The New Covenant

[chad kincham]

Let's take a look at the new covenant.

The promise of a new covenant is made in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Before the author of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah, he first details why there was a need for a new covenant in the first place (see vs 6-8):

Hebrews 8:6-13
6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said:
“The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.

9 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

11 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

12 For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.In the above passage I've highlighted (and color coded) some of the aspects of this prophecy which are relevant to drawing a correct conclusion about the new covenant. Let's go through the prophecy one verse at a time.​

Verse 6
The author notes that the new covenant is superior to the old one. Why does he tell us this? Because he says that this new covenant is "established on better promises."

Ok, stop. Now, ask yourself a couple things. Does the God of the Bible ever make anything less than perfect promises? Can a perfect God make anything less than a perfect promise?

Verse 7
This verse also notes the fact that there was something "wrong with that first covenant," such that there was a need to establish a new one.

Verse 8
After taking into account what verse 6 said about "better promises," it is pretty easy to understand what verse 8 is saying. It tells us where the imperfect promises came from: "God found fault with the people."

What do you suppose these faulty promises were?

Exodus 19:8
The people all responded together, “We will do everything the Lord has said.” So Moses brought their answer back to the Lord.

Exodus 24:3
When Moses went and told the people all the Lord’s words and laws, they responded with one voice, “Everything the Lord has said we will do.”​

You may be wondering, "Are the people's promises to obey really the faulty promises to which the author of Hebrews was speaking? Let's just bypass the rest of verse 8 for a moment and look at verse 9. The LORD says the people "did not remain faithful to my covenant." Basically, the LORD provided a perfect set of laws for His chosen people. The people responded together, saying, "We will do everything the LORD has said." And later, in Exodus 24, "Everything the LORD has said we will do." But they didn't do what they promised to do. Thus, God found fault with them.

Please note, the LORD did not find fault with His perfect laws which were the foundation of the agreement between Himself and the people. The text is clear: "God found fault with the people."

Let's look at another aspect of what verse 8 tells us. It records the LORD as stating who the new covenant is for. "I will make a new covenant with the people of ISRAEL and with the people of JUDAH." This new covenant is ONLY with Israel and Judah. Gentiles are not mentioned as part of this covenant.

Verse 9 says this covenant will be different from the one the LORD made with those He lead out of Egypt. Why? Again, "because they did not remain faithful to my covenant."

Verse 10
This verse echoes verse 8 in saying that the new covenant will be "with the people of Israel." No Gentiles mentioned here either. But then we come to an interesting point about this new covenant. The LORD says He is going to put His laws in the minds of His people and write them on their hearts. Consider again that the LORD is perfect and the laws He gave to the Israelites were likewise perfect. So why would you suppose that His perfect laws could get any more perfect than what they were to begin with? Why would the LORD need to compose a new set of laws to write on the hearts of His people?

The new covenant, I believe, is merely taking the faulty promises of the people out of the equation. It is no longer having laws written on stone tablets and having the people promise to keep them. Instead the LORD promises to write His laws on the fleshy tablets of human hearts. It is no longer "we will do." Now it is allowing the Spirit to live within us to do the law which He has written on our hearts. The law is internalized for those who truly love the LORD.

Romans 8:13
For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.​

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

God is a perfect God, but the law of Moses and the first covenant with Israel was deliberately a heavy burden, and deliberately a yoke of bondage, to contrast trying to earn righteousness by works of the law, with righteousness by grace and faith in the new covenant.

Peter called the law of Moses a yoke of burden that neither they nor their fathers could bear, in Acts 15:10.

Paul wrote a tale of two covenants in Galatians 4:21-31 and said the covenant given on Mount Sinai was bondage.

Paul contrasts the new covenant and the law of the spirit that gives life, with the Decalogue given to Moses,, called the letter that kills, that ministered death and condemnation, in 2 Corinthians 3.

So when Hebrews says the new covenant is a better covenant founded on better promises, it’s because the 613 rules, statutes, commands and ordinances that had to be kept in entirety down to each little jot and tittle, with the death penalty for breaking, was deliberately designed to be a huge burden to keep.

 

[Soyeong]

God is a perfect God, but the law of Moses and the first covenant with Israel was deliberately a heavy burden, and deliberately a yoke of bondage, to contrast trying to earn righteousness by works of the law, with righteousness by grace and faith in the new covenant.

Peter called the law of Moses a yoke of burden that neither they nor their fathers could bear, in Acts 15:10.

Paul wrote a tale of two covenants in Galatians 4:21-31 and said the covenant given on Mount Sinai was bondage.

Paul contrasts the new covenant and the law of the spirit that gives life, with the Decalogue given to Moses,, called the letter that kills, that ministered death and condemnation, in 2 Corinthians 3.

So when Hebrews says the new covenant is a better covenant founded on better promises, it’s because the 613 rules, statutes, commands and ordinances that had to be kept in entirety down to each little jot and tittle, with the death penalty for breaking, was deliberately designed to be a huge burden to keep.

The reasons why God chose to give the laws that He did teach us about the nature of who He is, such as God's righteous laws teaching us how to act in accordance with His righteousness, and the Bible often uses the same terms to describe the nature of God as it does to describe the nature of God's law, so the view that we have of God's law matches the view that we have of God. For example, God is trustworthy, therefore His law is also trustworthy (Psalms 19:7) and a law that isn't trustworthy can't come from a God who is trustworthy, so to rely on God's law is to rely on God. Likewise, a law that is holy, righteous, and good can only come from a God who is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12). The Psalms contain extremely high praise for God's law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying it, so if we consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of God's law, the we will share it, as Paul did (Romans 7:22), while the view that it is a heavy burden is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture. So thinking that God would deliberately give His law to Israel as a heavy burden is expressing an equally negative view of God when in reality God's law was given for our own good in order to bless us (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13).

In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, God said that His law is not too difficult to obey and that obedience brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! So saying that God's law was deliberately given as a heavy burden is in direct disagreement with God. Furthermore, the fact that God's law is a ministry of death for those who refuse to submit to it is not a very good reason to choose death by refusing to submit to it. In addition, in 1 John 5:3, to love God is to obey His commandments, which are not burdensome, and in Matthew 11:28-30, Jesus said that his yoke was easy and his burden light.

In Romans 3:21-22, the Law and the Prophets testify that the righteousness of God comes through faith in Christ for all who believe, so this has always been the one and only way to become righteous, which means that God's law was never given as a means of earning our righteousness as a wage (Romans 4:4-5). In Genesis 6:8-9, Noah found grace in the eyes of God and he was a righteous man, so he was declared righteous by grace through faith by the same one and only means as everyone else. In Psalms 119:29-30, David wanted to put false ways far from him, for God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey His law, and he chose the way of faithfulness, so this has always been the one and only way of salvation by grace through faith.

In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with the law of faith, so works of the law are the law of works while he said in Romans 3:31 that our faith upholds God's law, so you should not mistake what Paul only said about works of the law as being said about God's law, especially when works of the law were not commanded by God.

In Jeremiah 31:33, it states that the New Covenant involves following the Torah, which has 613 laws. While Hebrews 8:6-13 says that the New Covenant is better promises and a superior mediator, it says nothing about it being made with superior laws, but rather it still involves following God's law.

 

[chad kincham]

while the view that it is a heavy burden is incompatible with the view that the Psalms are Scripture. So thinking that God would deliberately give His law to Israel as a heavy burden is expressing an equally negative view of God when in reality God's law was given for our own good in order to bless us (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13).

The scriptures I quoted in Acts 15, Galatians 4 and 2 Corinthians 3, state exactly that. And David had nothing to compare the law of Moses with, making him like the caged bird who sings because a cage is all he’s ever known - but take a wild bird used to freedom and put them in a cage, and they not only don’t sing, but they die.

The essentials of Gods law is found in the 2 love commands, and not in the 613 statutes, ordinances, and commands of the law of Moses.

The law of Moses was intended for, and given to, a carnal nation without the Holy Spirit indwelling them, and as Paul says, it remains in effect for all carnal, ungodly and unregenerate people, but not in effect for born again, regenerated believers with the Holy Spirit indwelling them.

Christians have died to the law of Moses, is the very clear message from Paul in his epistles:

The law hasn’t passed away, it’s still in effect - for the unconverted - not for born again Christians with the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Christians are dead to the law, and now are married to Jesus instead of the law, and have been DELIVERED FROM the law:

Rom 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

(read 2 Corinthians 3for more about the letter (which kills) in the old covenant vs the spirit that brings life, in the new).

The law doesn’t apply to Christians, just to the unconverted, because the law is NOT MEANT for a RIGHTEOUS MAN, but for the UNGODLY and for MURDERERS:

1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Christians are the righteousness of God in Christ, thus the law is null and void for us, who are now righteous by faith, not by works of the law of Moses.

Php 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

And this agrees:

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

The law still applies to those it was intended for: carnal and unregenerate people without Gods indwelling spirit - which is all unconverted non Christians.

Christians have Gods indwelling spirit, thus we are no longer under the old law:

Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Gal 5:22 But the fruit d the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such THERE IS NO LAW

Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

Thus it hasn’t passed away, it just doesn’t apply to those born again, since it’s only meant for the ungodly and murderers, etc. 1 Tim 1:9 above.

And BEFORE faith came, we were imprisoned by the law, locked up by it until the coming of Christ, and now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian:

Gal 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.

Gal 3:24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.

Gal 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Gal 5:22 But the fruit d the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

 

[Icyspark]

God is a perfect God, but the law of Moses and the first covenant with Israel was deliberately a heavy burden, and deliberately a yoke of bondage, to contrast trying to earn righteousness by works of the law, with righteousness by grace and faith in the new covenant.

Hi chad kincham,

Before I address your comments lets first acknowledge that while you quoted the opening post you didn't actually directly engage any of what it said. It's certainly a lot easier to be dismissive of something you're not engaging.

In Exodus 34 God portrays Himself this way: "The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation." Your portrayal of the compassionate, gracious, loving, forgiving, merciful God who punishes wickedness, rebellion and sin casts Him in the role of an arbitrary and capricious God who tasked His creation with impossible to obey laws just to make a tenuous point. You basically have the God who forgives "wickedness, rebellion and sin" being the instigator of those things by "deliberately" setting forth "a yoke of bondage" so he could contrast it with "righteousness by grace and faith." Sorry, but I find that dichotomy absurd.

Peter called the law of Moses a yoke of burden that neither they nor their fathers could bear, in Acts 15:10.

Just to be clear, the "law of Moses" is also known as "the law of God." Moses didn't come up with it. Moses was entrusted with the task of transcribing all that God told him, but he wasn't the author of any of God's laws.

Paul wrote a tale of two covenants in Galatians 4:21-31 and said the covenant given on Mount Sinai was bondage.

If you read the opening post and then engaged with it I think you might be able to understand that the problem wasn't with the perfect law which God gave but with the people (as in "God found fault with the people").

Paul contrasts the new covenant and the law of the spirit that gives life, with the Decalogue given to Moses,, called the letter that kills, that ministered death and condemnation, in 2 Corinthians 3.

Sure, transgression of the law results in sin which leads to death (Romans 6:23). It was never meant to be our Savior. The law was given to identify sin. If there is no law, then there is no sin. How can Paul's rhetorical question about keeping on sinning that grace may abound be legit if there is no law which identifies sin (Romans 6:1)?

So when Hebrews says the new covenant is a better covenant founded on better promises, it’s because the 613 rules, statutes, commands and ordinances that had to be kept in entirety down to each little jot and tittle, with the death penalty for breaking, was deliberately designed to be a huge burden to keep.

How many commandments are in the Ten Commandment covenant?

Exodus 34:28
Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.

Deuteronomy 5:22
These are the commandments the Lord proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.

Deuteronomy 12:32
See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.
​

Seeing as there is a numeral applied to this covenant, how do you feel free to add to this covenant when God specifically says "He added nothing more," and commands you not to do such a thing? So no, there is no such thing as the "613" rules, statutes, commands and ordinances. Many people freely comment on this number, but they use it in an attempt to bury the one set that God actually numbered in what is apparently an attempt to conflate all the substrata of God's delineated will.

And no, God's laws were not "deliberately designed to be a huge burden to keep." That's sad that you'd even suggest that. Just as Jesus said, "If you love me keep my commandments," so too did God speak of all His "rules, statutes, commands and ordinances" in the Old Testament (which God called His "covenant of love").

Deuteronomy 30:11-14
Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.​

You say it was "deliberately designed to be a huge burden to keep." Moses says the opposite. Was the problem with God's perfect law which was "not too difficult" or beyond their reach? Or rather was the law actually the problem as you suggest? Go back and read the opening post as this is addressed in detail there.

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[chad kincham]

You basically have the God who forgives "wickedness, rebellion and sin" being the instigator of those things by "deliberately" setting forth "a yoke of bondage" so he could contrast it with "righteousness by grace and faith." Sorry, but I find that dichotomy absurd.

Thats exactly right.

The law of Moses was deliberately harsh, and a yoke of bondage, we were imprisoned by it until grace and fait( came through Jesus.

Galatians 4:21-31 the covenant given on Mount Sinai is bondage.

2 Corinthians 3 Paul contrasts the new covenant law of the spirit, that gives life, with the ten commands given to Moses, called the letter that KILLS, and the ministry of DEATH and CONDEMNATION.

Acts 15 Peter says the law of Moses is a yoke of bondage.

 

[Fervent]

Thats exactly right.

The law of Moses was deliberately harsh, and a yoke of bondage, we were imprisoned by it until grace and fait( came through Jesus.

Galatians 4:21-31 the covenant given on Mount Sinai is bondage.

2 Corinthians 3 Paul contrasts the new covenant law of the spirit, that gives life, with the ten commands given to Moses, called the letter that KILLS, and the ministry of DEATH and CONDEMNATION.

Acts 15 Peter says the law of Moses is a yoke of bondage.

The law of Moses wasn't harsh, though. It was given as a blessing to the nation but the lying scribes turned it into a burden. The law itself is righteous, holy and good but sin took hold of it and made it death. Of course, the fulfillment of the law is in the two commandments love God above all others, and love your neighbor as yourself.

 

[Icyspark]

Thats exactly right.

The law of Moses was deliberately harsh, and a yoke of bondage, we were imprisoned by it until grace and fait( came through Jesus.

Galatians 4:21-31 the covenant given on Mount Sinai is bondage.

2 Corinthians 3 Paul contrasts the new covenant law of the spirit, that gives life, with the ten commands given to Moses, called the letter that KILLS, and the ministry of DEATH and CONDEMNATION.

Acts 15 Peter says the law of Moses is a yoke of bondage.

Hi chad kincham,

You did it again. Instead of acknowledging a single thing I wrote, you instead just blew it all off and continued in the vacuum of knowledge to build a case with that doesn't harmonize with what the God says about Himself. So either your interpretation of the texts you're using is wrong or the author you're quoting is wrong. Personally I don't see that Paul is wrong so the problem must be elsewhere.

Let's keep this simple and see if you can address a single aspect of what the Bible says about the commands given through Moses:

Deuteronomy 30:11-14
Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.​

T__ F__ Moses says that what he commanded was not too difficult to obey?

This is an open book test.

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[Clare73]

Let's take a look at the new covenant.

Yes. . .let's.

In the New Covenant we are under the law of Christ--love of God and love of neighbor (Matthew 22:37-40). That's it. . .nothing more.
The law of Christ fulfills the law "and whatever other commandment there is" (Romans 13:8-10).

And that is the law written on our hearts in the New Covenant.

 

[Clare73]

If by "Covenant Theology" is it meant the belief that the Church has replaced Israel in terms of God's calling? From the text I just supplied I don't know that I'd read that into what Paul had to say about Gentiles being grafted into Israel's tree.

The tree still belongs to Israel and not all the natural branches are "broken off" and replaced by Gentile branches. Those Jews who believe in Jesus remain attached to "their own olive tree."

Well done.
Is not your understanding of Paul's meaning there somewhat problematic?

Did Israel the branches cut themselves off their own tree?
Will Israel the branches graft themselves back into their own tree.
Do branches graft themselves into trunks.

The tree "belongs" to Israel in that they were the first branches on the tree.
Paul's meaning is that the tree is God's people, and it belongs to God.
The roots and trunk of the tree are Christ. The tree is the body of Christ.
Israel was its first branches, but Israel is not all its branches.
Israel is only a remnant of the branches on the tree that is the body of Christ.

 

[Icyspark]

Yes. . .let's.

In the New Covenant we are under the law of Christ--love of God and love of neighbor (Matthew 22:37-40). That's it. . .nothing more.
The law of Christ fulfills the law "and whatever other commandment there is" (Romans 13:8-10).

And that is the law written on our hearts in the New Covenant.

Hi Clare73,

Do you agree with the opening post that there was nothing wrong with the agreement/covenant? In other words, the fault wasn't with God's perfect law which both God and the Israelites agreed/covenanted should be obeyed. If you can acknowledge that point then it should be easier to understand why "God found fault with the people." God didn't find fault with the law He set forth in His "covenant of love."

So why did "God [find] fault with the people"? In Hebrews 8:9 God answers, "because they did not remain faithful to my covenant."

Appealing to Matthew 22:37-40 is usually an appeal to the nebulous. It's a post modern mindset which embraces a philosophy that the individual gets to determine what's right or wrong--for them. This is their "truth." Without Scripture you don't have any idea what qualifies as "love for God and love of neighbor." The post modern mindset allows for the individual to fill in whatever they decide.

Unfortunately, Jesus doesn't allow for this. He clearly said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." Love is revealed by obedience to the Lord. You don't get to say, "I love you, Lord" and then go and rationalize that you get to determine from which tree in the Garden not to eat and then eat from the one He specified was forbidden. That's not love.

In John 14 Jesus says, "Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching."

What are a couple of His teachings which are not left for the post modern "my truth" philosophical position?

How about Matthew 5:29?

If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
​

Do you accept Jesus's teaching/command here? What about His teaching to cut off a hand which is causing you to sin? Jesus directly ties these teachings with the avoidance of being thrown into hell.

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[Clare73]

Hi Clare73,

Do you agree with the opening post that there was nothing wrong with the agreement/covenant? In other words, the fault wasn't with God's perfect law which both God and the Israelites agreed/covenanted should be obeyed. If you can acknowledge that point then it should be easier to understand why "God found fault with the people." God didn't find fault with the law He set forth in His "covenant of love."

Well done.

Yes, I agree the problem was the people, not the covenant.

So why did "God [find] fault with the people"? In Hebrews 8:9 God answers, "because they did not remain faithful to my covenant."

Appealing to Matthew 22:37-40 is usually an appeal to the nebulous. It's a post modern mindset which embraces a philosophy that the individual gets to determine what's right or wrong--for them.

C,mon, now. . .surely you aren't negating what Jesus and his apostle Paul (Romans 13:8-10) cleary taught, right?
Surely you aren't saying that Jesus and the apostle got it wrong, right?

This is their "truth." Without Scripture you don't have any idea what qualifies as "love for God and love of neighbor." The post modern mindset allows for the individual to fill in whatever they decide.

But keep in mind that the "post modern mindset" has nothing to do with it. Are you leaving out the most important part. . .the Holy Spirit who writes love on the heart? . . .No one has to tell me what to do in regard to the ones I love, my heart tells me that, right? And the heart is where the Holy Spirit works in this. It is the Holy Spirit who fulfills that law in those who are in Christ.

Unfortunately, Jesus doesn't allow for this. He clearly said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments."

Have you forgotten what are his commandments: "A new commandment I give you," (John 13:34; Matthew 22:37-41).

Love is revealed by obedience to the Lord.

Indeed!

And in the New Covenant, the Lord has given us new commandments (John 13:34; Matthew 22:37-41).

You don't get to say, "I love you, Lord" and then go and rationalize that you get to determine from which tree in the Garden not to eat and then eat from the one He specified was forbidden.

Are we still in the Garden of forbidden fruit?

That's not love.

You've left out the Holy Spirit again. . .like it is all left to our own doing.
That's not the way it works for those in Christ. . .God works in them both to will and to do (love). (Philippians 2:13)

In John 14 Jesus says, "Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching."
What are a couple of His teachings which are not left for the post modern "my truth" philosophical position?

Are we using "the post modern 'my truth' philosophical position" as the justification for our disagreement with NT apostolic teaching in John 13:34; Matthew 22:37-41; Philippians 2:13?

How about Matthew 5:29?
If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

And if I love God will I not do that? Will I not do what it takes to remain true to him?
Isn't that what love does?

Do you accept Jesus's teaching/command here? What about His teaching to cut off a hand which is causing you to sin? Jesus directly ties these teachings with the avoidance of being thrown into hell.

Indeed, I do accept his command, and that means I have a choice to make, either give up the sin or cut off the hand.
I have always chosen the former, and it is love that drives me to that choice.

Don't you see that love is a stricter standard?
You can't legislate all the things love might require, and so legislation lets you off the hook. . .as long as you keep the rules, you've fulfilled the requirements.
Not so. . .for what law commands cutting off part of the body? No law. . .only love requires such, if necessary. . .and no one has to tell that to anyone who loves God. . .does anyone have to legislate for a mother what degree of sacrifice she is to make for her child?
That is why love fulfills the law. . .because love will often have to go even farther than any law would require. Love is all in, no holds barred. . .it doesn't save anything for itself, and it doesn't need any rules, they just hold it back.
And that is the true test of love for God.

 

[Icyspark]

Your understanding of Paul's meaning there is problematic.

Did Israel the branches cut themselves off their own tree?
Will Israel the branches graft themselves back into their own tree.
Do branches graft themselves into trunks.

Hi Clare73,

The answer is that God is pruning Israel's tree.

The tree "belongs" to Israel in that they were the first branches on the tree.
Paul's meaning is that the tree is God's people, and it belongs to God.
The trunk of the tree is Christ. The tree is the body of Christ.
Israel was its first branches, but Israel is not all its branches.
Israel is only a remnant of the branches on the tree of the body of Christ.

Hmm, that's not exactly what the text says. It says the tree belongs to them. Paul notes that Jews who have been cut off due to unbelief can be more readily grafted back into the olive tree. Why? Because the Jews are "natural branches" which belong in "their own olive tree." Gentiles are identified as "wild by nature" and it is "contrary to nature" for them to be "grafted into a cultivated olive tree."

Romans 11:11-24
11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!​

The natural branches were "broken off" because of unbelief. Paul says we Gentiles should not "be arrogant, but tremble." Why? Because "He will not spare you either." In other words, if you or I as Gentiles persist in unbelief we too can be "broken off."

So what qualifies as unbelief? Many claim to believe but by their actions they deny God.

Titus 1:16
They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.​

Segue to one of the biblical definitions of sin.

James 4:17
If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.​

So is knowing what is "good" based on whatever we feel is good (post modernism)? Or rather is there something that spells out what is good?

Segue to Paul's knowledge of sin:

Romans 7:7-12
7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me,and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.​

Speaking in the present tense, the law (and covenant)--which contains precisely ten commands--is identified as being "holy, righteous and GOOD." I really don't understand why people who identify as Christians insist that this law, which Paul says IS holy; is righteous; is GOOD; which identifies sin; would be something to sideline. Well, actually I do. People want to be left to determine their own path (post modernism). Paul says he wouldn't even know what sin was without this law. Do you suppose you are more capable, more connected to God than was Paul? Do you suppose you have more of the holy Spirit than Paul? Do you suppose Paul's understanding of the law in the present tense as being "holy, righteous and good," was errant?

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[Fervent]

Hi Clare73,

The answer is that God is pruning Israel's tree.





Hmm, that's not exactly what the text says. It says the tree belongs to them. Paul notes that Jews who have been cut off due to unbelief can be more readily grafted back into the olive tree. Why? Because the Jews are "natural branches" which belong in "their own olive tree." Gentiles are identified as "wild by nature" and it is "contrary to nature" for them to be "grafted into a cultivated olive tree."

Romans 11:11-24
11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!​

The natural branches were "broken off" because of unbelief. Paul says we Gentiles should not "be arrogant, but tremble." Why? Because "He will not spare you either." In other words, if you or I as Gentiles persist in unbelief we too can be "broken off."

So what qualifies as unbelief? Many claim to believe but by their actions they deny God.

Titus 1:16
They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.​

Segue to one of the biblical definitions of sin.

James 4:17
If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.​

So is knowing what is "good" based on whatever we feel is good (post modernism)? Or rather is there something that spells out what is good?

Segue to Paul's knowledge of sin:

Romans 7:7-12
7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me,and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.​

Speaking in the present tense, the law (and covenant)--which contains precisely ten commands--is identified as being "holy, righteous and GOOD." I really don't understand why people who identify as Christians insist that this law, which Paul says IS holy; is righteous; is GOOD; which identifies sin; would be something to sideline. Well, actually I do. People want to be left to determine their own path (post modernism). Paul says he wouldn't even know what sin was without this law. Do you suppose you are more capable, more connected to God than was Paul? Do you suppose you have more of the holy Spirit than Paul? Do you suppose Paul's understanding of the law in the present tense as being "holy, righteous and good," was errant?

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

While I don't agree with your conclusions, I just wanted to say that right here you seem to be making the most conscientious and Biblically responsible argument for SDA doctrine I've seen on these forums.

 

[Clare73]

Well done.

Yes, I agree the problem was the people, not the covenant.
C,mon, now. . .surely you aren't negating what Jesus and his apostle Paul (Romans 13:8-10) cleary taught, right?
Surely you aren't saying that Jesus and the apostle got it wrong, right?
But keep in mind that the "post modern mindset" has nothing to do with it. Are you leaving out the most important part. . .the Holy Spirit who writes love on the heart? . . .No one has to tell me what to do in regard to the ones I love, my heart tells me that, right? And the heart is where the Holy Spirit works in this. It is the Holy Spirit who fulfills that law in those who are in Christ.

Have you forgotten what are his commandments: "A new commandment I give you," (John 13:34; Matthew 22:37-41).
Indeed!

And in the New Covenant, the Lord has given us new commandments (John 13:34; Matthew 22:37-41).
Are we still in the Garden of forbidden fruit?

You've left out the Holy Spirit again. . .like it is all left to our own doing.
That's not the way it works for those in Christ. . .God works in them both to will and to do (love). (Philippians 2:13)

Are we using "the post modern 'my truth' philosophical position" as the justification for our disagreement with NT apostolic teaching in John 13:34; Matthew 22:37-41; Philippians 2:13?

And if I love God will I not do that? Will I not do what it takes to remain true to him?
Isn't that what love does?

Indeed, I do accept his command, and that means I have a choice to make, either give up the sin or cut off the hand.
I have always chosen the former, and it is love that drives me to that choice.

Don't you see that love is a stricter standard?
You can't legislate all the things love might require, and so legislation lets you off the hook. . .as long as you keep the rules, you've fulfilled the requirements.
Not so. . .for what law commands cutting off part of the body? No law. . .only love requires such, if necessary. . .and no one has to tell that to anyone who loves God. . .does anyone have to legislate for a mother what degree of sacrifice she is to make for her child?
That is why love fulfills the law. . .because love will often have to go even farther than any law would require. Love is all in, no holds barred. . .it doesn't save anything for itself, and it doesn't need any rules, they just hold it back.
And that is the true test of love for God.

Hi Clare73,
The answer is that God is pruning Israel's tree.

Hmm, that's not exactly what the text says. It says the tree belongs to them. Paul notes that Jews who have been cut off due to unbelief can be more readily grafted back into the olive tree. Why? Because the Jews are "natural branches" which belong in "their own olive tree." Gentiles are identified as "wild by nature" and it is "contrary to nature" for them to be "grafted into a cultivated olive tree."

Romans 11:11-24
11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!​

The natural branches were "broken off" because of unbelief. Paul says we Gentiles should not "be arrogant, but tremble." Why? Because "He will not spare you either." In other words, if you or I as Gentiles persist in unbelief we too can be "broken off."

So what qualifies as unbelief? Many claim to believe but by their actions they deny God.

Titus 1:16
They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.​

Segue to one of the biblical definitions of sin.

James 4:17
If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.​

So is knowing what is "good" based on whatever we feel is good (post modernism)? Or rather is there something that spells out what is good?

Segue to Paul's knowledge of sin:

Romans 7:7-12
7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me,and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.​

Speaking in the present tense, the law (and covenant)--which contains precisely ten commands--is identified as being "holy, righteous and GOOD." I really don't understand why people who identify as Christians insist that this law, which Paul says IS holy; is righteous; is GOOD; which identifies sin; would be something to sideline. Well, actually I do. People want to be left to determine their own path (post modernism). Paul says he wouldn't even know what sin was without this law. Do you suppose you are more capable, more connected to God than was Paul? Do you suppose you have more of the holy Spirit than Paul? Do you suppose Paul's understanding of the law in the present tense as being "holy, righteous and good," was errant?

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

Falls somewhat short of directly addressing my points. . .

 

[Icyspark]

Falls somewhat short of directly addressing my points. . .

Hi Clare73,

Ha! That's probably because that post of mine wasn't in response to that particular post of yours.

God bless!

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[chad kincham]

Hi chad kincham,

You did it again. Instead of acknowledging a single thing I wrote, you instead just blew it all off and continued in the vacuum of knowledge to build a case with that doesn't harmonize with what the God says about Himself. So either your interpretation of the texts you're using is wrong or the author you're quoting is wrong. Personally I don't see that Paul is wrong so the problem must be elsewhere.

Let's keep this simple and see if you can address a single aspect of what the Bible says about the commands given through Moses:

Deuteronomy 30:11-14
Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.​

T__ F__ Moses says that what he commanded was not too difficult to obey?

This is an open book test.

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

The New Testament gives us the complete understanding, and I have said what it unequivocally says.

The essence of Gods law has nothing to do with 99% of the 613 statutes, commands and ordinances of the law of Moses.

And you have to keep them all down to the least jot and tittle - and if you successfully keep 612 of them but fall short of keeping just one, you’re guilty of violating them all.

It’s so bad trying to keep them all, that there were law specialists who’s sole job was to keep track of them all and remind them what needed done when and in what order, because it’s a full time job trying to keep them all.

Good luck with that.

 

[Clare73]

Is not your understanding of Paul's meaning there somewhat problematic?

Did Israel the branches cut themselves off their own tree?
Will Israel the branches graft themselves back into their own tree.
Do branches graft themselves into trunks.

The tree "belongs" to Israel in that they were the first branches on the tree.
Paul's meaning is that the tree is God's people, and it belongs to God.
The roots and trunk of the tree are Christ. The tree is the body of Christ.
Israel was its first branches, but Israel is not all its branches.
Israel is only a remnant of the branches on the tree that is the body of Christ.

Falls somewhat short of directly addressing my points. . .

Hi Clare73,
Ha! That's probably because that post of mine wasn't in response to that particular post of yours.

Indeed! . .ya' think that might have something to do with it?

Let me try that again, maybe this time I will get it straight.

Hi Clare73,

The answer is that God is pruning Israel's tree.

Hmm, that's not exactly what the text says. It says the tree belongs to them.

Not in the sense of their ownership, but in the sense of their residence. . .like your hometown.
It's my hometown. . .but I don't own it.
Neither Jew nor Gentile owns the tree, which is the body of Christ, God's people.
It is simply their spiritual home.
I don't own my hometown, it is simply my natural home.
If I move away, it will be easier for me to re-adjust to living there again than it would be for a stranger moving there, but I still don't own the town even though it is my hometown.

However, though it is not the natural home of outsiders who have moved there, it is, nevertheless, their home just as much as it is mine. The new-comers are not second-class citizens there.
In fact, that they are there by choice gives them stronger standing than I have who did not choose to be there, I had no choice, it was chosen for me.

This understanding is of the same nature as, and therefore not problematic to, what Paul is presenting in Romans 11; i.e., belief and unbelief as it relates to being in God's people (the Jews' hometown)--not to Jewish ownership of it--who are the body of Christ in the New Covenant, none of whom own the body of Christ.

Paul notes that Jews who have been cut off due to unbelief can be more readily grafted back into the olive tree. Why? Because the Jews are "natural branches" which belong in "their own olive tree." Gentiles are identified as "wild by nature" and it is "contrary to nature" for them to be "grafted into a cultivated olive tree."

Romans 11:11-24
11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!​

The natural branches were "broken off" because of unbelief. Paul says we Gentiles should not "be arrogant, but tremble." Why? Because "He will not spare you either." In other words, if you or I as Gentiles persist in unbelief we too can be "broken off."

So what qualifies as unbelief? Many claim to believe but by their actions they deny God.

Titus 1:16
They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.​

Segue to one of the biblical definitions of sin.

James 4:17
If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.​

So is knowing what is "good" based on whatever we feel is good (post modernism)? Or rather is there something that spells out what is good?

Segue to Paul's knowledge of sin:

Romans 7:7-12
7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me,and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.​

Speaking in the present tense, the law (and covenant)--which contains precisely ten commands--is identified as being "holy, righteous and GOOD." I really don't understand why people who identify as Christians insist that this law, which Paul says IS holy; is righteous; is GOOD; which identifies sin; would be something to sideline. Well, actually I do. People want to be left to determine their own path (post modernism). Paul says he wouldn't even know what sin was without this law. Do you suppose you are more capable, more connected to God than was Paul? Do you suppose you have more of the holy Spirit than Paul? Do you suppose Paul's understanding of the law in the present tense as being "holy, righteous and good," was errant?

I pray this helps.

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[Icyspark]

The New Testament gives us the complete understanding, and I have said what it unequivocally says.

The essence of Gods law has nothing to do with 99% of the 613 statutes, commands and ordinances of the law of Moses. [There's no such thing in the Bible known as the "613 statutes..." However God did number His Ten Commandment covenant. Also, did you know that the same thing that was done with the Old Testament in counting all the "statutes ..." was done with the New. Accordingly the New Testament has 1050 commandments Many of the "613 statutes..." plus an additional 437 commands.]

And you have to keep them all down to the least jot and tittle - and if you successfully keep 612 of them but fall short of keeping just one, you’re guilty of violating them all.

It’s so bad trying to keep them all, that there were law specialists who’s sole job was to keep track of them all and remind them what needed done when and in what order, because it’s a full time job trying to keep them all.

Good luck with that.

Hi chad kincham,

You responded but this time even though I simplified my response you didn't address the singular question I asked.

Here it is again:

T__ F__ Moses says that what he commanded was not too difficult to obey?

Can you acknowledge what the Bible says with this regard?

Thanks!

But for the grace of God go I,cyspark

 

[parousia70]

For me, I distinguish between the Body of Christ, and the nation Israel

When did the Apostles, and all the thousands of faithful Israelites who accepted Israel's New Covenant by following Jesus, Cease to be National Israel?
Did they somehow lose their National Identity by simply being faithful National Israelites who Followed the true King of National Israel, Jesus Christ, into Israel's New Covenant?

Where does scripture teach this?

Scripture, in fact, teaches the exact opposite.

In Elijah's era, the multitude of Israelites who worshiped the false god Baal was so great that faithful National Israel narrowed to a mere seven thousand men (1 Kings 19:1-18; Rom 11:2-4) and the rest were excommunicated out of National Israel forever. That faithful remnant at that time constituted ALL of God's covenanted, National Israel, and from that time forward ONLY the descendants of those 7000 were Gods Covenanted, NATIONAL, Israel. The rest, again, were cut off from the Nation of Israel, forever.

That's how God preserves His remnant in times of Great Apostasy.

That is what happened in the 1st century.

National Israel survived *exclusively* in the sect of the Nazarenes. Like the 7000 in Elijah's day, "TRUE NATIONAL ISRAEL" was once again reduced to a tiny remnant, the faithful ones of the Nazarene sect, and they, the TRUE NATIONAL ISRAEL of the 1st century, received with joy their promised New Covenant and obediently rejected all former biases against the non-Abrahamic families of earth so that Genesis 12:3 might finally be attained (Gal 3:7-9/Rom 4:13-18)---via the work of the Jewish Messiah.

The Rest, as in Elijah's day, were excommunicated out of National Israel, FOREVER.

You appear to be teaching the opposite of what scripture teaches about this. You appear to be teaching that the disobedient, wicked ones were preserved as God's Covenanted National Israel, while the faithful, obedient Israelites who Followed Natonal Israel's True King, Jesus Christ, and received National Israel's promised new covenant with Joy, are the ones who got cut off from the Covenant Nation of Israel, forever, because of their obedience to the Covenant.

How do you arrive at such an opposite conclusion from what the scripture teaches?

 

[Guojing]

When did the Apostles, and all the thousands of faithful Israelites who accepted Israel's New Covenant by following Jesus, Cease to be National Israel?
Did they somehow lose their National Identity by simply being faithful National Israelites who Followed the true King of National Israel, Jesus Christ, into Israel's New Covenant?

Where does scripture teach this?

Scripture, in fact, teaches the exact opposite.

In Elijah's era, the multitude of Israelites who worshiped the false god Baal was so great that faithful National Israel narrowed to a mere seven thousand men (1 Kings 19:1-18; Rom 11:2-4) and the rest were excommunicated out of National Israel forever. That faithful remnant at that time constituted ALL of God's covenanted, National Israel, and from that time forward ONLY the descendants of those 7000 were Gods Covenanted, NATIONAL, Israel. The rest, again, were cut off from the Nation of Israel, forever.

That's how God preserves His remnant in times of Great Apostasy.

That is what happened in the 1st century.

National Israel survived *exclusively* in the sect of the Nazarenes. Like the 7000 in Elijah's day, "TRUE NATIONAL ISRAEL" was once again reduced to a tiny remnant, the faithful ones of the Nazarene sect, and they, the TRUE NATIONAL ISRAEL of the 1st century, received with joy their promised New Covenant and obediently rejected all former biases against the non-Abrahamic families of earth so that Genesis 12:3 might finally be attained (Gal 3:7-9/Rom 4:13-18)---via the work of the Jewish Messiah.

The Rest, as in Elijah's day, were excommunicated out of National Israel, FOREVER.

You appear to be teaching the opposite of what scripture teaches about this. You appear to be teaching that the disobedient, wicked ones were preserved as God's Covenanted National Israel, while the faithful, obedient Israelites who Followed Natonal Israel's True King, Jesus Christ, and received National Israel's promised new covenant with Joy, are the ones who got cut off from the Covenant Nation of Israel, forever, because of their obedience to the Covenant.

How do you arrive at such an opposite conclusion from what the scripture teaches?

Scripture taught this in Romans 11, see especially Romans 11:25-28