Hebrews 8

[Mark]

HI Nachson,

This is a rabbit trail; but I think an acceptable one so long as we keep it short. Be careful in your usage of the Greek language. I'm presuming that you had gotten your definition of Ginomai from Strong's. His is a valuable language tool; but only in a very elementary way. Strong does not take into consideration tense, mood or context any any given word. Often, he only references the root word when the actual Greek text has added suffixes or prefixes. The Greek language uses words in compounds like an erector set- building words together without any scope of limitation. Sometimes these Pauline sentences that take up five verses in English are only five or six words in Greek- just really, really big words.

Ginomai can mean fulfilled and in classical Greek, the two words Playroo and Ginomai can be used interchangeably therefore are synonyms. This is the idea often applied to Matthew 5:17-18. However, Greek doesn't work that way. In the late 1800's there was a Brittish Greek scholar named JA Trench. "Trench's Law" states that when words which are syonyms are used in the same context, it is their difference that brought to the focus, not their similarities. Therefore, in Matthew 5:17-18, you are correct in that they cannot mean the same thing and "fulfilled" is an improper translation of that word.

When Yeshua hung on the cross and said, "It is finished." He used a different word altogether. The word He spoke was tetelestai. This is a marketing term that declares a debt has been paid in full.

[Nachshon]

I beg to differ. I did use Strongs, but I am not so naieve as to trust Dr. Strong implicitly. I also looked it up in a lexicon (can't think at the moment...it was one translated from German) and looked at all of it's usages. In 600 odd times it appears, every time it means "happens" or something to that effect, except for this once when nearly every translation renders it "fulfilled." It is possible that in classical Greek, it does mean "fulfill" at times. But we are dealing with what is, in essence, Semitic Greek.
As you know, I'm a Peshitta primacist, so the Peshitta having an even clearer reading in this way than the Greek concluded it for me.

Shalom,
Nachshon

[Mark]

Nachson, our conclusion is the same so it is needless for us to argue the point. I just want you to realize that going up against 200+ years of PhDs telling them that they are simply defining the word incorrectly is not going to help your theological position any.

In fact, if you were to present your argument to Seminary trained pastor or theologian in the way that you've presented it here, they would completely dismiss you as an arrogant fool who doesn't know what you're talking about.

Of course, I don't believe that's the case (especially since I agree with your parsing of the lexicon in this Matthew 5 context). To be fair to you, though, I must warn you that your approach will not be taken seriously from our dispensationalist friends and neighbors.

[Nachshon]

That's okay. They would be right. I am an arrogant fool who doesn't know what he's talking about. The only difference between me and most other people is that I admit it. <G>
I generally try to point out that the PhDs have correctly translated it in several hundred places, and that they did it differently in only this one place. The question "why" naturally follows, and there is only one logical answer to it.
Thank you for the warning. I've gone over this one, and similar issues, before with dispensationalists. Maybe I just move in the right circles, but generally they're at least willing to discuss it. However, when I've discussed it with the guys with alphabet soup after their names, they tend to be less willing to listen to what I have to say.
Thank you for the advice, Akhiy. It will be heeded.

Shalom,
Nachshon

[Melville]

Hello,

This thread is a year old so I don't know if anyone is following it anymore but having been referred to it by Mark I want to take a shot at something. These discussions about the Old and New Covenants have tended to be theological and theoretical, or so it strikes me. The general assertion here is that the New Covenant did not displace the Old Covenant, that it is not actually fully in effect (http://theloveofgod.proboards3.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=post&thread=1171681393"e=1172323603&page=1), and that the New Covenant is not new, since the Lamb is described as slain from the foundation of the world. This can and does involve itself into a lot of word technicalities. I'm wondering if there isn't a simpler way to get down to the practical upshot and I want to try, commenting on only a few points along the way.

The New Covenant is new because it says that it is. What is the point of calling it the new Covenant otherwise? The Lamb of God was slain from the foundation in intention but not in fact until He appeared and died on the Cross. In that act and the resurrection and ascension there was fulfilled everything necessary to bring to completion all of God's purpose. The victory was complete. There remained a period of ingathering and of playing out, with the Lambs opening of the seals and so on. That's how I read it.

But I want to go back to this simple practicality over whether the Law of commandments and ordinances from the has been replaced. The practicality has special relevance to gentiles, but also to Jews. There was the big issue of circumcision descibed in Galatians. There were men going around saying that the gentile converts had to be circumcised according to the Law. Paul declared that if you go that way you have to fulfill the whole law and you are back at righteousness by law instead of grace, and he condemned that. You can't just take bits and pieces and think you've gained anything. The apostle has established that no flesh is justified by works of the Law, and that no man can actually fulfill it, because of indwelling sin.

Now perhaps it is argued that once one beleives in Jesus then one has been changed and wants to obey the commandments in the Law of Moses. We face certain difficulties with this. Nowhere in the NT was it required of the gentiles to become Jews. Peter, so very much a Jew, in the council at Jerusalem about this matter, asked why the circumcision party would place upon the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither the fathers nor they themselves were able to bear. We cannot say that gentile beleivers need to go back and follow the Jewish Law without plainly running against scripture.

For Jews there is the problem that they are no longer, in Christ, separate from the gentile brethren. There were those in Jerusalem with James and all and they were sort of in their own thing there as compared with what was going on it the places where the Gospel spread. The Temple was there and everything still going on there. We don't have specific reports of their actual involvements in Temple worship, though we do find Paul going through a purification in Acts 21, though it should be pointed out that this endeavor completely backfired! They urged him to show that he walked orderly, keeping the Law, and it completely didn't work. They were not willing to alienate the Jews. They were Jews. But this was a time of transition. They couldn't argue against what God was so plainly doing with the gentiles but they weren't about to let go their Jewsihness and this created some problems. One telling anecdote was that when certain men came from James and Peter was led to go off from eating with the gentiles because of them, and Paul, who was more clear about all this condemned this.

Really, 20, 30, 40 years is not a long time in the sceme of things and in ad 70 it was all up. Whatever the theological arguments are about it, the fact is the fact. Temple worship and everything to go with it was no longer possible.

I want to make another note here and that has to do with the degree to which Jerusalem was looked to as a central authority by the churches generally and the evidence of the New Testament is that while it statred out there, I beleive because the Apostles were there, this faded out. There was the question of whether the gentiles had to be circumcised and when that was settled that appears to be it. There is not record of regular coming and going between the churches established abroad and Jersualam as any sort of headquarters to make rules for them.

But now let me come forward to now and this practical question of observance. Without the Temple and preisthood there is a great deal of limitation on what can be observed. And that's not the only thing. Nobody's going to get away with killing witches or stoning adulterous couples or disobedient adolescents. What one is left with are bits and pieces one can try to put into practice, but I don't recall a place where it says, "Do the laws that you can and don't worry about the rest." We are left with bits and pieces to pick and choose and that seems highly arbitrary.

Some contributors I see have been involved with Protestand and evangelical churches so this may be familiar. They make often a big thing about tithing. If you don't do it you are robbing Gid and missing out on a blessing. This is convenient in a way because it keeps the money coming in to support the religious system. But if the Law and the Scriptures are all of a piece then the very same Book of Malachi has the Lord's same degree of displeasure with offering blind and lame, blemished sacrifices. So there's this picking and choosing.

There's only one way that i can see to keep it all coherent, and that is that the essential meaning of the Law and the Prophets is that it is actually spiritual. The Old Covenant with Israel was physical. Things were carried out in the flesh. Animals were physically cut up and offered. Israel fought physical battles with theri enemies. It is not so with us. Our adversaries are in essence spiritual. The animals being cut up are a metaphor for how the Word of God pierces and divides our inward parts. Our sacrifices are spiritual, for example the lips that give thanks to His name. God was always after the inward part of man. We get this so beautofully in David. So there would be a spiritual message for us in offering blind and lame sacrifices, too, and worshipping on the high places, and so much more.

Finally one little point that came to mind. We don't want to use the word dispensation here and I'm struggling with what to call it. There IS a distinction made between Jesus Christ and Moses and I tend to fear it is getting blurred. In Hebrews there is a lot of reference to angels and it's always, "not unto angels". I ch. 2, vss. 2 and 3, it says, "For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense, how shall we escape if we englect so great a salvation". I've taken this to mean that the first covenant was administered through angels. But now God has spoken in His Son, and everything has to do with Him and is summed up in Him. The whole point is no longer shadows and types and copies but the real thing and the goal is sonship, growing into maturity as sons.

Yours very truly in Christ,

Melville

mark said:

We often get a little sloppy when reading Scripture (particularly in our English translations), thinking that we understand the depth of a passage at first glance (often finding conflict in our misinterpretation). It clearly states, in Hebrews 8, that the Old Covenant (the Covenant given through Moses, is vanishing away. When we stop there and try to manipulate or explain away the text with other references, we become as guilty as our theological oponents, using the same methods of eisegetical interpretation as they use (eisegesis is the process of starting with a theological position, then finding ways to support your doctrine as opposed to trying to understand the Scripture in context).

The issue that we might consider is WHEN the Old Covenant is passed away. Nachson does well to establish that the writer of Hebrews (not necessarily Paul, but that doesn't much matter) is quoting Jeremiah 31:31-34. In this passage, Adonai delineates the criteria under which the New Covenant is established: the law will be in the hearts of all men (not needing any instruction regarding it), all of Israel will have (walk in) a relationship with Adonai. It goes on to specify that as long as there is a sun and a moon in the sky, the people of Israel will remain as His covenant people.

Now take a look at a more familiar passage. In Matthew 5:17-18, our Messiah declares what is the end of the : when all things are fulfilled (Greek word: ginomai) and when heaven and earth pass away.

Finally, let's turn to Revelation 21:1-6. The first thing that we see is that there is a new heaven and a new earth. Secondly, we see Adonai walking once again in itimate communion with men. Finally, in verse 6, Messiah Yeshua declares, "Ginomai!" (It is done.) Establishing at this point that all things are fulfilled. So, in the New Kingdom, all things are made new and the Old Covenant ceases to hold any affect.

Now, as we go back to Hebrews 8, pay very close attention to the pronoun participles in their tense:

verse 3: every high priest IS ordained... there is much speculation as to whether or not Hebrews was written before or after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. We know that it was written very near that time. Such statements as this give weight to the position that Hebrews was written before the destruction- the priests are currently ministering in the Temple and sacrifices are being made.

verse 5: the priests are serving as a shadow of things established in the Heavenlies. This idea is repeated in Hebrews 10. Comparing chapters 8 and 10 are critical because in chapter 10 the writer states that the sacrifices of the Old Covenant NEVER atoned for sin (Hebrews 10:4). This is a consistent message. Hebrews 4:2 declares that salvation has always been according to faith (evidence of faith being the key to righteousness is further the subject of Hebrews 11 and 12- even of those "under the Old Covenant"). One cannot use Hebrews 8 to say the Law was for them then and grace is for us now. Salvation has always been by grace through faith. Notice the tense in verse 5: "who are currently serving as an example of heavenly things..." The priestly functions in the Temple have not ended nor been invalidated; just put in their proper perspective.

verse 6: the Greek word "noo-ni" (translated "but now") has a broad range of ideas by which it can be interpretted. It has the idea of newness; but not necessarily of pre-existance, nor even of being fully established. It is best understood as a drawing of focus from one idea to another, much like a stage play will use lighting to draw your attention to a different character on a stage regardless of whether he has just entered or has been there all along. This is how we must interpret this sing as the New Covenant is not New. In Revelation 13:8 we come to understand that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world.

Finally, since we've looked that the Jeremiah prophecy already, let's skip down to verse 13. Very interesting sentence structure: that which is currently entering the state of decay and is waxing (growing) old is ready to vanish away." The tense of this sentence is baffling to the Christian. Why did the writer not use past tense. If the Law were "fulfilled" amd the Old Covenant dismissed when Yeshua died on the cross, why did the writer not complete this sentence in past tense. This is forty years after the crucifixion, and yet, the writer is concluding that the passing of the Old Covenant is in present tense- that it still remains.

Some will argue that it is because the Temple had not yest been destroyed; but that wasn't a condition of the Covenant (Jeremiah 31:34-35). As long as the sun, moon and stars are there, the covenant remains. The consistent handling of the text must be that the Old Covenant is in place until there is a New heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21).

The point of what the writer of Hebrews is making is to establish our perspective. Do we worship the act of worship or do we worship God? Is it a process of ritual obedience or is it drawing toward a closer intimacy with Him? It is the same statement in Isaiah 1 and in Galatians. God is not a mechanical switch that if we press the right buttons we will get into His favor. He is our Father and woos us with His love.

[Sean]

Hi Melville, I never seem to get a word in edgewise on this forum because mostly its a case of "couldn't have put it better myself". Just a quick reminder in that "New" testament is "new" in the sense of a new moon every month, ie, the covenant will wax stronger in the hearts of men as they are moved by G-d's spirit to pursue the out of a love for Him, and not new as in western mindset "I threw that xxx away because I bought this new xxx".
Hope that makes sense.

[Mark]

Melville,

First, I want to let you know that your position is antinomian (or, lawless) and is wholly inconsistent with the purpose of this forum. Ifyou read through the various threads, you will find that your presumptions about Paul, the Jewish people (as you consistently generalize them) and the are effectively handled throughout this entire forum. You have a lot of catching up to do if you plan to debunk the doctrine that defines sin for all of us, Jew and gentile alike.

Yet, to the point of this tread, to which you have, again generalized into a basic position of antinomianism, I'd like to ask you one question. Please understand that I ask you only one because, already, since you've been here, you have demonstrated yourself to choose to answer the arguments that are easiest for you and ignore the rest.

In Hebrews 8:13, the writer says that "the old is ready to vanish away." This is between 30 and 40 years after the crucifixion and resurrection. Why did the writer say that the old "is ready to pass away" instead of "has already passed away," as you seem to want to interpret it?

[Melville]

Dear Mark,

This is certainly a new one. I've never been accused of antinomianism before. I wonder if you are responding to what I actually wrote of if you feel you've got me sized up as fitting into a certain doctrinal box and are addressing that instead of me. Please understand that I am making observations of my own in places and not necessarily attempting to only answer other arguments.

To answer you question, it seems to me that the writer of Hebrews said it was on its way to passing away and not had passed away because it hadn't passed away yet. He'd very plainly laid out the distinction between the two covenants, spiritually speaking. Here is where I have felt that you are not taking the whole set of statements into account together. We can't read that the New had rendered the Old obsolete and then turn around and and just ignore the statement. I think we should bear in mind that right here we are talking about what the author of Hebrews specifically wrote about, which was the priesthoods and sacrificial system, etc. So anyway I don't see any problem over saying that it was nigh to passing away instead of had passed away. These writers weren't taking up arms against Jewish religion, they were apostles ushering in the New Covenant and the Good News.

In Romans 7 Paul explains his own struggles with keeping the Law and how it revealed the principle of sin in his members, which he could not overcome and would have despaired if it were not for this new law, the Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus, which set him free from the Law of Sin and Death. What was impossible for man became possible from God, through His Spirit. Toward the end of his life Paul wrote to the Philippians about his central aspiration, which was NOT having his own righteousness according to the Law. According to that he said he was blameless, but he now counted it loss instead of gain, in order to attain to something higher, the righteousness which is by faith, in deep inner conformity to Christ Himself where His Cross has become an active, deeply inward principle, whereby the power of His resurrection, His Life is manifested. We have these two things contrasted. The works of the Law and the principle of the risen life of Christ, His Spirit, leading and guiding and producing the righteousness of God, as the Cross works upon self, in a deep inner transformation of one's very being.

It is possible for men to faithfully keep religious observances, e.g., the rich young ruler. Serious Muslims do this. Men can gain a sense of self-righteousness thereby, e.g., the Pharisee who went to the Temple to pray, contrasted with the tax collector.

There's a distinction that is often made between the ceremonial Law, as in the laws of the Tabernacle and the sacrifices and feasts, and the moral Law, as in the Ten Commandments. The New Testament makes it clear that no one is justified before God by doing the former and that the latter will condemn all of us because of sin in our natures.

I hope you are not saying that one has to do hours and hours of reading here to make sense out of all this. There ought to be a more simple way to address the issues. I have the impression that here the is treated as all of a piece, and one of my points was that there are some practical obstacles to keeping large parts of it, since there is no earthly Temple and Priesthood. I noted other examples. One is left with parts that one can do and parts one can't.

One can avoid eating pork, rabbits, and shellfish, because it's there in the . But the Jesus came along and said it isn't what goes into a man that defiles him, and thus, as it says, He declared all foods clean. Then there was Peter's vision of the sheet and all the unclean animals. But the interpretation was that it wasn't about animals but men. There is a spiritual meaning. While on the one hand the Lord declared that not one fragment of the Law could be done away, He also declared all foods clean and let His disciples pick grain on the Sabbath. These have to be reconciled without nullifying one or the other and the only way I can see to do this is that, for example, when it says they could only eat seafoods with fins and scales, it wasn't just to forbid people from eating sturgeon or lobster, but that fins and scales must have some significance in a moral/spiritual sense. I can't say I know what it is because it's only an inkling and that is has to do with the people of the world and what we should and should not take in to ourselves. I believe that understanding these things really does require the Spirit of God and that there is a great deal of this in Scripture, many things man cannot figure out on his own.

I don't believe the dichotomy between being a legalist or an antinomian truly characterizes the only possibilities. But to reiterate the answer to your question, it turned out exactly as the writer of Hebrews stated. I think you are saying that when he said the New Covenant rendered the former obsolete it really didn't and I would have to say I would call such a conclusion an error. It's what it says. And it was on the way to passing away because at that time the Temple was standing and the whole thing was still going on, but not for much longer. Very soon Jerusalem would be destroyed. The Lord Himself prophesied this and stated the reason, in Luke 19:44. It was indeed close to passing away and it did as a historical fact. Now I think it would be for you to explain why becoming obsolete doesn't mean obsolete, it that is what you believe. I mean it wasn't me that wrote the book.

Yours in Christ,

Melville

mark said:

Melville,

First, I want to let you know that your position is antinomian (or, lawless) and is wholly inconsistent with the purpose of this forum. If you read through the various threads, you will find that your presumptions about Paul, the Jewish people (as you consistently generalize them) and the are effectively handled throughout this entire forum. You have a lot of catching up to do if you plan to debunk the doctrine that defines sin for all of us, Jew and gentile alike.

Yet, to the point of this tread, to which you have, again generalized into a basic position of antinomianism, I'd like to ask you one question. Please understand that I ask you only one because, already, since you've been here, you have demonstrated yourself to choose to answer the arguments that are easiest for you and ignore the rest.

In Hebrews 8:13, the writer says that "the old is ready to vanish away." This is between 30 and 40 years after the crucifixion and resurrection. Why did the writer say that the old "is ready to pass away" instead of "has already passed away," as you seem to want to interpret it?

[Mark]

Hi Melville,

You're still speaking of the Old Covenant in completed past tense, which the text does not. The New Covenant isn't actually new. It was prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-37. By the way, the conditions of the New Covenant have not yet been met.

[Melville]

Mark,

With all respect, I don't believe you are attempting to give me the run around, play word games, or deliberately twist the scriptures, or hope you are not, but when you say the new covenant is not new it comes across to me as double-talk. If it is not new then it is old, or has no existence at all. The scriptures always call it new. Why else would it be called the new covenant? Yes, it was prophesied, but that was as something future, which at that time had not come into effect. I’m baffled by your statement.

And equally so by your assertion that “the conditions of the New Covenant have not yet been met.” If they have not, as you say, then I find it inexplicable that the Lord would say, on the night when He was betrayed and he passed the cup to His disciples that this is the new covenant in His blood. I trust this will not reduce to saying, well, it ‘depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.


Paul also quoted the Lord in this very way to the Corinthians (ch 11). “This is the new covenant [testament] in my blood.” It would be incomprehensible in view of Paul’s saying that they, the apostles, or whoever he meant by “we”, had been made ministers of the new covenant in 2 Cor 3:6, if it was not in action. If it had not been in effect then what were they doing administering it? Why would it be said, over and over, NOT the oldness of the letter but the newness of the Spirit? You know the Bible. Should I have to quote so many chapters and verses to prove that it says there is an old and a new? One thing is repeatedly said to be old and the other new? Right? Can you at least grant this is what it says?

So what is old and what is new? Well, the “letter” is old. The “Spirit” is said to be the new. Old and new. Not that but this. One thing was the former thing. But new things have come. This is said in so many ways I don’t know why, honestly, that one would feel a need to circumvent it. There is something divinely called old and something that God calls new. Your words say the new covenant is not new and has not come. Scripture says it is and has. What else can I say?

Melville

mark said:

Hi Melville,

You're still speaking of the Old Covenant in completed past tense, which the text does not. The New Covenant isn't actually new. It was prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-37. By the way, the conditions of the New Covenant have not yet been met.

[Mark]

Mellville,

Read Jeremiah 31:31-37

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me forever. Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.
(Jer 31:31-37 KJV)


1st, the New Covenant is given to the House of Israel and the House of Judah. It is not a universal covenant given to all peoples; though all peoples are always welcome to join in Israel's covenant relationship.

2nd, The is not an outward mandate but is inscribed in the hearts of the Jewish people. Is this the case today? Was this the case when Messiah was resurrected?

3rd, All of Israel will know the Lord and will need no one to teach them of that relationship. Is this the case today?

This is why the writer of Hebrews speaks of the New Covenant as still coming and not yet fulfilled. It has not yet come to fruitation.

Is Messiah's blood the blood of the New Covenant? Absolutely! It is through Him that these things will certainly come to pass, when He returns. Yet, these things are things that we are still anticipating. They will occur, without any doubt; but to suggest that the Old is done (when the text does not say that it is done and when the criteria for being done has not yet occurred) is jumping the gun a bit, don't you think?

[Melville]

Mark,

All right. I believe I understand your reasoning. You have listed three points and I’ll answer them, even though you have not fully addressed mine.
1) The prophecy of Jeremiah that you are building on does not anticipate or address the inclusion of the Gentiles, which Paul calls “the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel . . . “
I don’t know what you think was going on with the churches established with gentiles in terms of covenants, but it certainly wasn’t the old one and Paul says to those in Corinth who were largely Greeks that he is a minister of the new covenant in the Spirit and I’ll have to stick with him. If you want to say the new covenant wasn’t in effect and has nothing to do with this I can only say that I believe you are in error.
2) Was Paul a Jew? Was he having the law written in his heart in the Spirit or would you consider him an antinomian? When he wrote to the Corinthians that they were a living epistle, written not on tables of stone but with the Spirit of the living God and immediately states that he is a minister of the new covenant are you saying he’s mistaken? That what he was administering was not the new covenant or that this would begin at some future time. What he said was what he said and I don’t see how to get around it. So the new covenant was in action in him and in those who believe unto eternal life, having become regenerate by the Spirit of God. There was to be an ingathering of the Gentiles before all Israel would be brought in, it says. You seem not to acknowledge this. Again, I’m not making this up. There is a process being played out.
In terms of what happened when the Lord was resurrected, no, He also had to be taken up into heaven and then the promise of the father would come. He had been with them but would be in them. He is the earnest of the inheritance, whereas the fulfillment is the resurrection of the body and the manifestation of the sons of God. We are not complete without that but this doesn’t mean what we have is something other than the new covenant. Quite plainly it is not the old. This is the contrast, the old of the letter and the new of the Spirit.
3) Everyone knowing the Lord. This also is in process of happening. John writes about this in his 1st letter. We have an anointing from the Holy One that teaches us about all things, whereby he says we have no need of a man to teach us. This doesn’t all happen at once. This process has been going on for 2000 years.

But Mark, the texts do say that the old is done, when they say repeatedly “not in the oldness of the letter but in the newness of the Spirit.” This thought runs throughout. Those who come to God through faith in Christ do so in the newness. They (we) are never told to come by way of the old.

Yours truly,

Melville

mark said:

Mellville,

Read Jeremiah 31:31-37

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me forever. Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.
(Jer 31:31-37 KJV)


1st, the New Covenant is given to the House of Israel and the House of Judah. It is not a universal covenant given to all peoples; though all peoples are always welcome to join in Israel's covenant relationship.

2nd, The is not an outward mandate but is inscribed in the hearts of the Jewish people. Is this the case today? Was this the case when Messiah was resurrected?

3rd, All of Israel will know the Lord and will need no one to teach them of that relationship. Is this the case today?

This is why the writer of Hebrews speaks of the New Covenant as still coming and not yet fulfilled. It has not yet come to fruitation.

Is Messiah's blood the blood of the New Covenant? Absolutely! It is through Him that these things will certainly come to pass, when He returns. Yet, these things are things that we are still anticipating. They will occur, without any doubt; but to suggest that the Old is done (when the text does not say that it is done and when the criteria for being done has not yet occurred) is jumping the gun a bit, don't you think?

[Prodigal Girl]

Hey Melville,
Take it slow. Realize that many of us here have come from exactly where you are coming from, but over time, have come to a different understanding concerning a number of the issues you have brought up. We have realized that many things we were taught in the past, just did not add up or make sense. Mark is not trying to accuse you, he just made the observation that doctrinally, you appear to be coming from the anti-nomian camp, which has ramifications concerning many things. The many, many things you have brought up, are way too numerous to deal with in one thread. Relax, take one thing at a time. We are all willing to discuss with you, but it will take time.
Messianic assemblies are, indeed, doctrinally significantly different than churches. Take time to read, and listen, and then discuss and ask questions. One thing I would like to tell you, is that many of us were once where you are right now. So we understand the position you are coming from; we have wrestled with it ourselves.

[Mark]

Hi Melville,

You are presuming that Paul abandoned the Jewishness of his faith when he went to the gentiles. This contradicts Paul's own statements. The very last words Paul is recorded as saying in Acts 28:17 is that he never once committed anything against the "customs of the fathers". This would disallow him from speaking anything against . In fact, in Romans 3, when it is suggested that Paul teaches against , he responds that such reports are slander.

So, what is Paul saying? What does it mean that the Letter is the ministration of death? In Romans 7, he tells us that the Law is (not was) holy and the commandment is holy and just and good. Yet, when he recognized how not good he really was, in view of the Law, it revealed to him that he was on a collision course with death.

It's quite interesting that you suggest that Paul abandoned the Jewishness of his faith when teaching the gentiles, particularly when 1st Corinthians 14 describes the normal functions and procedures of the Jewsih synagogue (mucm more aptly than what we see in the Christian Church), even defending one of his positions with a rabbinical interpretation of (1st Corinthians 14:34).

Your suggestion that the believer has no part in, nor is there any significance to the New Covenant is a misunderstanding. The New Covenant is that to which he are focused. It's actualization is the second coming of the Messiah. It is that to which we look forward. However, to suggest that the Old Covenant is abbrogated or thrown out as useless is a rejection of the New Covenant as well. The Law is not "done away" in the New Covenant, it is written on the hearts of all men. We won't need taught to us anymore because it will be the outflowing of our hearts.

I am literally offended at your statement that Jeremiah's prophecy did not anticipate the inclusion of the gentiles. Is it not God's inspired Word? Are you saying that God is not sovereign? That He was caught by surprise? I would suspect that even Jeremiah was familiar with the writings of Isaiah which spoke plainly about the gentiles (see Isaiah 11:10, 60:3, and many many more). By the way, if the New Covenant is not with Israel, the nation, that Adonai failed at His promises through the prophecies of Isaiah. In fact, the gentile Church's rejection of Sabbath is a denial that Old Testamant prophecies regarding man's future state is at all relevant (Isaiah 56:6).

Paul consistently demonstrated himself as a observant Jewish rabbi. ON three occassions in the New Testament he is given the opportunity top represent himself. Consistetly,. before Jewish and gentile courts alike, he defined himself as a Jew. Never once does he refer to himself as a Christian. When one begins to understand the Hebraic context of the Scriptures, everything that Paul says lines up consistently with Judaism. He was not teaching a new religion. He was teaching Judaism, in an understanding that Messiah has come and that He is returning.

It's so disappointing that the Church has come to interpret the New Testament as legitimacy to abandoning . This very rejection, denies the New Covenant's position as being in affect. They won't need anyone to teach them because it is in their hearts. You may see us getting closer and closer to that. Hmmm, let's see: homosexual ordained ministers in several denominations today, pedophelia among priests and church workers of every denomination on the rise, Islam and Mormonism growing faster than any other religion in the world today... the notion that we are growing into the New Covenant day by day is not the reality of the world that I see; nor is it what Paul warned Timothy (2nd Timothy 4:3).

Your argument is with the text, Melville, not with me. is a ministration of death in that it reveals how wicked and sinful we really are. The Christian response has overwhelmingly been to cover our heads and say that's not important because I'm saved by grace. That it doesn't matter anymore. (By the way, everone in the Old Testament was saved by grace, too.) Our Messianic response is altogether different. Because we are saved by grace and adopted into God's kingdom, we want to live as citizens of that kingdom, learning more and growing closer to Him through obedience, not by disdain of His Holy Word. My appeal to you is to begin to look at the Scripture as a whole, not pitting one Scripture against another as if not all were the inspired Word of the same God who is relevant to us and who is utterly unchanging.

[Mark]

Please see threads:

theloveofgod.proboards3.com/index.cgi?board=paul&action=display&n=1&thread=177

theloveofgod.proboards3.com/index.cgi?board=paul&action=display&n=1&thread=168

theloveofgod.proboards3.com/index.cgi?board=messianic&action=display&n=1&thread=79

theloveofgod.proboards3.com/index.cgi?board=letters&action=display&n=1&thread=147&page=4