New Covenant

[heymikey80]

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Isaac is no more associated with Hagar than we are. Hagar was under the bondage of sin. Isaac, just as we are, was a child of promise ACCORDING TO PAUL.

Now this may be interpreted allegorically Gal 4:24
​

The connection between the people is an allegory. Paul says so. Making this a substantial connection contradicts Paul.

If you apply figurative language on the covenant it deprives the covenant of its actual importance. It forces you to split the covenant at another place -- the wrong place -- when you try to keep the allegory concretely consistent.

The two covenants are one of bondage (sin) and one of promise (grace, Abrahamic). If you miss that point, you have no understanding of what Paul is speaking about. Isaac, just as we are, was a child of promise, saved by grace under the Abrahamic Covenant.

The two connections are one of bondage (law) and one of promise through faith (grace). Paul saw that in Isaac and Hagar -- and connected them allegorically with Jewish observer and Christian.

Now we brothers are the children of promise just like Isaac was.
​

Paul has allegorized exactly the groups that ddub85 wants to demand to be directly-applied.

Hagar's offspring was the elder son
The Jewish people are the elder people of God

Isaac was the one graced.
The Gentiles are the ones graced.

Hagar's offspring was first given the covenant signs (Isaac wasn't even born); Isaac was the greater heir.
The Jewish people were first given the covenant signs; the Gentiles are the greater heirs.

​

The allegory is palpable. But projecting allegory into the concrete is just a mistake.

There's nothing fugurative about it. There's nothing there to indicate it's figurative.

These things may be taken figuratively Gal 4:24, NIV
​

What follows in your response is tirade. The facts contradict your assertion.

This is where it ended, because this is what Scripture said about your prior interpretation. The Scripture demanded allegory, and you demanded concrete application.

Scripture wins.

 

[ddub85]

@ heymikey

Paul is speaking directly and explicitly about whether receiving the Law makes Jewish people any better in God's eyes -- Paul says it doesn't, that not hearers, but doers of the Law will be justified -- be they Gentile or Jew.
So the Law applies.

This is NOT what we're discussing. We AGREE that by nature the law applies.

But the insight of Law is only delivered to Jew.

THIS would be the topic of discussion. The law is only delivered to to the Jew. That's what Paul means when he says that Gentiles don't have the law, as it is only "delivered" to the Jews.

Now, in the New Covenant, the law is "DELIVERED" to the recipients;

Hbr 8:10 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 write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Hbr 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Since we Gentiles have never received the law according to Paul, then we Gentiles CANNOT be under the New Covenant, as those under the New Covenant will receive the law. They will receive it in such a way that they will require no teaching, from the least to the greatest. Obviously that applies to no one on the face of the earth at the moment. But that may be getting off topic a bit, so I digress.

The fact remains that those under the New Covenant receive the law, and Gentiles DO NOT have the law. That clearly and simply means that we're not under the New Covenant.

This is reiterated in Romans 5, where people between Adam and Moses still perish under sin, even before the Law is delivered.
The Law isn't the institution of right & wrong. It's not so shallow. The Law is a summary and commended practice of eternal right & wrong. "No murdering" isn't Moses onward. It's core morality itself, and eternal.

Once again, we're not discussing what the law is or isn't. We're discussing the fact that the law is delivered to the recipients of the New Covenant, and is not delivered to Gentiles. The New Covenant recipients have the law, and Gentiles do not have the law. Therefore, Gentiles are not under the New Covenant.

God Bless!

 

[ddub85]

@ heymikey

Now this may be interpreted allegorically Gal 4:24
The connection between the people is an allegory. Paul says so. Making this a substantial connection contradicts Paul.

Gal 4:28, the verse we're discussing, IS NOT to be interpreted allegorically. Do you agree? (You are a sneaky one my friend).

If you apply figurative language on the covenant it deprives the covenant of its actual importance. It forces you to split the covenant at another place -- the wrong place -- when you try to keep the allegory concretely consistent.

Again, the statement in Gal 4:28 IS NOT allegory. It is a statement of fact, it is the fact the allegorical story is telling.
**

The two connections are one of bondage (law) and one of promise through faith (grace). Paul saw that in Isaac and Hagar -- and connected them allegorically with Jewish observer and Christian.

Jewish observer and Christian??? First, Hagar IS NOT Jewish!!! You are aware of that FACT, aren't you? So which is connected to the Jewish observer? There is no Jewish connection. Second, Abraham and Isaac are Christian also. Therefore, your statement makes absolutely no sense.

The allegorical connection is believer/non-believer. Those connected to Hagar are connected to sin under the law. Those connected to Isaac are connected to grace under Christ.

Now we brothers are the children of promise just like Isaac was.

Now we, like Isaac, are the children of the promise to Abraham. We Gentiles are INCLUDED in the promise to Abraham "by scripture". We ARE NOT INCLUDED in the New Covenant promise by any scripture in the Bible. That coincides perfectly with what Paul says here, that we Gentiles are of the same promise as Isaac, the promise made to his father.

Paul has allegorized exactly the groups that ddub85 wants to demand to be directly-applied.
Hagar's offspring was the elder son
The Jewish people are the elder people of God
Isaac was the one graced.
The Gentiles are the ones graced.

By some strange, twisted act, you're attempting to separate Isaac from "the Jewish people", and connect him to "the Gentiles... the ones graced". I understand the connection to we Gentiles, and we are graced, but I don't understand the disconnection to the Jewish people, as they were graced FIRST. To the Jew FIRST, and also to the Gentile. What... did you just throw all of those scriptures out of your Bible?

The more you speak, the more clear the fact becomes that you feel you have replaced the Jews. That is not the truth, and that is not what is being stated here by Paul.

Hagar's offspring was first given the covenant signs (Isaac wasn't even born); Isaac was the greater heir.

Huh? Hagar's offspring were never intended to be the heir. I don't know where that came from, but it's not from the Bible. Isaac, in his time, is the ONLY heir. Hagar wasn't given a covenant. The Bible is very clear; Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The Jewish people were first given the covenant signs; the Gentiles are the greater heirs.

I notice you have no scripture to verify this ridiculous statement. There's a reason for that; there are none.
NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that the Gentiles are greater heirs than the Jews. The Jews are never excluded from the promises of God. There are no other recipients of the PROMISES. We Gentiles are included in the promise that Isaac is under, the promise given to Abraham;

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.

And this is the promise of grace, of Christ, of the Holy Spirit, of salvation;

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.

And this is the allegory of Paul's story in Gal 4, the contrast being the scripture above against the bondage of sin through the law;

Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:

The allegory is palpable. But projecting allegory into the concrete is just a mistake.

And again, Gal 4:28 isn't allegorical. It is a concrete fact supported throughout the Bible.

These things may be taken figuratively Gal 4:24, NIV
What follows in your response is tirade. The facts contradict your assertion.

Gal 4:28 isn't to be taken figuratively, as it is not a part of the allegorical story. Do you disagree?

This is where it ended, because this is what Scripture said about your prior interpretation. The Scripture demanded allegory, and you demanded concrete application.
Scripture wins.

Scripture always wins. That's why you listed none in support of your position that the two in the story are a "Jewish observer & Christian", or "The Gentiles are the ones graced" (as opposed to Jews), or "The Gentiles are the greater heirs", and so on. That's why you have no supportive scripture for these ridiculous statements.

Scripture does win.

God Bless!

 

[beloved57]

Gentiles who don't possess the Law in writing "by nature do what the Law requires." If the Law requires it, then it's quite obvious the Law applies to them.

Paul is speaking directly and explicitly about whether receiving the Law makes Jewish people any better in God's eyes -- Paul says it doesn't, that not hearers, but doers of the Law will be justified -- be they Gentile or Jew.

So the Law applies. But the insight of Law is only delivered to Jew.

This is reiterated in Romans 5, where people between Adam and Moses still perish under sin, even before the Law is delivered.

The Law isn't the institution of right & wrong. It's not so shallow. The Law is a summary and commended practice of eternal right & wrong. "No murdering" isn't Moses onward. It's core morality itself, and eternal.

adam was under law in the beginning , in fact the 10 commandments can be extracted from that one law, Thou mayest not eat from that certain tree ! In breaking that one commandemnt adam was guilty of breaking all 10..The elect in adam were under a covenant of works:

and we broke it..hosea 6

7But they like men[ adam ] have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.

adam was created in a covenental relationship with God, hence the reason for the usage of God created in the beginning , God is normative for expressing His covenent personage..

Notice when giving the 10 in exodous 20:

1And God spake all these words, saying,

2I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

So by creation man was in covenent with God, the elect!

Its important to note right now that satan was created in the beginning in gen however there is no indication that he ever was in a covenental relationship with God, only man....

angels are not in a covenetal relationship with God, only man was made in the image and likeness of God which is expressive of the covenental relationship man had with God..and probably why satan hated man so..and desired he his fall..

But thats another topic...

Now that Israel had been chosen to be Gods covenent people all other peoples were outside the covenetal relationship God had with men in the beginning, hence we have scripture like this one in eph 2:

12That 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:
13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes

Notice the gentiles were said to be without God in the world, what does that mean ?

Not that God from a creation standpoint was not their God, but He was not a God to them in a covenental aspect as to the chosen jews..

But man from a creation stand point in the beginning was under the law of works..a law which was broken for good and now by nature all the elect and non elect are born with that mentality of wanting to keep the law or rules and regulations to be accepted by God..but we failed under that administration..

But the elect by the death of christ on their behalf have been redeemed from the curse of law and have had christ revealed to them as their redeemer..

All the election of grace will have christ revealed to them as their righteousness..

That is why abel who recieved the gospel promise from his parents [ he being elect] made sacrifce of lamb , indicating he had been effectually taught of God to expect the coming redeemer of man, however cain who undoubtly was taught the same gospel see gen 3:15, the same gospel but not being[ mixed with faith which is only given to the elect] he relied on his best human efforts to achieve Gods acceptance..and he was rejected..

what is being taught here is that as long as man is not regenerated or has been given new birth he will always seek righteousness by works law keeping of some sort and not of faith.. This paul knew of his kinsmen according to the flesh..observe rom 10:


1Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth

you see abel believed on christ way back then he knew [ spiritually] that the coming lamb of God had given him righteuosness and his sacrifice expressed that hope..

heb 11:

By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.


So hence in rom 2 the depraved gentile are under the law of creation but its a cursed law of works and them who seek to be justified by works prove that they are under a curse and consequently save for regenration and sovereign grace will die in that condition no matter how morally good they may be..they are under a curse, as well as the non elect jews..who are not under the covenent of grace..

I have said a lot, let me stop here and see your responses if any, and then I will show how all men are not or were not in adam at the fall..

But i think the gentiles were under a cursed law of works by creation and the jews were given the law by redemption after being brought out of egypt...

 

[heymikey80]

Gal 4:28, the verse we're discussing, IS NOT to be interpreted allegorically. Do you agree? (You are a sneaky one my friend).

No, I do not agree. It IS to be interpreted allegorically. Paul's point here is that we are like Isaac in allegorical terms, not in real terms (your physical dad is not Abraham of Ur).

Jewish observer and Christian??? First, Hagar IS NOT Jewish!!! You are aware of that FACT, aren't you? So which is connected to the Jewish observer? There is no Jewish connection. Second, Abraham and Isaac are Christian also. Therefore, your statement makes absolutely no sense.

Like I said, if you push the allegory over into factual reality, then you make nonsense of what Paul said.

Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. Gal 4:25
​

Mount Sinai -- why, that's where Moses received the Law. Hagar representing Jerusalem worship? What's in Jerusalem? Could it be ... the Temple? Could it be Judaism of the First Century?

By some strange, twisted act, you're attempting to separate Isaac from "the Jewish people", and connect him to "the Gentiles... the ones graced". I understand the connection to we Gentiles, and we are graced, but I don't understand the disconnection to the Jewish people, as they were graced FIRST. To the Jew FIRST, and also to the Gentile. What... did you just throw all of those scriptures out of your Bible?

You must be addressing this tirade to Paul, because he's who wrote the allegory.

The more you speak, the more clear the fact becomes that you feel you have replaced the Jews. That is not the truth, and that is not what is being stated here by Paul.

Allegory. You've completely missed the statement, and it's quite clear because now you're attributing your lack of allegory onto my view of Jew and Gentile. I'm tired of your falsehoods, poorly supported and once again pretended as truth. You're just reduced to name calling, now.

You've short-circuited your view into mine. I don't agree with your view. Therefore your assertion that in your terms this is replacement theology is a cop-out.

It's my view that the remnant is the group God meant to grace, as Paul said (Romans 11). We've certainly not replaced that remnant.

Move on. You've lost this argument thrice. Find another.

 

[Ormly]

No, I do not agree. It IS to be interpreted allegorically. Paul's point here is that we are like Isaac in allegorical terms, not in real terms (your physical dad is not Abraham of Ur).



Like I said, if you push the allegory over into factual reality, then you make nonsense of what Paul said.

Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. Gal 4:25​

[SIZE=+0]"For this Agar[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] is[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] mount[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] Sinai[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] in[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] Arabia [/SIZE][SIZE=+0]and[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] is in bondage[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] with[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] her[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] children[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]." . . .She answers to Jerusalem.[/SIZE]​

The previous verse supports this to read as such.​

 

[ddub85]

@ heymikey

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
Gal 4:28, the verse we're discussing, IS NOT to be interpreted allegorically. Do you agree? (You are a sneaky one my friend).
**

No, I do not agree. It IS to be interpreted allegorically. Paul's point here is that we are like Isaac in allegorical terms, not in real terms

So even though scripture places us Gentiles under the Abrahamic Covenant LITERALLY with Isaac, even though the statement is outside of the allegorical story, and even though there are NO SCRIPTURES that place us under the New Covenant, it's still to you allegory.

(your physical dad is not Abraham of Ur).

OK. And your point of this is? He doesn't have to be my physical dad in order for me to be under the Abrahamic Covenant. Surely that's not what you're saying.

Like I said, if you push the allegory over into factual reality, then you make nonsense of what Paul said.

Sorry, but I don't believe Paul meant for the factual reality to come out as nonsense based upon what he said. The fact is that the reality should line up with the allegory. We can be 100% sure that Paul wasn't saying this was between Jewish observer and Christian, and Gentiles are greater heirs than Jews. That lines up with absolutely NOTHING that Paul says. Paul was a Jew, for crying out loud.

So to attempt to hide behind 'allegory' in this is somewhat shameful.

Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. Gal 4:25
Mount Sinai -- why, that's where Moses received the Law. Hagar representing Jerusalem worship? What's in Jerusalem? Could it be ... the Temple? Could it be Judaism of the First Century?

So that is representative of the Jews rather than the non-believer you say. Even though on the other side of this is Jerusalem as well, in the form of Isaac nonetheless. Are you telling me that Hagar is more a representation of the Jews than Isaac??? Let's at least be realistic here. It's clearly not a matter of Jewish observer and Christian. Jewish non-Christian to Jewish Christian? Makes much more sense. Non-Christian and Christian? OK. But Jew and Christian, and Gentiles the greater heir? You've got to be kiddin' me.

You must be addressing this tirade to Paul, because he's who wrote the allegory.

--Not at all, as Paul saw himself as a saved Jew, saw Isaac in the same light, and saw many as saved Gentiles. That was not a problem for Paul. He never said Gentiles were the greater heirs, or that Gentiles somehow became Israel. Don't attribute that to Paul, as he never said anything of the kind.

You have disconnected Isaac from Israel, and aligned him with the Gentiles, and place Gentiles in a greater position than the Jews. You do this against mounds of scripture stating that the Jews are from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There are Jewish Christians, and there are no Gentiles that become saved Israel That is strange theology to say the least.

Allegory. You've completely missed the statement, and it's quite clear because now you're attributing your lack of allegory onto my view of Jew and Gentile.

Am I misquoting you? Because if I am, I do apologize. Are you allegorizing in an abstract manner? If so, please clarify. I'm just commenting upon what you've said. If this isn't what you mean, then make that clear.

I'm tired of your falsehoods, poorly supported and once again pretended as truth. You're just reduced to name calling, now

.
--My falsehoods? What I've said I can support with scripture. For instance, when I say we're under the same covenant as Isaac as stated in Gal 4:28, we only need to look at the previous chapter for the support (Gal 3:7-9,14) for the NON-ALLEGORICAL writing supporting my statement. What I said is supported by scripture.
You, on the other hand, have NO SCRIPTURE for example to support your statement that Gentiles are the greater heir. So how can you call what I say falsehood, and pretended as truth? I've just shown you scriptural support for what I said. Let's see you do the same. If you can't, then I'll conclude that it's YOU spreading falsehoods.

By the way, what name did I call you?

You've short-circuited your view into mine.

Not by a long shot.

I don't agree with your view. Therefore your assertion that in your terms this is replacement theology is a cop-out.

When you make a claim such as "the Gentiles are the greater heir" with no scriptural support, it seems to me that you're speaking in terms of replacement theology. A cop-out would be not truly providing answers, but making comments that avoid the real issue, and finding a way to leave the conversation. Sound familiar?
**

It's my view that the remnant is the group God meant to grace, as Paul said (Romans 11). We've certainly not replaced that remnant.

The remnant spoken of in Romans 11 is Jewish, not including Gentiles.

Move on.

Don't you wish? How can I possibly move on when you can't deal with the issues in front of you? This whole thing is really shaking you up, and you want to wake up and see it all gone. I know it's Christmas and all, but...

The hard part for you is that you know those under the New Covenant have received the law, and you know that Gentiles don't have the law. That can be awfully tough on an incorrect position. You know that Gentiles are never called Israel, and your position requires that. That's also very difficult. I could go on and on, but just those two things are sufficient evidence that your position isn't biblically sound.

You've lost this argument thrice. Find another.

Let's review;
1) Paul says Gentiles don't have the law. I say Gentiles don't have the law.

You say the insight of law is delivered to Jew (???).
The Bible says the law is placed in the inner parts of the recipients of the New Covenant.

Gentiles don't have the law, those under the New Covenant do have the law, but you say Gentiles are under the New Covenant... And "I" lose the argument???

Yeah right.
-----------------------
2) Paul, in a matter of fact statement, says we are under the same covenant as Isaac.

You connect the statement to the allegorical story above it, and make the grand decision that it's ALLEGORY. The allegorical story ends at v. 26 obviously, but you choose to ignore that fact.

So on one point you're in conflict with God and Paul who say those under the NC have the law and Gentiles do not have the law, and in the other you deem the point allegory, even though Paul is using the story to make his point in v. 28, and you claim victory? Those are two very weak responses, ONE TIME responses, and you claim victory? Really, this is just an admission that you have no real answers for these concerns, and could you please just leave me alone about these things.

You should be ashamed. These don't even include the other 17 questions you can't answer. You really should be ashamed. It's going to be interesting to see if you can even respond, or if you'll just put on track shoes and run.

"You've lost this argument thrice. Find another."

Sure I have. This is quickly becoming a game of "hide and seek" just like I knew it would. How about you try to find a real answer?

God Bless!

 

[ddub85]

[SIZE=+0]"For this Agar[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] is[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] mount[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] Sinai[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] in[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] Arabia [/SIZE][SIZE=+0]and[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] is in bondage[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] with[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] her[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] children[/SIZE][SIZE=+0]." . . .She answers to Jerusalem.[/SIZE]​

The previous verse supports this to read as such.​

The question is whether or not v. 28 is a part of the allegorical story, or is Paul stating a fact. If you believe it's allegory, please explain how you tie it to the story allegorically.

Thanks.

God Bless!

 

[heymikey80]

[SIZE=-0]"For this Agar[/SIZE][SIZE=-0] is[/SIZE][SIZE=-0] mount[/SIZE][SIZE=-0] Sinai[/SIZE][SIZE=-0] in[/SIZE][SIZE=-0] Arabia [/SIZE][SIZE=-0]and[/SIZE][SIZE=-0] is in bondage[/SIZE][SIZE=-0] with[/SIZE][SIZE=-0] her[/SIZE][SIZE=-0] children[/SIZE][SIZE=-0]." . . .She answers to Jerusalem.[/SIZE]​

The previous verse supports this to read as such.​

The question is whether or not v. 28 is a part of the allegorical story, or is Paul stating a fact. If you believe it's allegory, please explain how you tie it to the story allegorically.

From v. 22.
Isaac was the child of ...?
We are now the children of ...?
v. 28 points to the conclusion using a conjunction -- "now". It conjoins what went before.

v. 28 states an obvious allegory.

There's no reason to conclude Paul is speaking factually at v. 28.

v. 29 continues the allegory started at v. 22 and declared explicitly at v.24.

The allegory extends from v. 22 to v. 29.

All other connections described about "the child of the free woman" are allegorical.

 

[heymikey80]

@ heymikey

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
Gal 4:28, the verse we're discussing, IS NOT to be interpreted allegorically. Do you agree? (You are a sneaky one my friend).
**
So even though scripture places us Gentiles under the Abrahamic Covenant LITERALLY with Isaac, even though the statement is outside of the allegorical story, and even though there are NO SCRIPTURES that place us under the New Covenant, it's still to you allegory.

Not outside the allegory. What follows:

But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. Gal 4:29-31
​

Your point's lost. Isaac is the child of the freewoman. This is a verse in the midst of an allegorical application.

Isaac is allegorical of us.

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. Gal 4:28
​

 

[ddub85]

Not outside the allegory. What follows:

But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. Gal 4:29-31
​

Your point's lost. Isaac is the child of the freewoman. This is a verse in the midst of an allegorical application.

Isaac is allegorical of us.

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. Gal 4:28
​

Heymikey,

Vss. 28 and 31 are the POINT of the allegorical story.

Comical.

God Bless!

 

[heymikey80]

In which case they're applying the allegory. Comical to deny.

 

[ddub85]

@ heymikey

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

What would make us "as Isaac was"? Paul said that we were as Isaac was. The connection is that we, like Isaac, are THE children of Abraham, THE children of THAT promise. There is just absolutely no denying this fact, no matter how you perceive the verse.

Paul made it very clear that we, like Isaac, are under the promise given to Abraham. That's what makes us "as Isaac". There is no other connection. So to hide behind allegory does you absolutely no good. It doesn't matter if the story is allegorical or not, the FACT remains that Paul, in this statement, connects us to THAT promise, just as Isaac is connected to THAT particular promise to Abraham. Paul connects us, just as we're connected in the original promise in Gen. 12:3, just as Paul reiterates in Gal 3:7-9, 14. It's all the same connection, and Gal 4:28 is just further proof of this simple fact. To deny it is... comical, to say the least.

Is it your claim that Paul was just kidding around? Was he just speaking allegorically, meaning he didn't mean this statement to be factual in Gal 4:28? Is that your claim? Do you claim that Paul wasn't speaking the truth when he spoke here? Your claim of "allegory" really doesn't make much sense because Paul was making a point, and that point is exactly what he said in vss. 28 & 31.

We Gentiles, like Isaac, are THE children of THAT promise made to Abraham in Genesis 12:3.
Please stop trying to deny plain truth. It's rather embarrassing.

God Bless!

 

[heymikey80]

Paul makes an allegorical connection 24 "Now this may be interpreted allegorically" so says Paul) and thus it's an allegorical likeness 28, "Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise") . It's embarrassing to your view to contradict Scripture, no less Paul, in denying this. Paul wasn't kidding. This is allegorical. The allegorical application is explicit.

His allegorical application is real. To assert that it's more than allegory, that we actually are with Isaac is nonsense (cf 4:25, "Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children."), and offends the allegory just as much as the assertion that the children of Isaac actually are children of Hagar. It's ridiculous to assert this. Don't continue. Or expect to be berated with this point more if you do continue.

Mount Sinai is the Mosaic Covenant, that's where it originated. Hagar is Mount Sinai. Paul said as much. Believe it or don't, I don't care. Your application of this allegory is fantasy.

 

[ddub85]

@ heymikey

Paul makes an allegorical connection 24 "Now this may be interpreted allegorically" so says Paul) and thus it's an allegorical likeness 28, "Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise") . It's embarrassing to your view to contradict Scripture, no less Paul, in denying this. Paul wasn't kidding. This is allegorical. The allegorical application is explicit.

The STORY is allegorical, the STATEMENT by Paul...

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

... is 100% factual. It's the point of the allegorical story!

His allegorical application is real. To assert that it's more than allegory, that we actually are with Isaac is nonsense...

"With Isaac"??? Who said that? We, JUST LIKE ISAAC, are children of the promise made to Abraham. That is clearly what Paul is saying, and it's what you're attempting to deny. ANY unbiased person can see this fact. "WE, AS ISAAC WAS, ARE THE CHILDREN OF PROMISE", spoken clearly right here to all that are free by way of Jesus Christ.

... (cf 4:25, "Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children."), and offends the allegory just as much as the assertion that the children of Isaac actually are children of Hagar.

No one has associated Isaac with the children of Hagar. You're beginning to pull things out of thin air. Again... Isaac is a child of the promise made to Abraham, the SAME promise we're a child of, the SAME promise Paul tells us we're under in Gal 3:7-9,14, the SAME promise God gave to Abraham including us Gentiles in Gen. 12:3, the SAME promise in which our sins are forgiven, the sins of the Old Covenant (Hbr 9:15), the SAME promise woven into the Bible, line upon line, precept upon precept, the SAME promise that you continue to try to deny in any which way that you can.

It's ridiculous to assert this. Don't continue. Or expect to be berated with this point more if you do continue.

Rather than continue in your berating, why not just deal with the matter of fact statement that we're under the same promise that Isaac was under, as Paul stated and the Bible OVER AND OVER AGAIN supports, or deal with the fact that you are incorrect? Haven't you noticed that you can't support your position that we're not under this covenant with ANY scripture? Not one???!!!???

Mount Sinai is the Mosaic Covenant, that's where it originated. Hagar is Mount Sinai. Paul said as much.

That's great. Who is even arguing that point? Whoever said different? You're just bringing in irrelevant facts to make it look like you're really saying something! True desperation. The law is pitted against grace here. No one is arguing that fact.

The discussion is whether Paul is saying that this grace is under the covenant Isaac is under, the SAME grace that we are all under, the SAME grace promised to Abraham in Gen. 12:3, the SAME grace that includes us Gentiles, the SAME grace that Paul reiterates is for us all in Gal. 3:7-9,14, the SAME promise reiterated to us by Paul in Acts 3:25...

Act 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
... Or under the New Covenant which includes the law, which is made solely to the Jews, which excludes Gentiles. How many times and different ways does Paul have to make the statement? NEVER, NONE, ZILCH, NOT ONCE, NEVER, EVER, NEVER, EVER, NEVER does Paul say we Gentiles are under the New Covenant, yet you want to teach and convince people that we are. That's just not right.

Believe it or don't, I don't care. Your application of this allegory is fantasy.

The funny thing is that I can support what I'm saying scripture after scripture, line upon line, precept upon precept. YOU, on the other hand HAVE NO SCRIPTURES which say we're under the New Covenant. You deny that what Paul is saying in Gal 4:28 is a factual statement, preferring to pretend this factual statement is allegory. Add to that your creation of a red-herring like attempt at an Isaac/Hagar/Mt. Sinai facade. Then you threaten to berate. No longer comical, but now simply pathetic.

God Bless!

 

[heymikey80]

I think everyone else realizes that when you go on an extensive tear like this, you're flailing at things uncomprehending the points I've made. The point stands.

Paul says it, Jerusalem is Hagar's children, in bondage. It can only be allegory, it's not concrete fact.

Paul says it, we are children of the freewoman -- like Isaac. It can only be allegory, it's not concrete fact.

It's no red herring. He who has eyes -- see. Gal 4:22-31

For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written,

"Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
For the children of the desolate one will be more
than those of the one who has a husband."
​

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman." So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 2 Cor 3:5-6

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Lk 22:20
​

 

[ddub85]

@ heymikey

I apologize for being so long-winded, but I'm just trying to be thorough.

I think everyone else realizes that when you go on an extensive tear like this, you're flailing at things uncomprehending the points I've made.

What point? You've made no point concerning v. 28 other than saying it's allegorical. The fact of the matter is that the statement by Paul isn't allegorical, and the overwhelming proof is in the fact that it's repeated as fact over and over again throughout the Bible. He said it in a factual manner, and that's how he meant it. It's blatantly obvious.

The point stands.
Paul says it, Jerusalem is Hagar's children, in bondage. It can only be allegory, it's not concrete fact.

Paul is saying that those who choose to live under the law are in bondage. That's the concrete fact.

Paul says it, we are children of the freewoman -- like Isaac. It can only be allegory, it's not concrete fact.

Paul is saying those who choose grace are free in Christ.
Then he says matter of factly, NOT ALLEGORICALLY, that we are under the same promise as Isaac, the promise given to his father by God, the promise that included us Gentiles from the beginning, the promise spoken of over and over and over again in book after book, line upon line, precept upon precept, which includes us.

You, on the other hand, profess we're under a covenant that has NEVER included us, a promise which you have provided NO SCRIPTURE... NONE! that says we're a part of that. If what I say heere wasn't true, you would list scripture to disprove it. You haven't even tried, because you know I speak the truth.

It's no red herring.

The red herring would be this statement by you;

"Mount Sinai is the Mosaic Covenant, that's where it originated. Hagar is Mount Sinai. Paul said as much."

It's totally irrelevant to what we're discussing. We have no reason to discuss it, and we don't even disagree about it. Even if we did, it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Therefore,...
IT'S A RED HERRING!(something that distracts attention from the real issue).
**He who has eyes -- see. Gal 4:22-31
--Allegorical story. We agree on this. But only to v. 27.

Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

And here is where our disagreement is. Heymikey says this statement is allegory. I say Paul is making a factual statement, that this is the point of his allegorical story. There is nothing allegorical about the statement.
--------------------------

our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 2 Cor 3:5-6

Is this your scriptural proof that we're under the New Covenant? The fact that we are ministers of the New Covenant?

Jonah was a minister to Nineveh concerning their fate, but was not included in their fate. He was a MINISTER to them of their fate, but not included. Therefore, it is quite clear that being a MINISTER of something in no way places you as a part of that something. There are numerous examples of this, thereby nullifying this verse as being any kind of proof of us being under the New Covenant.

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Lk 22:20

To better understand, we only need to read the next verse;

Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Jesus states that He will not drink of the fruit of the vine, He will not drink it new with them UNTIL THAT DAY. Drink it in remembrance of me, it is the blood of the New Covenant, but not until...

Add to that the fact that His blood is also for the covenant of grace given to Abraham (Hbr 9:15). Where does the grace of the Abrhamic covenant, the covenant Christ also shed His blood for, fit in? If He will not drink it new UNTIL THAT DAY, where does this covenant fit in? If His blood is shed for the Old Covenant, where does it fit in?

God Bless!

 

[heymikey80]

What point? You've made no point concerning v. 28 other than saying it's allegorical. The fact of the matter is that the statement by Paul isn't allegorical, and the overwhelming proof is in the fact that it's repeated as fact over and over again throughout the Bible. He said it in a factual manner, and that's how he meant it. It's blatantly obvious.

Where else are we directly connected with Isaac? C'mon. You stated it. Find it.

No. Instead we're said to be children of Abraham by faith. we're part of the covenant made with the Seed of Abraham -- Jesus Christ. It makes us a fulfilment of the covenant with Abraham. It makes us beneficiaries of this covenant as Gentiles.

It does not make us sons like Isaac, in any more sense than the allegorical. 4:24 closes the door on your view of this.

The covenant extended to us, made with the Seed of Abraham, is not the covenant with Abraham. It's the New Covenant.

Paul is saying that those who choose to live under the law are in bondage. That's the concrete fact.

Paul is saying those who choose grace are free in Christ.
Then he says matter of factly, NOT ALLEGORICALLY, that we are under the same promise as Isaac, the promise given to his father by God, the promise that included us Gentiles from the beginning, the promise spoken of over and over and over again in book after book, line upon line, precept upon precept, which includes us.

ROFL! So go, get circumcised. You know -- what the covenant with Abraham requires of you, as it required of Isaac.

You, on the other hand, profess we're under a covenant that has NEVER included us, a promise which you have provided NO SCRIPTURE... NONE! that says we're a part of that. If what I say heere wasn't true, you would list scripture to disprove it. You haven't even tried, because you know I speak the truth

We're under a covenant that has ALWAYS included us, a promise which I have provided a number of Scriptures.

This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Ep 3:6

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance Heb 9:15
​

I don't try to deluge people with verses because it accomplishes nothing. I try to help people think this stuff through by comparing your arguments with mine.

The red herring would be this statement by you;

"Mount Sinai is the Mosaic Covenant, that's where it originated. Hagar is Mount Sinai. Paul said as much."

It's totally irrelevant to what we're discussing.

It's "side 1" of the comparison Paul is making in Gal 4:22-30. "Side 2" is the connection with Isaac. It's so relevant that you're pushing extreme words you can't support like "totally" into it to try to assert it's not.

We have no reason to discuss it, and we don't even disagree about it. Even if we did, it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Therefore,...
IT'S A RED HERRING!(something that distracts attention from the real issue).
**He who has eyes -- see. Gal 4:22-31
--Allegorical story. We agree on this. But only to v. 27.

It's only allegory when ddub85 wants it to be, not when Paul says it is. That's pontification for ya.

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
And here is where our disagreement is. Heymikey says this statement is allegory. I say Paul is making a factual statement, that this is the point of his allegorical story. There is nothing allegorical about the statement.

We're not parties to the covenant in the same way as Isaac. Nothing of the sort. We're actually parties to this covenant through the Seed it promises -- objectively a fulfilment of this covenant's actual blessings (Gen 22).

But we do this through the New Covenant made in the Blood of Jesus Christ (cf Lk 22:20). Without this covenant, we have no spiritual descendance from Abraham, no salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, no forgiveness of sins, and no peace with God.

Is this your scriptural proof that we're under the New Covenant? The fact that we are ministers of the New Covenant?

Jonah was a minister to Nineveh concerning their fate, but was not included in their fate. He was a MINISTER to them of their fate, but not included. Therefore, it is quite clear that being a MINISTER of something in no way places you as a part of that something. There are numerous examples of this, thereby nullifying this verse as being any kind of proof of us being under the New Covenant.

1. You can't serve a covenant that isn't operating.
2. Jesus is sent not merely to the Jews but to the Gentiles. Jesus is the Mediator of this New Covenant. This is not the Mosaic Covenant thrown open to all. This is the New Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant being unable to accomplish salvation.

For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Rom 8:2-4
​

3. You cite Jonah, but you've yet to cite any covenant at all with Nineveh.
4. The prophets normally experienced the verdict and judgment of God because they were also parties to the covenant. It's the same way now.

this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Mt 26:28
​

The blood of the covenant is poured out for forgiveness of sins. If you're not under the covenant, the sin remains.

To better understand, we only need to read the next verse;

Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Jesus states that He will not drink of the fruit of the vine, He will not drink it new with them UNTIL THAT DAY. Drink it in remembrance of me, it is the blood of the New Covenant, but not until...

... not until this interpretation vaults completely past the assertion of the passage. Jesus would not drink it anew with them until His Return.

He's not gonna be there to drink with them. As you may remember, He's emphasizing to them the fact that He's leaving.

Add to that the fact that His blood is also for the covenant of grace given to Abraham (Hbr 9:15). Where does the grace of the Abrhamic covenant, the covenant Christ also shed His blood for, fit in? If He will not drink it new UNTIL THAT DAY, where does this covenant fit in? If His blood is shed for the Old Covenant, where does it fit in?

His blood is shed for the forgiveness of sins across all time. The New Covenant reaches into all history and transforms our condition. So your assumption is lost.

 

[ddub85]

@ heymikey

Where else are we directly connected with Isaac? C'mon. You stated it. Find it.

You really don't know how we're connected to Isaac? You don't even understand the story you're reading here in Gal 4, do you?

The true comparison here is between Abraham's two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. One is in bondage, without the covenant, and the other is free, with the covenant. We, like Isaac, are free sons of Abraham. We are completely entwined in Isaac. That's the point of the story, my friend. If we're not tied to Isaac, we're not tied to God. It's through Abraham that we Gentiles find our connection to God. There is no other covenant that connects us to God. So I throw your statement back at you;

"Where else are we directly connected with Isaac? C'mon. You stated it. Find it."

We are a part of Isaac, and Isaac is a part of us, through and through, as we are sons of Abraham JUST LIKE ISAAC.

No. Instead we're said to be children of Abraham by faith. we're part of the covenant made with the Seed of Abraham -- Jesus Christ. It makes us a fulfilment of the covenant with Abraham. It makes us beneficiaries of this covenant as Gentiles.

THIS is exactly what I've been trying to tell YOU!!! We are a part of the covenant made with Abraham! We are beneficiaries of the Abrahamic Covenant, as was Isaac! You have just made my argument beautifully. Well spoken my friend. (Never thought you'd hear those words from me, did ya? ).

It does not make us sons like Isaac, in any more sense than the allegorical. 4:24 closes the door on your view of this.

No, it OPENS the door. It clearly explains that we, like Isaac, are children of Abraham that are under the covenant given to him. We are under the same covenant, just as the scripture states. It's the point made by the allegorical story. If it isn't, then please explain the point of this story.

The covenant extended to us, made with the Seed of Abraham, is not the covenant with Abraham. It's the New Covenant.

Let's see here... the ENTIRE chapter, including the previous chapter, is about the Abrahamic Covenant, about how it includes both Jew and Gentile, how it gives us grace, how we are included in the seed of Abraham, how we are his children, how God's promise to him is a promise to us, and on and on and on,...

BUT- heymikey has decided that "the covenant extended to us... (is) the New Covenant." Now really, does that make sense to ANYONE? If you're reading this thread and this actually makes sense to you, please state it now, and state how. (Are you serious?).

ROFL! So go, get circumcised. You know -- what the covenant with Abraham requires of you, as it required of Isaac.

Get up off of the floor, and find a comfy chair to sit in, because I have something to tell you that may knock you off of your feet...

I HAVE GOTTEN CIRCUMCISED!!!

Rom 2:29 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.

Now I have to ask, aren't you circumcised? And I also have to ask, are you still ROFL??? (I am).

We're under a covenant that has ALWAYS included us, a promise which I have provided a number of Scriptures.
This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Ep 3:6

--"Partakers of the promise". What promise?

Act 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto ABRAHAM, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

Act 13:26 Men [and] brethren, children of the stock of ABRAHAM, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

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.
Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law [be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Rom 4:16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise 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,

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.

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.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance [be] of the law, [it is] no more of promise: but God gave [it] to ABRAHAM by promise.

Gal 3:19 Wherefore then [serveth] the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

Gal 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye ABRAHAM's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Could it be any more plain? We are under the blessing of Abraham, the promise made to Abraham, we are inheritors, fellowheirs, of the promise to Abraham, we are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to this promise to Abraham. Scripture after scripture, line upon line, precept upon precept.

YET,... you deny this fact, and teach that we're under a different covenant WITH NO SCRIPTURE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance Heb 9:15

Are you saying He's not the mediator of the Abrahamic Covenant? He confirmed it! He walked between the stakes to do so! He has written it over and over again that we're under this covenant! What more could you possibly want?

But the real point, what we're discussing here, is the fact that He says we're under the Abrahamic Covenant, and NEVER says we're under the New Covenant. The verse you list above doesn't say we're under the New Covenant. Besides, you OMITTED a vital part of this verse;

"for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament,"

We know why you did that, don't we?

I don't try to deluge people with verses because it accomplishes nothing. I try to help people think this stuff through by comparing your arguments with mine.

--Let's be truthful. You don't list verses to support us being under the New Covenant because you don't have ANY, NOT ONE, NONE, ZILCH, ZERO... that say such a thing.

To be continued...

 

[ddub85]

@ heymikey

Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
The red herring would be this statement by you;
"Mount Sinai is the Mosaic Covenant, that's where it originated. Hagar is Mount Sinai. Paul said as much."
It's totally irrelevant to what we're discussing.

It's "side 1" of the comparison Paul is making in Gal 4:22-30. "Side 2" is the connection with Isaac. It's so relevant that you're pushing extreme words you can't support like "totally" into it to try to assert it's not.

It's irrelevant because there's no disagreement regarding it, and it doesn't address what we're discussing. You only bring it up to distract from the real issue. What point did you make by mentioning it here? None. Do I need to list Webster's definition of a red herring?

He who has eyes -- see. Gal 4:22-31

Allegorical story. We agree on this. But only to v. 27.

It's only allegory when ddub85 wants it to be, not when Paul says it is. That's pontification for ya.

Paul doesn't include v. 28 in his allegorical story, and Paul confirms what he said in v. 28 over and over and over again in the Bible. OBVIOUSLY it isn't meant to be allegorical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
And here is where our disagreement is. Heymikey says this statement is allegory. I say Paul is making a factual statement, that this is the point of his allegorical story. There is nothing allegorical about the statement.

We're not parties to the covenant in the same way as Isaac. Nothing of the sort. We're actually parties to this covenant through the Seed it promises -- objectively a fulfilment of this covenant's actual blessings (Gen 22).

How are we parties to the covenant? How is our connection to the covenant different from Isaac's? Is Isaac somehow NOT the seed of Abraham? Please explain. I'll wait.

But we do this through the New Covenant made in the Blood of Jesus Christ (cf Lk 22:20).

This verse NEVER claims we are under the New Covenant. Mat 26:29 qualifies exactly what Christ was saying in the verse, that it is yet to come.
**

Without this covenant, we have no spiritual descendance from Abraham, no salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, no forgiveness of sins, and no peace with God.

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.

OBVIOUSLY you are incorrect, and in direct conflict with what scripture says. Lk 22:20 in no way connects us to Abraham, where Gal 3:14 (and a host of other verses, by the way), directly connects us to Abraham and the covenant made to him.

Your cookie is quickly crumbling.

1. You can't serve a covenant that isn't operating.

What scripture? Is this from the Bible, or from the book of heymikey?

The people of Nineveh weren't yet "operating" under the judgement that Jonah was "serving". So much for #1. Next?

2. Jesus is sent not merely to the Jews but to the Gentiles.

Amen. That's why Gentiles were included in Gen. 12:3. God made it crystal clear that Gentiles were included from the very beginning.

Jesus is the Mediator of this New Covenant. This is not the Mosaic Covenant thrown open to all.

Who is discussing the Mosaic Covenant? We're speaking about the Abrahamic Covenant. Let's stay on course here. The blood of Christ is for the Abrahamic Covenant as well as the New Covenant.

This is the New Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant being unable to accomplish salvation.

Thanks for the info., but we're discussing the ABRAHAMIC COVENANT, not the Mosaic Covenant. Let's stay on course here.

For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Rom 8:2-4

The promise God gave to us is the Abrahamic promise;

Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance [be] of the law, [it is] no more of promise: but God gave [it] to ABRAHAM by promise.

THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT is what was given to us according to the Bible. It is only according to heymikey that it is of something else.

3. You cite Jonah, but you've yet to cite any covenant at all with Nineveh.

The covenant was that if you don't straighten up and fly right, I'm gonna zap ya. That was Jonah's covenant message to Nineveh from God. Read the book.

4. The prophets normally experienced the verdict and judgment of God because they were also parties to the covenant. It's the same way now.
this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Mt 26:28
The blood of the covenant is poured out for forgiveness of sins. If you're not under the covenant, the sin remains.

Tell me, was the blood of Christ poured out for the forgiveness of sins under the first covenant? (Read Hbr 9:15 very carefully before you answer).

I think you'll probably withdraw #4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddub85
To better understand, we only need to read the next verse;
Mat 26:29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
Jesus states that He will not drink of the fruit of the vine, He will not drink it new with them UNTIL THAT DAY. Drink it in remembrance of me, it is the blood of the New Covenant, but not until...
... not until this interpretation vaults completely past the assertion of the passage. Jesus would not drink it anew with them until His Return.

He's not gonna be there to drink with them. As you may remember, He's emphasizing to them the fact that He's leaving.

And as YOU'LL remember, He returned unto them and it wasn't the day He spoke of.

His blood is shed for the forgiveness of sins across all time.

Amen.

The New Covenant reaches into all history and transforms our condition. So your assumption is lost.

Again, is this from the Bible, or from the book of heymikey?

My Bible says the New Covenant is for Israel and Judah. I don't see it promised to anyone else. My book is missing the part where it "reaches into all history and transforms our condition." Does anyone else's Bible have that particular scripture? If so, please point it out to me because I can't find it.

Thanks.

God Bless!