Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun. Should he be taken literally? Is the new covenant not new or is it not under the sun? What does the new mean in New Covenant mean? Does it mean that the old covenant is turned upside down?
We have different theologies, different scenarios and different paradigms; but there isn't any reason why we cannot understand each other's point of view.
Most appear to believe that the old covenant and the new covenant are separate entities.
I believe there is one covenant which may be renewed; A standard form that may be renewed, and has been renewed many times with Israel, a standard form that may be reapplied and is reapplied in the new covenant such that Jesus has said not even grammar is changed in the covenant/Law.
In the new covenant reapplied Jesus is the High Priest not Aaron or a Pharisee, Jesus is the sacrifice not the sheep, the disciples of Christ are the priesthood not the Levites, baptism is a sanctuary service and the sanctuary services are performed once during the perceived interval between the comings of Christ. This is the old covenant partly fulfilled or partly confirmed; fully confirmed is Christ's return and the remaining prophesies concerning Him are fulfilled and the Law is written on the on the hearts of those saved without them having to learn the Law. The covenant of God is summarised as: God will Provide the Kingdom of God and salvation as a reward for those who enter into His covenant.
Most Christian faiths are centred around “the Law abrogated”; the old covenant is the Law; their covenant is the Law-not and this is strange for a God who does not change.
They say one cannot earn salvation; it is true one cannot earn salvation by keeping the Law; that is the Law can appear to be kept without entering into the covenant; but entering into the covenant includes keeping the Law. The pharisees had not entered and would not allow anyone else to enter in either
It is not that the pharisees could not earn their salvation by works, it was their works were not unto salvation, theirs was not the covenant.
In Mar 7:6-13 Christ declares them to be the slaves of their own man-made tradition instead of obeying the Word of God
They say, “Jesus kept the Law perfectly so that do not have to.” I am not aware that the scriptures say so. Matt 5:17 and Luke 24:44 do not refer to keeping perfectly whether they be ten or 600, these verses refer to confirming the covenant or bring the covenant to fruition; Dan 9:26-27. Many think verse 27 refers to Satan but Satan would not k[make desolate because of abominations.
Matthew 5:17 (NKJV)
17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfil.
Luke 24:44 (NKJV)
44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me."
Daniel 9:26-27 (NKJV)
26 "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate."
So we have two sets of opposites, the Law or the Law-not and the seventieth week belongs to Christ or the seventieth week is thrown down to the end of time and given to Satan.
God does not give us two choices; the second choices are concoctions of men as with the Pharisees before them.
Futurism begins as opologetics at the council of Trent, throwing the anti-Christ outside the time frame of the Papacy so that the Papacy could not be seen as the Beast or any other bad guy.
Once the Law is abrogated anything may go and God's credibility in the minds of men destroyed.
We have different theologies, different scenarios and different paradigms; but there isn't any reason why we cannot understand each other's point of view.
Most appear to believe that the old covenant and the new covenant are separate entities.
I believe there is one covenant which may be renewed; A standard form that may be renewed, and has been renewed many times with Israel, a standard form that may be reapplied and is reapplied in the new covenant such that Jesus has said not even grammar is changed in the covenant/Law.
In the new covenant reapplied Jesus is the High Priest not Aaron or a Pharisee, Jesus is the sacrifice not the sheep, the disciples of Christ are the priesthood not the Levites, baptism is a sanctuary service and the sanctuary services are performed once during the perceived interval between the comings of Christ. This is the old covenant partly fulfilled or partly confirmed; fully confirmed is Christ's return and the remaining prophesies concerning Him are fulfilled and the Law is written on the on the hearts of those saved without them having to learn the Law. The covenant of God is summarised as: God will Provide the Kingdom of God and salvation as a reward for those who enter into His covenant.
Most Christian faiths are centred around “the Law abrogated”; the old covenant is the Law; their covenant is the Law-not and this is strange for a God who does not change.
They say one cannot earn salvation; it is true one cannot earn salvation by keeping the Law; that is the Law can appear to be kept without entering into the covenant; but entering into the covenant includes keeping the Law. The pharisees had not entered and would not allow anyone else to enter in either
It is not that the pharisees could not earn their salvation by works, it was their works were not unto salvation, theirs was not the covenant.
In Mar 7:6-13 Christ declares them to be the slaves of their own man-made tradition instead of obeying the Word of God
They say, “Jesus kept the Law perfectly so that do not have to.” I am not aware that the scriptures say so. Matt 5:17 and Luke 24:44 do not refer to keeping perfectly whether they be ten or 600, these verses refer to confirming the covenant or bring the covenant to fruition; Dan 9:26-27. Many think verse 27 refers to Satan but Satan would not k[make desolate because of abominations.
Matthew 5:17 (NKJV)
17 "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfil.
Luke 24:44 (NKJV)
44 Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me."
Daniel 9:26-27 (NKJV)
26 "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate."
So we have two sets of opposites, the Law or the Law-not and the seventieth week belongs to Christ or the seventieth week is thrown down to the end of time and given to Satan.
God does not give us two choices; the second choices are concoctions of men as with the Pharisees before them.
Futurism begins as opologetics at the council of Trent, throwing the anti-Christ outside the time frame of the Papacy so that the Papacy could not be seen as the Beast or any other bad guy.
Once the Law is abrogated anything may go and God's credibility in the minds of men destroyed.
