NEW covenant

[faroukfarouk]

Of course. His blood was being shed. Then He said, "It is finished." Those OT saints that were saved were trusting in the Messiah that was to come, Jesus. Those that weren't trusting in God and their Messiah, died in their sins. Their Sabbath rest represented the rest/trust in God/Messiah until the fulfillment of the Messiah came, Jesus. And before Jesus died, the OC was still in affect.

Romans 11 shows clearly that the New Covenant was made with those believing in Jesus as their Messiah, not another Messiah. They are true Israel, and us Gentiles are grafted in. Those who didn't accept Jesus as their Messiah were partially blinded until the fullness of the Gentiles come into the Church, and when the last Gentile is saved, then national Israel's eyes will be cleared to see that Jesus is their Messiah too.

Re. "It is finished"; Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 contain a wonderful study of the finished work of the Lord Jesus at the Cross.

 

[faroukfarouk]

"He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant — not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills...the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone...the ministry that condemns" (2 Corinthians 3:6-9).

The law on our heart and mind is the love of the Spirit, not the law of the letter. This is why Paul tells us that the new covenant is a covenant of the Spirit, and not of the letter.

"No one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins." (Luke 5:37-38).

Great verses there. It goes to show the great difference between being under law, and being under grace in the New Testament.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Re. "It is finished"; Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 contain a wonderful study of the finished work of the Lord Jesus at the Cross.

Yes, 9 - 11 are about Israel.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Yes, 9 - 11 are about Israel.

It's a wonderful study to trace through the types and shadows of Christ and see how in Hebrews the Lord Jesus and His work at the Cross and current intercessory work are the fulfilment of what went before in the Old Testament. Hard to see how anyone can want to go back to the types and shadows when the fulness of revelation in Him is already shown in Him.

 

[1stcenturylady]

It's a wonderful study to trace through the types and shadows of Christ and see how in Hebrews the Lord Jesus and His work at the Cross and current intercessory work are the fulfilment of what went before in the Old Testament. Hard to see how anyone can want to go back to the types and shadows when the fulness of revelation in Him is already shown in Him.

2 Corinthians 3:14
But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.

 

[faroukfarouk]

2 Corinthians 3:14
But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.

Yes, it's a matter of 'Lydia, whose heart the Lord opened' (Acts 16). The Lord Himself does need to open the heart.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Yes, it's a matter of 'Lydia, whose heart the Lord opened' (Acts 16). The Lord Himself does need to open the heart.

Yes, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the rhema/spoken word of God.

You can also receive a rhema by reading the word. When a verse just "comes alive" and sears your heart - that is a rhema.

When God speaks to us, He gives us the gift of faith to receive.

(Nice chatting with you - I'm going back to bed for a while.)

 

[sparow]

Of course. His blood was being shed. Then He said, "It is finished." Those OT saints that were saved were trusting in the Messiah that was to come, Jesus. Those that weren't trusting in God and their Messiah, died in their sins. Their Sabbath rest represented the rest/trust in God/Messiah until the fulfillment of the Messiah came, Jesus. And before Jesus died, the OC was still in affect.

Romans 11 shows clearly that the New Covenant was made with those believing in Jesus as their Messiah, not another Messiah. They are true Israel, and us Gentiles are grafted in. Those who didn't accept Jesus as their Messiah were partially blinded until the fullness of the Gentiles come into the Church, and when the last Gentile is saved, then national Israel's eyes will be cleared to see that Jesus is their Messiah too.

My doctrines would be vague to say the least; I am certainly not a legalist, but I am on the historicist side of the line that separates historicism from from futurism. The pivotal difference is the seventieth week of Daniel's prophesy and whether it belongs to Christ or Satan.

Futurism the throwing of the seventieth week down to the end of the age or to the time o Christ's return and have Saturn or the beast fulfil it; the seventieth week become somewhere in the order of week 375. This denies Christ and the power thereof; it places the anti-Christ outside of the time frame of the Papacy so the Papacy cannot be called the beast of Revelation.

Historicism leaves the weeks in sequence and Christ is cut off in the middle of the week and this cutting off does complete an age and begins the next age. During the three and a half years before He is cut off he does half of every thing He was sent to do which included confirming the covenant up to that point; when Christ returns He will complete confirming the covenant.

The OC may concluded in a sense but it differs only from the NC in who it is made with (the lost sheep of Israel) and the mechanics of its execution.

 

[bugkiller]

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.

In respect to covenants Solomon is correct. All things concerning man were planned prior to the existence of the world. All things were not active in Solomon's day.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

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.

Unfortunately the Bible will not support your view on covenants.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

The only difference is in how we keep it and why? Do we still sacrifice animals for our sins as in the Old Covenant? No! Why? Christ is our sacrifice.

Do we still obey the laws about the Sabbath Rest? No! Why? Jesus is our Sabbath Rest. We trust Him EVERYDAY, MOMENT BY MOMENT, not one day a week.

Do we still keep the moral laws in our own strength? No! Jesus has given us His Own Spirit to make us dead to sin and no longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit. Thus we don't break laws we have no desire to break. Thus we establish the law. By walking in the Spirit we are no longer under the law. Grace in no way means we can BREAK the moral laws, as that would still be sin. No, grace is the power of God to KEEP His laws. It is not our own strength that we keep His laws, it is all Him in us. Our own strength equals, work. We are not saved by us doing righteousness, as our own righteousness is as filthy rags. No! It is the Holy Spirit in us creating the desire to be righteous, not us alone.

"But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you"

No, the law is all or nothing by Jesus, Paul and James.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

New covenant means this:

For finding fault with them, he said, "Behold, the days come," says the Lord, "That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they didn't continue in my covenant, And I disregarded them," says the Lord. "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days," says the Lord; "I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be to them a God, And they will be to me a people. They will not teach every man his fellow citizen, Every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' For all will know me, From the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more."
Hebrews 8:8-12 (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

The law seems to be the same, but it is written into person’s heart.

"Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers," This phrase in your quote disallows your view to be true.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Jesus' blood is for both covenants and both covenants are made with the house of Israel; If the new covenant is not made with the house of Israel it is not made with Christ; Gentiles are to be folded into Israel.

The Bible says much different.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Of course. His blood was being shed. Then He said, "It is finished." Those OT saints that were saved were trusting in the Messiah that was to come, Jesus. Those that weren't trusting in God and their Messiah, died in their sins. Their Sabbath rest represented the rest/trust in God/Messiah until the fulfillment of the Messiah came, Jesus. And before Jesus died, the OC was still in affect.

Romans 11 shows clearly that the New Covenant was made with those believing in Jesus as their Messiah, not another Messiah. They are true Israel, and us Gentiles are grafted in. Those who didn't accept Jesus as their Messiah were partially blinded until the fullness of the Gentiles come into the Church, and when the last Gentile is saved, then national Israel's eyes will be cleared to see that Jesus is their Messiah too.

Not even by the chapter you reference.

bugkiller

 

[1stcenturylady]

My doctrines would be vague to say the least; I am certainly not a legalist, but I am on the historicist side of the line that separates historicism from from futurism. The pivotal difference is the seventieth week of Daniel's prophesy and whether it belongs to Christ or Satan.

Futurism the throwing of the seventieth week down to the end of the age or to the time o Christ's return and have Saturn or the beast fulfil it; the seventieth week become somewhere in the order of week 375. This denies Christ and the power thereof; it places the anti-Christ outside of the time frame of the Papacy so the Papacy cannot be called the beast of Revelation.

Historicism leaves the weeks in sequence and Christ is cut off in the middle of the week and this cutting off does complete an age and begins the next age. During the three and a half years before He is cut off he does half of every thing He was sent to do which included confirming the covenant up to that point; when Christ returns He will complete confirming the covenant.

The OC may concluded in a sense but it differs only from the NC in who it is made with (the lost sheep of Israel) and the mechanics of its execution.

If Christ was cut of in the middle of the week, what happened historically to signify the end of the last 3 1/2 years after He died and was resurrected?

 

[1stcenturylady]

Not even by the chapter you reference.

bugkiller

You didn't make a very understandable sentence, but I'll reply to what I think you are talking about.

Chapter 11 talks of the grafting of the Gentiles. Into what if not Israel, and not all of Israel, but those who believe in Christ.

 

[faroukfarouk]

You didn't make a very understandable sentence, but I'll reply to what I think you are talking about.

Chapter 11 talks of the grafting of the Gentiles. Into what if not Israel, and not all of Israel, but those who believe in Christ.

I love Hebrews 12 which contrasts the Old Testament with the New: 'we are come ... unto Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant'.

 

[sparow]

If Christ was cut of in the middle of the week, what happened historically to signify the end of the last 3 1/2 years after He died and was resurrected?

What happened was his crucifixion; He fulfilled all those things He was required to do up to and including His crucifixion.

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."

Historically, when Jesus is crucified he replaces the sheep and He replaces the High Priest sterilising Pharisaic system bringing an end to the sacrifice and offering; even though the Pharisees continued in vain.

Cut off for 2300 years (which will be shortened so some will be left alive) then shall the sanctuary be cleansed; the blood of the sacrifice sprinkled around the Holy Place.

 

[1213]

"Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers," This phrase in your quote disallows your view to be true.

The difference between new and old is that the Law is written in persons heart. That is why I think the Law is the same, but the method to receive it, is different. I don’t see what is not true in that, sorry.

 

[1stcenturylady]

What happened was his crucifixion; He fulfilled all those things He was required to do up to and including His crucifixion.

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."

Historically, when Jesus is crucified he replaces the sheep and He replaces the High Priest sterilising Pharisaic system bringing an end to the sacrifice and offering; even though the Pharisees continued in vain.

Cut off for 2300 years (which will be shortened so some will be left alive) then shall the sanctuary be cleansed; the blood of the sacrifice sprinkled around the Holy Place.

The 2,300 evenings and mornings had to do with Antiochus Epiphanes IV, not Christ. It had to do with the temple that Maccabees cleansed.

The 3 1/2 years was one half of 7 years. Christ's ministry was 3 years, He died and was resurrected. So that could be the first part of the 7 years, (though it was not); what happened at the end of the 7 years, 3 1/2 years AFTER Jesus went back to heaven? You are not thinking this through.