The New Covenant/Testament

[WAB]

Because there are those who have declared that the New Covenant is not in effect, and indeed not even applicable to Christians, but only to the nation of Israel, it may clarify things a bit if we look at the definition (yes, singular) of the words “covenant” and “testament”.

Both of these English words are derived from one Greek word: diathe’ke. So no matter which English word is used, such as “testament” in the KJV (whether the 1611 version or later versions) or Wuest’s Expanded Trans.; or “covenant” in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, and CCNT…. The definition is the same: “…a disposition, i.e. (spec.) a contract esp. a divisory will): covenant, testament.”

With that definition in mind, let’s look at 2Corinthians 3:6 which, as you know, was written by the apostle Paul….. “He (God) has made us competent ministers of a new covenant-- not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (NIV).

To see that Paul was saying that he had already been made a “competent” minister of the new covenant, it would help if one reads verse 6 in context, preferably the whole of chap.3.

There is a good possibility that Paul was not using 3rd person phraseology here, as he uses the plural “ministers” even though there are no additional persons mentioned. However, that makes no difference to his basic declaration that Paul included himself as a currently “competent” minister of the said “new covenant”.

This is not to say that the nation of Israel is now enjoying their place in the new covenant; that awaits the time of God’s choosing, when “..all Israel will be saved, as it is written…” (Romans 11:26).

In the meantime, we need to pray for those of Paul’s ethnic kin…who are still being saved individually… “For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel.”

Those are Paul’s words from Rom.9:3 in the NIV, and there could not be a more potent declaration of the sacrificial love of Christ for the Jews as resident in Paul.

Shalom…. WAB

 

[Dispy]

Because there are those who have declared that the New Covenant is not in effect, and indeed not even applicable to Christians, but only to the nation of Israel, it may clarify things a bit if we look at the definition (yes, singular) of the words “covenant” and “testament”.

Both of these English words are derived from one Greek word: diathe’ke. So no matter which English word is used, such as “testament” in the KJV (whether the 1611 version or later versions) or Wuest’s Expanded Trans.; or “covenant” in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, and CCNT…. The definition is the same: “…a disposition, i.e. (spec.) a contract esp. a divisory will): covenant, testament.”

With that definition in mind, let’s look at 2Corinthians 3:6 which, as you know, was written by the apostle Paul….. “He (God) has made us competent ministers of a new covenant-- not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (NIV).

To see that Paul was saying that he had already been made a “competent” minister of the new covenant, it would help if one reads verse 6 in context, preferably the whole of chap.3.

SNIP

"'The' new covenant" in Matthew 26:28, prophesied in Jeremiah 31:33 and referenced Hebrews 8, is not the same covenatnt that Paul is speaking in 2 Corinthinans 3:6.

The definition of the word "testament" can also mean "arrangement." That is the the proper translation of the word should be. The "new covenant" of Jeremiah 31:33 and referenced in Matthew 26:28 and Hebrews 8 is of the letter of the Law. It will be written their hearts. Paul is speaking of the "new arrangement" we have in this dispensation of grace.

Read Matthew 5:17-22 you can see how strict the Law will be in the kingdom. It is talking about the letter of the Law.

Today we are not under the letter of the Law, but as Paul says, we are under the Spirit of the Law. When one studies our instructions in righteousness that were given to Paul for members of the Body of Christ, one will find that Paul teaches all the precepts of the Law, with the exception of keeping the sabbath, for our Christian walk. They are not according to the letter of the Law.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[WAB]

Tried to respond re the short way, but it didn't work...

O.K., perhaps this will.

As I understand it, you are saying that there is more than one new covenant. Correct?

Just between Who and whom does this second new covenant apply? And when does it come into play?

And since Paul clearly stated that he was a competent minister of the new covenant that came into existence prior to Paul's salvation experience, what happens to that covenant when the one you are referring to comes into effect?

Whenever a new covenant/agreement/contract comes into effect, the old one is down the drain. Am using the term "old one" because whenever a new agreement is superceded by another newer one, the first "new" one becomes an "old" one... no?

Example... If one is named in a last will and testament, but later for whatever reason the original writer decides to write a new will, the old will is abrogated. It is no longer in effect. And if the originally named beneficiary is left out of the new will, he cannot make any claim to the inheritance.

Contrary to that convoluted scenario, the New Covenant is now in effect, and as posted, we await the arrival of the time when the delayed aspect of that covenant re Israel as a national entity arrives.

Shalom.... WAB

 

[Dispy]

"'The' new covenant" in Matthew 26:28, prophesied in Jeremiah 31:33 and referenced Hebrews 8, is not the same covenatnt that Paul is speaking in 2 Corinthinans 3:6.

The definition of the word "testament" can also mean "arrangement." That is the the proper translation of the word should be. The "new covenant" of Jeremiah 31:33 and referenced in Matthew 26:28 and Hebrews 8 is of the letter of the Law. It will be written their hearts. Paul is speaking of the "new arrangement" we have in this dispensation of grace.

Read Matthew 5:17-22 you can see how strict the Law will be in the kingdom. It is talking about the letter of the Law.

Today we are not under the letter of the Law, but as Paul says, we are under the Spirit of the Law. When one studies our instructions in righteousness that were given to Paul for members of the Body of Christ, one will find that Paul teaches all the precepts of the Law, with the exception of keeping the sabbath, for our Christian walk. They are not according to the letter of the Law.

Tried to respond re the short way, but it didn't work...

O.K., perhaps this will.

As I understand it, you are saying that there is more than one new covenant. Correct?

Just between Who and whom does this second new covenant apply? And when does it come into play?

And since Paul clearly stated that he was a competent minister of the new covenant that came into existence prior to Paul's salvation experience, what happens to that covenant when the one you are referring to comes into effect?

Whenever a new covenant/agreement/contract comes into effect, the old one is down the drain. Am using the term "old one" because whenever a new agreement is superceded by another newer one, the first "new" one becomes an "old" one... no?

Example... If one is named in a last will and testament, but later for whatever reason the original writer decides to write a new will, the old will is abrogated. It is no longer in effect. And if the originally named beneficiary is left out of the new will, he cannot make any claim to the inheritance.

Contrary to that convoluted scenario, the New Covenant is now in effect, and as posted, we await the arrival of the time when the delayed aspect of that covenant re Israel as a national entity arrives.

Shalom.... WAB

Yes, ther is more then one "new covenant" in the Bible. Just because you see the word "new covenant", that doesn't have to mean that it is the one mentioned in Jeremiah, Matthew, and Hebrews. Just as when we read the word baptism in the Bible, it doesn't always mean "water baptism." There are at least 12 differen baptism's in the Bible. The same is true with the work "gospel," which simply means "good news." There are numerous "gospels" (good news") in the Bible.

Jesus Himself said that He came only to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Paul tells us in Romans 15:8 that Jesus came "to confirm the promises made to the fathers."

At the time of Matthew 26:28 Jesus was in the upper room with Jews only. The New Testament He is referring to is the one that was prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34. The same covenant is mentioned in Hebrews 8.

The book of Hebrews is written to Jews, and it repeats Jeremiah 31:31-34. How can you in good conscience place the Body of Christ into a covenant that is made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah? Stop trying to steal their blessings.

The Body of Christ has an entirely different "covenant" (arrangement) with God. We do not have the earthly kingdom and promises that the nation of Israel has. The Body of Christ has no place in the earthly Kingdom that will be established at Christ's second coming.

2 Corinthians 5:1 "For we (members of the Body of Christ) know that if our earthly hous of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

Philippians 3:20 "For our conversation (citizenship) is in heaven: from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Can't seem to find any promises like that in the "new covenant" to Israel. They aren't even in the old covenant.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[ddub85]

@ WAB

There is a good possibility that Paul was not using 3rd person phraseology here, as he uses the plural “ministers” even though there are no additional persons mentioned. However, that makes no difference to his basic declaration that Paul included himself as a currently “competent” minister of the said “new covenant”.

You're neglecting the fact that Paul never said we were under the New Covenant, he said we were competent ministers of the New Covenant;
2 Cor 3:6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life.
We are made "ministers";
diakonos {dee-ak'-on-os}
TDNT - 2:88,152 probably from an obsolete diako (to run on errands, cf 1377)
1) one who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master, a servant, attendant, minister
a) the servant of a king
b) a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use
c) a waiter, one who serves food and drink
For Synonyms see entry 5834
The waiter, the servant, isn't the one the meal is made for. This doesn't say that the New Covenant is for us, just that we are to understand and serve it.

This is not to say that the nation of Israel is now enjoying their place in the new covenant; that awaits the time of God’s choosing, when “..all Israel will be saved, as it is written…” (Romans 11:26).

So only Gentiles are now under the New covenant? I can't even find a place in the Bible which says the New Covenant is for Gentiles. How do you come to that conclusion?

And since Paul clearly stated that he was a competent minister of the new covenant that came into existence prior to Paul's salvation experience, what happens to that covenant when the one you are referring to comes into effect?
Whenever a new covenant/agreement/contract comes into effect, the old one is down the drain. Am using the term "old one" because whenever a new agreement is superceded by another newer one, the first "new" one becomes an "old" one... no?

No. Just because something grows old doesn't mean it's gone. For example, in Hbr 8:13 it says the Old Covenanthas grown old and is "ready to vanish away", meaning it was still there, and still in force.

Example... If one is named in a last will and testament, but later for whatever reason the original writer decides to write a new will, the old will is abrogated. It is no longer in effect. And if the originally named beneficiary is left out of the new will, he cannot make any claim to the inheritance.

However, if the writer says that the old is still here, and the new will be implemented later, then the old is still in effect, correct? That's the scenario we have in the Bible.

Contrary to that convoluted scenario, the New Covenant is now in effect, and as posted, we await the arrival of the time when the delayed aspect of that covenant re Israel as a national entity arrives.
Shalom.... WAB

The Bible doesn't say the New Covenant is in effect, and I can't find anything about a delayed aspect of that covenant for Israel. A bigger problem is tha thte Bible only mentions Israel as the recipient of the New Covenant. So how could it be given to someone else without the Bible saying so, and the one it's said to be given to left out?

God Bless!

 

[GLJCA]

@ WAB


You're neglecting the fact that Paul never said we were under the New Covenant, he said we were competent ministers of the New Covenant;
2 Cor 3:6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life.
We are made "ministers";
diakonos {dee-ak'-on-os}
TDNT - 2:88,152 probably from an obsolete diako (to run on errands, cf 1377)
1) one who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master, a servant, attendant, minister
a) the servant of a king
b) a deacon, one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use
c) a waiter, one who serves food and drink
For Synonyms see entry 5834
The waiter, the servant, isn't the one the meal is made for. This doesn't say that the New Covenant is for us, just that we are to understand and serve it.


So only Gentiles are now under the New covenant? I can't even find a place in the Bible which says the New Covenant is for Gentiles. How do you come to that conclusion?

No. Just because something grows old doesn't mean it's gone. For example, in Hbr 8:13 it says the Old Covenanthas grown old and is "ready to vanish away", meaning it was still there, and still in force.

However, if the writer says that the old is still here, and the new will be implemented later, then the old is still in effect, correct? That's the scenario we have in the Bible.

The Bible doesn't say the New Covenant is in effect, and I can't find anything about a delayed aspect of that covenant for Israel. A bigger problem is tha thte Bible only mentions Israel as the recipient of the New Covenant. So how could it be given to someone else without the Bible saying so, and the one it's said to be given to left out?

God Bless!

1) Does God remember your sins once you have confessed them?
2) Do you consider yourself to be one of God's people?
3) Did God give you a new heart when you believed?

On what basis do you have to believe these?

 

[GLJCA]

"'The' new covenant" in Matthew 26:28, prophesied in Jeremiah 31:33 and referenced Hebrews 8, is not the same covenatnt that Paul is speaking in 2 Corinthinans 3:6.

The definition of the word "testament" can also mean "arrangement." That is the the proper translation of the word should be. The "new covenant" of Jeremiah 31:33 and referenced in Matthew 26:28 and Hebrews 8 is of the letter of the Law. It will be written their hearts. Paul is speaking of the "new arrangement" we have in this dispensation of grace.

Read Matthew 5:17-22 you can see how strict the Law will be in the kingdom. It is talking about the letter of the Law.

Today we are not under the letter of the Law, but as Paul says, we are under the Spirit of the Law. When one studies our instructions in righteousness that were given to Paul for members of the Body of Christ, one will find that Paul teaches all the precepts of the Law, with the exception of keeping the sabbath, for our Christian walk. They are not according to the letter of the Law.

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

What does that mean, they are not according to the letter of the law? Sounds good but what does it mean?
If you commit adultery, are you not breaking the seventh commandment?
If you murder someone are you not breaking the sixth?
1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Could you please tell us what strictness are you talking about in the letter of the law that we are not supposed to adhere to in Matthew 5?

1) If you haven't been reviled you haven't shared the gospel with that many people.

2) If you haven't been persecuted you had better check your credentials because we have been called not only to believe but to suffer with Christ.

3) If people can't see your good works and glorify God because of them then you had better make your calling and election sure because we are created unto good works and God ordained that we walk in them. Gal 2:10

4) If you are breaking God's commandments and teaching others to do the same then you are called the least in the Kingdom of heaven and probably will not inherit the kingdom of God. 1Cor 6:9-10, 1Cor 15:50, Gal 5:21. Notice that all of these verses warning people about not inheriting the kingdom of God were written to Gentile Churches by Paul, whom you say preached a different gospel.
Does the strictness of the Word of God not apply to us today?
1John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
We are still to obey God's law to the strictness of the letter. If you don't then you will not inherit eternal life, my friend.

Could you give me some support for your belief that the New Covenant spoken of in 2Cor 3:6 is not the same New Covenant spoken of by Paul in 1Cor 11:25, or by the writer in Heb 8, or Jer 31? Where do you see the scriptural proof that this one is different?

GLJCA

 

[Dispy]

"'The' new covenant" in Matthew 26:28, prophesied in Jeremiah 31:33 and referenced Hebrews 8, is not the same covenatnt that Paul is speaking in 2 Corinthinans 3:6.

The definition of the word "testament" can also mean "arrangement." That is the the proper translation of the word should be. The "new covenant" of Jeremiah 31:33 and referenced in Matthew 26:28 and Hebrews 8 is of the letter of the Law. It will be written their hearts. Paul is speaking of the "new arrangement" we have in this dispensation of grace.

Read Matthew 5:17-22 you can see how strict the Law will be in the kingdom. It is talking about the letter of the Law.

Today we are not under the letter of the Law, but as Paul says, we are under the Spirit of the Law. When one studies our instructions in righteousness that were given to Paul for members of the Body of Christ, one will find that Paul teaches all the precepts of the Law, with the exception of keeping the sabbath, for our Christian walk. They are not according to the letter of the Law.

What does that mean, they are not according to the letter of the law? Sounds good but what does it mean?
If you commit adultery, are you not breaking the seventh commandment?
If you murder someone are you not breaking the sixth?
1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Paul tells us in Romans 3:21 "But NOW the righteousness of God without the Law is manifested". In Colossians 2:14 Paul writes: "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that as against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross:" Also, he writes in 1Corinthians 6:12: "All things are lawful unto me but all things are not expediant (right/proper): all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." Paul repeats this in 10:23 "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."

When there are laws in effect that have a consequence for violation thereof, The letter of the law will have the violator pay the just just penalty. For example, If the Law says that the speed limit is 10 MPH in a school zone, and you are caught traveling 25 MPH, The letter of the Law says you must pay the proper penalty. However, if for safety reasons it is proclaimed that you should not travel over 10 MPH, and no penalties afixed for violationg that proclaimation, then one that travels 25 MPH in the school zone is violation the spirit of the proclaimation. Yes, speeding is still speeding, just as stealing, murder and adultery are violations of our civil Laws.

But I dearly love what Paul says at the end of 1Cor.6:12 "...all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." This goes along well with 1Corinthians 10:13 "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to excape, that ye may be able to bear it."

John in 1John 3:4 is writing to his fellow Jewish countrymen that were saved under the preaching of "the gospel of the kingdom" when the Law is still in effect.

As I said above, Paul preaches all the precepts of the 10 commandments, with the exception of the 4th commandment; which is keeping the Sabbath Day. The precepts are the spirit of the Law, and not the letter.

Could you please tell us what strictness are you talking about in the letter of the law that we are not supposed to adhere to in Matthew 5?

Matthew 5-7 is what is known as "the Sermon on the Mount." In verses 1:17-20 we read the following: "17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Keep in mind that the above is several years prior to the future revelations to the Apostel Pau, therefore, what was revealed later to Paul cannot be read into the above verses.

Jesus came to fulfill OT prophesies, and the promise made to the Jewish fathers (Romans 15:8). Those promises were to establish an everlasting earthly kingdom; with Jesus on the throne. So with that in mind, read Matthew 5-7 as to how thing will be in that earthly kingdom. Jesus concludes His remarks with the following: 7:24-27. "24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it."

I know of no many living on this earth today that can live by what is said in that sermon. If you do not DO those things mentioned, they you house is built upon the sand. It doesn't say try your best." How are you doing with the sermon on the mount? Is your house built on rock or sand? We are talking the letter of the Law here, not the spirit of the Law.

1) If you haven't been reviled you haven't shared the gospel with that many people.

2) If you haven't been persecuted you had better check your credentials because we have been called not only to believe but to suffer with Christ.

3) If people can't see your good works and glorify God because of them then you had better make your calling and election sure because we are created unto good works and God ordained that we walk in them. Gal 2:10

4) If you are breaking God's commandments and teaching others to do the same then you are called the least in the Kingdom of heaven and probably will not inherit the kingdom of God. 1Cor 6:9-10, 1Cor 15:50, Gal 5:21. Notice that all of these verses warning people about not inheriting the kingdom of God were written to Gentile Churches by Paul, whom you say preached a different gospel.
Does the strictness of the Word of God not apply to us today?
1John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
We are still to obey God's law to the strictness of the letter. If you don't then you will not inherit eternal life, my friend.

My salvation is based solely upon what I have done with the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Being I have placed my FAITH and trust in the Cross work of Christ for my salvation, I am eternally saved. I will be judged at the Judgment Seat of Christ for my works. They will be tried as by fire, and I will be rewarded accordingly (1Cor.3:8-15).

Could you give me some support for your belief that the New Covenant spoken of in 2Cor 3:6 is not the same New Covenant spoken of by Paul in 1Cor 11:25, or by the writer in Heb 8, or Jer 31? Where do you see the scriptural proof that this one is different?

Jeremiah 31:31 "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, lthat I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.:" The Church, The Body of Christ, cannot be found in this verse.

Hebrews 8: "For finding fault with them (Israel), he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:" Can't find the Body of Christ here either.

1Corinthians 11:25 "After the same manner also he took the cup, when he has supped saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in rememberance of me."

In this verse, Paul is not addressing the New Covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 31 or Hebrews 8. He is talking about a memorial service. In this verse, Jesus is identifying the new covenant with the cup. Then He say that the new covenant is in His blood. Therefore, the new covenant , as it pertains to the remission of sins, is totally dependent upon the Blood of Jesus Christ. That is what I celebrate/remember when I partake of the Lord's Supper.

BTW, I am still waiting for answers to my previous questions to you

God Bless.
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[Jerrysch]

Because there are those who have declared that the New Covenant is not in effect, and indeed not even applicable to Christians, but only to the nation of Israel, it may clarify things a bit if we look at the definition (yes, singular) of the words “covenant” and “testament”.

Both of these English words are derived from one Greek word: diathe’ke. So no matter which English word is used, such as “testament” in the KJV (whether the 1611 version or later versions) or Wuest’s Expanded Trans.; or “covenant” in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB, and CCNT…. The definition is the same: “…a disposition, i.e. (spec.) a contract esp. a divisory will): covenant, testament.”

With that definition in mind, let’s look at 2Corinthians 3:6 which, as you know, was written by the apostle Paul….. “He (God) has made us competent ministers of a new covenant-- not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (NIV).

To see that Paul was saying that he had already been made a “competent” minister of the new covenant, it would help if one reads verse 6 in context, preferably the whole of chap.3.

Shalom…. WAB

NASB has:
2Co 3:6 who also made us adequate servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

KJV has:

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.


One of these is wrong!! The significance in the article is like saying "The president of the USA" (George Bush) or "A President of the USA". (Washington???)

I may be wrong... but, I don't see an article in the Greek Text

 

[WAB]

NASB has:
2Co 3:6 who also made us adequate servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

KJV has:

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.


One of these is wrong!! The significance in the article is like saying "The president of the USA" (George Bush) or "A President of the USA". (Washington???)




I may be wrong... but, I don't see an article in the Greek Text

It does not follow that one of two descriptions of the same object is wrong, if they are both describing the same object.

Your example re the presidents does not hold water, because there were many to choose from; but whether one uses "a" or "the" in the reference given makes no difference, because there is only one object referred to.

And, Paul clearly stated that he was a competant minister of that new covenant. He did not say that he looked forward to being an adequate/able minister of the said covenant; but that he was at the time of his writing fulfilling that role.

So... the covenant/testament he referred to had to be then in effect.

Shalom... WAB

 

[ddub85]

@ GLJCA

1) Does God remember your sins once you have confessed them?

No. Why?

2) Do you consider yourself to be one of God's people?

Yes. Why?

3) Did God give you a new heart when you believed?

No, not that I know of. Did He give you a new heart? If so, what scripture do you base that on?

On what basis do you have to believe these

The Bible says so, other than the "new heart' #3 question.

God Bless!

 

[heymikey80]

Adding to this, Galatians 4:23 says there're two covenants:

This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar.... But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. Gal 4:24,26
​

As Paul refers to "our" mother, he's referring to himself, a Jew, in the second covenant.

 

[eph3Nine]

The NEW covenant is written to the same people that the OLD covenant was writtten to...ISRAEL, the NATION.

Paul never refers to himself as under Israels covenants...he is under GRACE and makes that abundantly clear in all of his letters.

 

[heymikey80]

The NEW covenant is written to the same people that the OLD covenant was writtten to...ISRAEL, the NATION.

Paul never refers to himself as under Israels covenants...he is under GRACE and makes that abundantly clear in all of his letters.

To the Galatians, right after Paul points out the New Covenant he says:

And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. Gal 4:28
​

So actually Paul refers to himself as under this covenant, as well as the Galatians:

But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; ... But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. ...And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. Gal 4:23-24, 26, 28
​

 

[TheScottsMen]

It does not follow that one of two descriptions of the same object is wrong, if they are both describing the same object.

Your example re the presidents does not hold water, because there were many to choose from; but whether one uses "a" or "the" in the reference given makes no difference, because there is only one object referred to.

And, Paul clearly stated that he was a competant minister of that new covenant. He did not say that he looked forward to being an adequate/able minister of the said covenant; but that he was at the time of his writing fulfilling that role.

So... the covenant/testament he referred to had to be then in effect.

Shalom... WAB

In agreement that there is only one NC. Paul was a minister of the NC that Peter, John, and James were under. This NC has a universal aspect for both the Body of Christ and Israel. For the Church, the Body of Christ, and Israel,then and future, it renders the perfect redemption for all those that Christ shed His blood for.

 

[WAB]

In agreement that there is only one NC. Paul was a minister of the NC that Peter, John, and James were under. This NC has a universal aspect for both the Body of Christ and Israel. For the Church, the Body of Christ, and Israel,then and future, it renders the perfect redemption for all those that Christ shed His blood for.

Always a blessing when we agree... and although there is still a difference of opinion as to just who is included among "all those that Christ shed His blood for"... yet the "universal aspect" of the redemption currently available for individuals of the nation of Israel under the New Covenant, Romans chap. 11 tells us the time is coming when all of the nation of Israel will be included.

In the meantime, those who belong to Him, who have been purchased by His precious blood shed on Calvary's Cross, and acknowledge Him as Saviour and LORD, can and do, rejoice together. A wonderful aspect of "fellowship".... (a joint participation with someone else, in things held in common by both).

And just can't resist quoting Rom.11:29... "...the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable." OSAS? Yes!

May His peace be your portion... WAB

 

[eph3Nine]

To the Galatians, right after Paul points out the New Covenant he says:

And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. Gal 4:28

​

So actually Paul refers to himself as under this covenant, as well as the Galatians:

But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; ... But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. ...And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. Gal 4:23-24, 26, 28

​

Nope...Paul is referring to the nation Israel here...see, he clarifies the object of his referral by saying "like Isaac"...he is speaking to the Jews here. Paul never refers to those in the Body of Christ as members of any covenant...but as members of the BODY. The program has changed.

 

[ddub85]

@ heymikey
Quote
Originally Posted by: eph3Nine

The NEW covenant is written to the same people that the OLD covenant was writtten to...ISRAEL, the NATION.
Paul never refers to himself as under Israels covenants...he is under GRACE and makes that abundantly clear in all of his letters.

heymikey:

To the Galatians, right after Paul points out the New Covenant he says:
And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. Gal 4:28
So actually Paul refers to himself as under this covenant, as well as the Galatians:

WHAT COVENANT??? What covenant does Paul declare to be under? He says the same covenant that Isaac was under. So... what covenant was Isaac under? Surely it wasn't the New Covenant! It was the Old Covenant.

As I asked long ago; What covenant is Isaac under?

God Bless!