|
|
Post by MattyJames on Feb 16, 2007 19:03:13 GMT -8
Shalom all - its been a while since I've posted, so I may not look all that familiar. In any case...I'd like some thoughts on the following. I was debating scripture with a rather well versed Messy, who, from the surface, seemed to have come from Orthordoxy...but I cannot say for sure. During the course of the debate He suggested that we Cannot be under the New Covenant because there are terms and conditions that are not yet met. ie: 'And you Shall no longer teach everyman his brother, and every man his neighbour saying, know the Lord; for all shall know me, from the least unto the greatest.' While this is definatly yet to happen - it also occureed to me that there are also promises within the Abrahamic Covenant, and also the Covenant made at Sinai - that are yet to be fullfilled!!!Does this then make those Covenants Void? Or does this then reduce the effectual working of those Covenants? Or course not! The Hope of Promise is an integral part of the effectual impact upon our lives, as we live for that Hope, and order our lives aright accordingly. Before I begin to ramble I'd better end there. So what say you?? Do I have a mute point...or is there a case to my understanding?? look forward to your replys. Shalom, Matt James PS: I told you I'd get around to it Wags!!  (Ignore if your name is not Wags). |
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Feb 16, 2007 19:21:51 GMT -8
I've heard the same objection. My question is, what does it mean to "know God"? I John 2 tells us that we know that we know God because we obey His Commandments. Well, those of us who are true followers of Yeshua obey the commandments without being asked.
How is this the New Covenant with Israel? Those Israelites who do not accept Yeshua are still divorced, per the prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel.
Anywho...those are my thoughts on the subject.
Shabbat Shalom,
Nachshon
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Feb 17, 2007 6:58:39 GMT -8
It is somewhat a tedious debate and can easily be misunderstood; but I may be in agreement with your friend (or possibly your adversary at this point). A good resource to check is an article by Tim Hegg at www.torahresource.com He also has a DVD lecture series out called "What's So New About The New Covenant." In this series Dr. Hegg explains that we are not yet "under" the New Covenant because the conditions of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31) have not yet been fulfilled. Yet, we are "first-fruits" of the New Covenant- a required prerequisite for the Covenant coming to full fruitation. There are really two ways to look at the Covenants. The first, and most popular, is the idea is that each covenant is separate and independent- many believe only applyingto a specific period of time (dispensationalism). As you have pointed out, if this were true Adonai would be left as being somewhat less than omnipotent, having mot completed His end of the promise to Abraham or Israel through Moses. The second way of looking at the Covenants (my way) is to really see them as the same promise but refined into a tighter set of qualifications until what we identify as "The New Covenant" rests fully in the person of Yeshua Messiah. It is noteworthy that Messiah Yeshua said that not one jot nor tittle of  (th eOld Covenant) will pass (be anulled) until all has been fulfulled. Further qualifying that statement in that not until heaven and earth pass away. The dispensationalist will say that all was fulfilled on the cross; but I certainly hope that it has not. If all has been fulfilled then what future hope remains for us? If all has been fulfilled then He's not coming back and the promises given to everyone left unkept are now bankrupt! Yet, take a look at Revelation 21:6. There is a hew heaven and a new earth and the first thing out of Messiah Yeshua's mouth is the phrase, "It is done." Now, in Greek, the phrase is only one word. It is the word "ginomai". This is the same word that is used in Matthew 5:18 "...till all is fulfilled." It is the only place in the New Testament that ginomai is used in it's completed perfect tense. So, from this perspective, we are still "under" the Old Covenant. We are inthe process of passing into the New Covenant; but there are some pretty dynamic changes that need to take place before we get there. This, by the way, consistently explains the syntax of Hebrews 8:13. The Old Covenant is currently decayING and waxING old, becomING ready to vanish away. 40 years after the death and resurrection of the Messiah, Hebrews is written in such a way that suggests that there still remains some element of power in the Old Covenant (though it is not to be our focus- rather our focus is to be upon the Messiah as Mediator of the New Covenant). Clear as mud? Mark |
|
|
|
Post by Chizuk Emunah on Feb 17, 2007 18:55:39 GMT -8
Definitely agree with Mark here. The New Covenant is coming, but is not here yet.
Well said, Mark.
Shavua Tov,
Natanel
|
|
Pioneer
Full Member
Shema and Shemar
Posts: 210
|
Post by Pioneer on Feb 17, 2007 21:06:02 GMT -8
I have two teachers who say the "New Covenant is for today, but not yet." If the is written upon your heart, you are in the "New Covenant." But it is not yet in all men. |
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Feb 18, 2007 9:47:24 GMT -8
Definitely agree with Mark here. The New Covenant is coming, but is not here yet. Well said, Mark. Shavua Tov, Natanel Are you and Mark of the group that reject the book of Hebrews? Because I'm not seeing how this interpretation can be reconciled to that writing. Perhaps you could explain it to me? |
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Feb 18, 2007 17:08:01 GMT -8
Um...no. And were we in private conversation I might exclamate the statement with a few slang derivitives. I have no connection with Monte Judah or the Two House movement.
I'm not where you're not understanding, especially since Hebrews 8:13 is a text I've used to support this position.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chizuk Emunah on Feb 18, 2007 18:43:45 GMT -8
Yeah, I definitely don't agree with Two House theology either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nachshon on Feb 18, 2007 18:59:46 GMT -8
Um...no. And were we in private conversation I might exclamate the statement with a few slang derivitives. I have no connection with Monte Judah or the Two House movement. I'm not where you're not understanding, especially since Hebrews 8:13 is a text I've used to support this position. lol. I don't agree with Monte Judah, either. I was merely wondering. I went back and went over your post. I think I see what you're saying now. Shalom, Nachshon |
|
|
|
Post by R' Y'hoshua Moshe on Feb 23, 2007 14:27:55 GMT -8
All of the covenants have aspects that have not been completely fulfilled. This is why it is so essential to understand the various covenants as a compound unity. We are operating under aspects of all the various covenants and eagerly await the fulfillment of Brit Adonai (The Covenant of Adonai).
Shalom,
Reuel
|
|
|
|
Post by messimom on Feb 23, 2007 16:35:52 GMT -8
I will say this smally and quietly, as I am greatly outnumbered on this board........some know I believe the two house theory is accurate. I also like Monte Judah and respect his teachings, I think he has a lot of insight into some issues. I know he raised many  with his Hebrews publication. But he has done nothing more than all of us have done at some point or another...that is just to question what he has read. He raised some good questions that deserve answers. And no where within the publication did he condone the ripping out of our Bibles the book of Hebrews, just for people to use their desire for the truth to continually grow closer to YHVH. He asked that people use the same research and refusal to be spoon fed that they used to end up the the Messianic movement to begin with. If you are going to condemn someone simply because they are asking you to question what you thought was a reality, then you don't belong in the Messianic movement. I am only referencing his Hebrews publication at this time, not any general disgruntlements or complaints against Monte Judah or the two house movement. The two house people, including Monte Judah and other two house leaders, do not understand the "new covenant" to be anything other than what is being discussed here and has been wonderfully summed by by Reuel. YHVH works with progressive revelation. And when Yeshua returns and all will finally be fulfilled, we will again be under a "new covenant." Shalom Messimom
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Feb 23, 2007 17:22:56 GMT -8
Hi Messimom,
Monte Judah has done some good work on various subjects and I can't say that I am totally against everything that he has to say. Also, anytime you stand up in the position of a teacher, particularly on an international level, there's going to be all kinds of us sitting comfortably in our own little isolated worlds perfectly willing to take pot-shots at everything that he says (even in passing).
We've discussed the "Two-house" doctrine in another thread; and his position on the book of Hebrews I only heard in passing (and really never gave it much thought).
Still, I find Monte's approach to biblical exegesis dangerous and can't hesitate to disassociate myself from his perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by MattyJames on Feb 23, 2007 20:03:26 GMT -8
LOL. Its funny how us Ozzies miss out on soo much. I've never even heard of the Man.
Thanks all for your replies thus far.
I suppose then - for those who do not consider us to be under the 'New Covenant' - that the Sacrificial system would still be in place?? Do I read correctly??
MJ
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Feb 24, 2007 5:26:43 GMT -8
Let's start with what Messiah Yeshua said, and thus where much of the conflicting perspectives come from.
In Luke 22:20, at His last Passover seder, He declared, "This cup is the New Testament (can be equally translated "New Covenant) of My blood, which is shed for you."
This statement is used to establish the enactment of the New Covenant at the cross: when Messiah Yeshua died for our sins, the New Covenant was fully established (or so is the common teaching).
Before we deal specifically with that statement, let's look at the affect that it had on the ministry and worship of believers which followed. Acts 2:46 states that the 1st Church continued to worship "in the Temple". In Acts 21, Paul participates in the rites of purification (he, himself, earlier having testified that he had once been under a vow) which requires the offering of blood sacrifice (see Leviticus 22:21). Paul, nearly 20 years after the crucifiction, is involved in Temple sacrifices.
In Ezekiel 44:11 (prophecy yet unfulfilled) the Temple system will be re-instituted and sacrifices will again be offered in worship of Adonai. Is this symbolic? Possibly; yet, Hebrews 10 tells us that the sacrificial system itself is symbolic, or a pattern of heavenly things. Is it prudent to offer a symbol as representation of a symbol within a vision? Unbiased logic would suggest that these sacrifices are literal.
The sacrificial system continued, with believers in full participation (Acts 21:20), up until 70 AD. The Christian Church places Messianic significance upon the destruction of the Temple; but without biblical basis for making these connections. It is easy to conclude the Temple was destroyed after the Messiah fulfilled all need for sacrifice... but thirty-seven years is a long time to establish cause and effect. Where Messiah's sacrifice to do away with the sacrificial system, one might suspect that it would have occured a little sooner.
Had the sacrificial system continued without interruption throughout the period of "the Old Covenant", there also may be some weight of argument. Were the sacrificial system necessary for the salvation of "Old Covenant" Jews, Daniel and Mordecai are doomed to Hell! There are Two or three periods of time in biblical history when the Temple was not available for worship. We tend to view this current state as very similar. In fact, I would suggest that if Israel today were to turn their hope toward Adonai instead of appealing to the UN, we would soon see the rebuilding of the Temple for biblical worship.
The question "are we still under the Old Covenant" ignores the pattern of integrity that exists in biblical covenants. One doesn't abbrogate or annul the previous: it rather stands upon (or within) the foundation of the previous covenants. Has the New Covenant come to full fruitation? No, the conditions spoken of in Jeremiah 31 have not yet been fully met, nor I believe will be until there is a new heaven and a new earth. That shouldn't be too scandelous because God's covenants with Abraham, Moses and David still have elements yet to be fulfilled as well. It's my guess that He's going to take care of all those things right about the same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yochana on Feb 24, 2007 8:45:57 GMT -8
MJ - thank you for starting this thread.
Mark - nice concise writing and thought provoking insights
|
|
(Ignore if your name is not Wags). 
(th eOld Covenant) will pass (be anulled) until all has been fulfulled. Further qualifying that statement in that not until heaven and earth pass away. The dispensationalist will say that all was fulfilled on the cross; but I certainly hope that it has not. If all has been fulfilled then what future hope remains for us? If all has been fulfilled then He's not coming back and the promises given to everyone left unkept are now bankrupt! Yet, take a look at Revelation 21:6. There is a hew heaven and a new earth and the first thing out of Messiah Yeshua's mouth is the phrase, "It is done." Now, in Greek, the phrase is only one word. It is the word "ginomai". This is the same word that is used in Matthew 5:18 "...till all is fulfilled." It is the only place in the New Testament that ginomai is used in it's completed perfect tense. So, from this perspective, we are still "under" the Old Covenant. We are inthe process of passing into the New Covenant; but there are some pretty dynamic changes that need to take place before we get there. This, by the way, consistently explains the syntax of Hebrews 8:13. The Old Covenant is currently decayING and waxING old, becomING ready to vanish away. 40 years after the death and resurrection of the Messiah, Hebrews is written in such a way that suggests that there still remains some element of power in the Old Covenant (though it is not to be our focus- rather our focus is to be upon the Messiah as Mediator of the New Covenant). 
with his Hebrews publication. But he has done nothing more than all of us have done at some point or another...that is just to question what he has read. 
