The New Covenant

I'm listening to a lecture by Brad Jersak, and one of the first things he's starting out with is talking about a the Worldwide Church of God lead by Herbert W. Armstrong, and how they believed that Jesus had not established the New Covenant. Rather that he's a herald of it and that it will be established at the Second Coming after armageddon. So of course that made me think about this thread.

What I'm listening to starts at 4:21

MMXX said:

I'm listening to a lecture by Brad Jersak, and one of the first things he's starting out with is talking about a the Worldwide Church of God lead by Herbert W. Armstrong, and how they believed that Jesus had not established the New Covenant. Rather that he's a herald of it and that it will be established at the Second Coming after armageddon. So of course that made me think about this thread.

What I'm listening to starts at 4:21

Click to expand...

He thinks that if you don't think we are under the New Covenant, it must imply you believe you are under the Old Covenant.

He doesn't understand what the Body of Christ means.

mkgal1 said:

I can't tell.....are they in agreement or do we have two false religions represented here?

Click to expand...

Just because I agree with one of Keras points, and from a different understanding than him, he assumes I am following him.

To think all of you guys were participants in the other thread where Keras and I disagree about other points.

mkgal1 said:

Most Christians do......that's a historic orthodox Christian belief.

Click to expand...

So if I were to ask "most Christians" the question, "When did the Old Covenant began?", will they say, the book of Genesis?

TribulationSigns said:

Wrongo! Man you are confused. Our redemption from sin is salvation! There is no other way!

A covenant requires an atoning sacrifice in order to be strengthen or confirmed! Didn't you read Scripture at all?

Read carefully! Testament = Covenant!

Heb 9:11-17
(11) But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
(12) Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
(13) For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
(14) How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
(15) And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
(16) For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
(17) For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Hello? This Messiah the Prince, Jesus Christ is our medator of the new covenant. Didn't you both to read Daniel 9:26 where Christ warned warned to the Jews, His People, that THEY did come and destory His Body which is temple, and in three days He will rebuilt it through the New Testament Congregation (built without hand) per John 2:19. Are you blind or what? Are you joining with the Jews thinking Christ was talking about some physical temple?

No, in order to have a covenant, for eternal inheritance, confirmed, the covenantor (Christ) has to the cross and DIE FIRST and anointed His blood on the behalf of His People, Israel! Not national Israel, but COVENANT Israel! Yet you deny this has nothing to do with covenant? Wow. Oh boy. Not surprised with those who are deceived by premillennial doctrines.

Click to expand...

Yes! This!

I like the NIV for readability and the ESV for accuracy - and know some of the theologians on the translation committees for both.

The ESV basically says because of the gospel....

Hebrews 9:15-17
15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.

The NIV also renders this verse with covenant.

The therefore at the start of 15 basically equates the gospel of Christianity itself with the new covenant.

If Keras is seriously trying to split off and separate out the new covenant from our basic salvation, then it shows how seriously his sad eschatology is throwing out his reading of the rest of the gospel. It just goes to show - when one has too strong a burning passion in one area of theology it can easily be used to throw the rest of your Christianity askew. Like the thin edge of the wedge, or the trickling leak that warns of a crack in the dam, pretty soon the whole edifice comes crashing down.

At one point it was just his weirdly obsessive reading of 2 'days' of ministry of Jesus in Luke 13 being split off from the 3 days of work Jesus mentioned in the very next verse! (Talk about selective reading and verse cherrypicking!)

Then it was the eternal salvation and eternal judgement being split off from the sorting of sheep and goats. (Talk about selective reading and verse cherrypicking!)

Now his eschatology is throwing out the very foundations of the gospel itself as he attempts to divorce the New Covenant from the gospel death and resurrection of Jesus. (Talk about selective reading and verse cherrypicking to the detriment of the gospel itself!) Warning Keras! Warning!

Guojing said:

So if I were to ask "most Christians" the question, "When did the Old Covenant began?", will they say, the book of Genesis?

Click to expand...

Biblical theology begins with the very first verses of scripture, the creation, the fall, and then the promise to Eve that there will be a serpent crusher. In a sense the rest of the bible is the unfolding of this promise. But then we have a series of more and more involved and detailed covenants, from Abraham to Moses, refining the future eschatological promises more and more until Jesus is the TYPE fulfilling and explaining those old testament anti-types - the REALITY explaining all those old testament SHADOWS, the real Covenant all along.

I'm a reformed Amil Covenant theologian.
It basically means the opposite of dispensationalist - in that the whole old testament points towards Jesus in the new testament, and the new testament explains the old. Testament / covenant = same meaning.

eclipsenow said:

Biblical theology begins with the very first verses of scripture, the creation, the fall, and then the promise to Eve that there will be a serpent crusher. In a sense the rest of the bible is the unfolding of this promise. But then we have a series of more and more involved and detailed covenants, from Abraham to Moses, refining the future eschatological promises more and more until Jesus is the TYPE fulfilling and explaining those old testament anti-types - the REALITY explaining all those old testament SHADOWS, the real Covenant all along.

I'm a reformed Amil Covenant theologian.
It basically means the opposite of dispensationalist - in that the whole old testament points towards Jesus in the new testament, and the new testament explains the old. Testament / covenant = same meaning.

Click to expand...

So to understand you correctly, you are saying the Old Covenant of Law began at Genesis 3?

keras said:

If I, or anyone could as much as HW Armstrong for the furtherance of the Gospel, we would be mightily blessed.
He didn't have everything right, he couldn't; he was before the last days.

HWA was right about the new Covenant being not yet, but wrong about when. It will be made between the Lord and His faithful Christian peoples, from the 12 tribes of Israel and all the peoples grafted into the true Israel, as they go in the great Second Exodus and settle in all of the holy Land. Isaiah 11:11-16

Click to expand...

Is your background the Worldwide Church of God and Plain Truth magazine? I ask this because I know of no Pentecostal group that shares your views on the New Covenant except British Israel heretics.

keras said:

How does an 'historic orthodox' belief over-ride plainly stated scripture?

Click to expand...

How does a single cultic voice override plainly stated Scripture affirmed by 1700 years of historic orthodox Christian unanimity?

Thankfully it never has and never will.

keras said:

If I, or anyone could as much as HW Armstrong for the furtherance of the Gospel, we would be mightily blessed.
He didn't have everything right, he couldn't; he was before the last days.

HWA was right about the new Covenant being not yet, but wrong about when. It will be made between the Lord and His faithful Christian peoples, from the 12 tribes of Israel and all the peoples grafted into the true Israel, as they go in the great Second Exodus and settle in all of the holy Land. Isaiah 11:11-16

Click to expand...

Armstrong is considered these days to have been a false teacher. And that started with those highest up in his organization, after one of them asked another to list all of Armstrong's false teachings. He looked at the list and said you're right, that's all false teaching. Then they held a general assembly and everyone in that agreed it was false teaching. Then they completely restructured their teachings, and the organization is nothing like it used to be.

So those who worked directly with Armstrong would disagree with you that he was right about the New Covenant not having happened yet.

And what you seem to be saying is that you are teaching somewhat rebranded Armstrongism.

Guojing said:

So if I were to ask "most Christians" the question, "When did the Old Covenant began?", will they say, the book of Genesis?

Click to expand...

Go ahead and ask "most Christians". We have a decent cross-section on CF. Maybe start a poll thread in General Theology.

Guojing said:

So to understand you correctly, you are saying the Old Covenant of Law began at Genesis 3?

Click to expand...

God's covenant with creation began in Genesis 3......but the Law was given to Moses on Mt Sinai - Exodus 19

mkgal1 said:

God's covenant with creation began in Genesis 3......but the Law was given to Moses on Mt Sinai - Exodus 19

Click to expand...

Which part in Genesis 3 tells you it was a covenant?

keras said:

I read Luke 22. It says nothing about a Covenant. Are you trying to deceive me?

Click to expand...

From that hyperlink: 20 And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, [even] that which is poured out for you.

Luke 22:20 v

New International Version
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

New Living Translation
After supper he took another cup of wine and said, “This cup is the new covenant between God and his people—an agreement confirmed with my blood, which is poured out as a sacrifice for you.

English Standard Version
And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Berean Study Bible
In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you.

Berean Literal Bible
and the cup likewise, after having supped, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is being poured out for you.

King James Bible
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

New King James Version
Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

New American Standard Bible
And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood.

NASB 1995
And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

NASB 1977
And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

Amplified Bible
And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant [ratified] in My blood.

Christian Standard Bible
In the same way he also took the cup after supper and said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
In the same way He also took the cup after supper and said, "This cup is the new covenant established by My blood; it is shed for you.

American Standard Version
And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.

English Revised Version
And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you.

Good News Translation
In the same way, he gave them the cup after the supper, saying, "This cup is God's new covenant sealed with my blood, which is poured out for you.

International Standard Version
He did the same with the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant sealed by my blood, which is being poured out for you.

Literal Standard Version
In like manner, also, the cup after the dining, saying, “This cup [is] the New Covenant in My blood, that is being poured forth for you.

Weymouth New Testament
He gave them the cup in like manner, when the meal was over. "This cup," He said, "is the new Covenant ratified by my blood which is to be poured out on your behalf.

World English Bible
Likewise, he took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Young's Literal Translation
In like manner, also, the cup after the supping, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood, that for you is being poured forth.
---------------------------------------------------
New καινὴ (kainē) new, fresh - Covenant διαθήκη (diathēkē) testament, will, covenant

Covenant διαθήκη diathéké Strong's 1242 < click

The fact that you're not familiar with such a well known and fundamental part of scripture, tells me that you haven't read and studied the New Testament very thoroughly.

TribulationSigns said:

Wrongo! Man you are confused. Our redemption from sin is salvation! There is no other way!

A covenant requires an atoning sacrifice in order to be strengthen or confirmed! Didn't you read Scripture at all?

Read carefully! Testament = Covenant!

Heb 9:11-17
(11) But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
(12) Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
(13) For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
(14) How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
(15) And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
(16) For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
(17) For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Hello? This Messiah the Prince, Jesus Christ is our mediator of the new covenant. Didn't you both to read Daniel 9:26 where Christ warned warned to the Jews, His People, that THEY did come and destory His Body which is temple, and in three days He will rebuilt it through the New Testament Congregation (built without hand) per John 2:19. Are you blind or what? Are you joining with the Jews thinking Christ was talking about some physical temple?

No, in order to have a covenant, for eternal inheritance, confirmed, the covenantor (Christ) has to the cross and DIE FIRST and anointed His blood on the behalf of His People, Israel! Not national Israel, but COVENANT Israel! Yet you deny this has nothing to do with covenant? Wow. Oh boy. Not surprised with those who are deceived by premillennial doctrines.

Click to expand...

@keras Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

New καινῆς (kainēs) 2537: new, fresh - Testament διαθήκης (diathēkēs) 1242: testament, will, covenant

Testament does indeed equal Covenant. As seen also in Luke 22:20 shown above.

Here's a bunch of translations of Hebrews 9:15

Here's even more examples of Covenant διαθήκης (diathēkēs) 1242 Being used throughout the New Testament.

keras said:

Provide a verse that proves we are in the new Covenant now.
Your rude and unpleasant attitude counts against you.

Click to expand...

Provide just one name.

Your hubris exposes your cultism.

jgr said:

Provide just one name.

Your hubris exposes your cultism.

Click to expand...

He agrees that Herbert W. Armstrong is close. Although that doesn't really weigh in his favor for establishing credibility.