comes you will see your delusion..

Just like I thought. You can't defend what you said, you don't know enough to sensibly reply, so you just attempt to play God.

Weak.

God Bless!

 

[beloved57]

Just like I thought. You can't defend what you said, you don't know enough to sensibly reply, so you just attempt to play God.

Weak.

God Bless!

You have been showed scripture you cant understand it..God has blinded you to the truth, there is no reason to even continuing this dialouge unless God grants you new birth..

 

[Steve Petersen]

Great idea guys. Take it to the boxing ring.

 

[ddub85]

You have been showed scripture you cant understand it..God has blinded you to the truth, there is no reason to even continuing this dialouge unless God grants you new birth..

God should grant you the ability to articulate a position, understand it, and defend it with His word.

God Bless!

 

[heymikey80]

No dispute here. The New Covenant is meant to rectify their disobedience, a disobedience that got them expelled. (Though historically there have always been some Jews living in the Land.)

I'm not an expert on this from the perspective of Israel, but I'd leave that to Paul and Peter's comments, and I'm unsure they'd agree. I think they'd say the New Covenant is meant as the logical outcome of all the covenants, even the interim, era of Israel/Judah/Judea.

While it's to rectify the disobedience of Israel, it's actually meant that for everyone. The Babylon and then the Roman expulsion was an issue of disobedience, sure, but not one of such profound terms as losing the covenant. The Mosaic covenant wasn't exhausted on those grounds. Expulsion is really an interim issue.

The New Covenant deals with sin in a much more pervasive way. Prior to this there were sacrifices looking forward to the True Sacrifice, but signposts, "It's on its way!"

When the signposts were mistakenly taken for the reality, that was the time the Messiah came. That reality was upsetting, and people clung to the signposts to save them. The signposts gave way under the pressure of dependencies they were never built to support.

But they're still signposts, many are still out there, they still have a purpose.

Paul himself says Gentiles are grafted in and part of the Commonwealth of Israel. This is how Gentiles participate. But being part of the commonwealth means following its Laws.

There's little doubt in my mind that Paul doesn't mean the (then-extant) nation of Judea's political government. They're not going to follow the Mosaic Law verbatim, either. See Acts 15, Peter's comments, and Galatians 2, when Paul confronts Peter. The arguments prevent this understanding.

I think Paul realizes he's not creating a new government along the lines of Judea. I think he sees Judea as corrupted by Gentile influences, and not the kind of nation God wanted in the first place. I think he sees this new nation as radically different, "not of this world", and we as ambassadors of it.

However, the Apostlic arguments don't topple the Law, either. Romans 3:31 should be a touchstone of the fact that the Law remains. Why? Why would it remain, when Peter and Paul are saying certain harsh things about observing its ceremonies and government? It's because the Law reveals sin in us, and morality as God intended. We use the Law by comparison, not by compulsion (Rom 7-8), knowing all the while that defiance of the Law is morally deadly. We can look into the Law and with the work of the Spirit of God, we discover true morality and where we don't measure up (2 Cor 3:12-18). And by relying on God the Spirit, submitting to Him from the inside out, we are transformed into the greater and greater glory -- such beauty! -- of what the Law intended -- not simply what it said (Gal 5:22-26). So the Law doesn't change -- we change, and the Law approves and has no penalty against the changes the Spirit is making.

But ... that is the New Covenant. It's an agreement sealed in the Blood of the Savior, binding us to God and one another in promises, laws, and relationships.

 

[beloved57]

While it's to rectify the disobedience of Israel, it's actually meant that for everyone. The Babylon and then the Roman expulsion was an issue of disobedience, sure, but not one of such profound terms as losing the covenant. The Mosaic covenant wasn't exhausted on those grounds. Expulsion is really an interim issue.

The covenantal privileges have with finality been taken from Isreal and given to the new covnenat people of God, ratified by the blood of christ..

This is what jesus meant here..

matt 21:

43Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof..

Both the taken and given denote assuredness and finality..

The nation [ Gods covenant people] who the covenant priveleges are given is 1 pet 2:

9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

This of course is the elect of God to whom peter in this epistle writes..

1 pet 1:

1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Israel as a chosen privileged covenant people is no more..

though we pray for any jewish person who is of the election of grace..