New Covenant? Renewed Covenant?

[Sam]

What's the difference between the New Covenant theology and the the Renewed Covenant theology?

I'm talking about the Messianic theologies not Christian New Covenant theology.


Shalom,

Sam

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Shalom Samuel,

Anyone correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe there really is a difference except that these two terms are different ways of describing the same Covenant. The reason the term "Renewed Covenant" is used is to more accurately convey the idea that the covenants are built upon each other and that it is only "new" to the extent that better promises have been amended to the previous covenant(s). Just as the monthly new moon is truly not a completely different new moon, so also is the New Covenant not a completely different covenant in regards to being independent of the previous covenants. I hope this makes sense.

Shalom,

Reuel

[Chizuk Emunah]

That's correct Reuel.
I prefer using the term 'Renewed Covenant,' instead of New Covenant, because the term "New Covenant" implies that the previous covenants have been replaced, and Christians will argue as such.

[Sam]

Thanks Reuel and Notzri Y'hudi for your replies your answers helped me clarify the issue.

Here is the reason that I am a little confused. ;D

Fruits of Zion teaches that the New Covenant (or renewed covenant) is not a valid name for the New Testament Books. They also teach that the term renewed covenant is not in the Bible(It isn't). I can't say much more due to the fact that it has been over a month since I let someone borrow my What's So New New Covenant DVD. I really need to watch it again I've only watched it once and really only saw 2/3rds of it.

Thanks and Shalom,

Sam

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

I agree that you cannot find the term in the Brit Chadashah. It is just another way of describing the covenant from a different angle. I usually do not refer to it as such.

Shalom,

Reuel

[RoRK]

Shalom

I have been speaking to a few Christians and all cry out that the New Covenant has replaced God's covenant Israel. Most of them base their idea on the teachings within Hebrews.

I know it is way off because even Hebrews 8:8 teaches that the New Covenant is with Israel and Judah.

But due to teachings of Replacement Theology, which they say they have never heard of before, they say that the church has replaced Jews as God's chosen people. And thus, any reference to Israel and Judah in the New Covenant is really pointing to the church.

We all know the folly in that.

When I ask them if the New Covenant has begun, they say YES! My Q is this, is there any Scriptural reference to point to this fact? I know there isn't but could there be a verse somewhere where Christians use to 'prove' that the New Covenant has already replaced the Old Covenant?

My understanding is that Christians take it that when Yeshua was nalied to the cross, the New Covenant began.

My explanation to them is that the New Covenant has been initialised but it has not come to fruition. I try to draw an analogy to God's covenant with Abraham and David; in that it may take generations from the time a covenant is initialised until the time when it comes to fruition.

They insist that they have the written in their hearts and that is why they do not need the . It is so ridiculous.

BTW, I am using David Stern's Complete Jewish Bible as reference and the term New Covenant is there. I say this because I know that fellow brothers here have pointed out that the term New Covenant doesn't exist in the New Testament.

May God Bless one and all.

[Mark]

One of the questions I like to ask these folks is, "How were people saved under the Old Covenant?" Some are taught that in the Old Testament they were saved by observing the sacrificial system. Of course, that's easy to disprove in Hebrews 4:2 and Hebrews 11, 12. It would also mean that men that God has called righteous are going to Hell (Jeremiah, Mordecai, Daniel) because they didn't offer sacrifices in the captivity.

In the Old Testament, they were saved by grace, the same as we are today. Since this is the only reasonable conclusion, the following question is a natural one, "Why, then, was it so important for people in the Old Testament to live in obedience to ?"

If, under the New Covenant, we have the Law written on our hearts, how is it that we have freedom to live in rebellion to the Law?

Under the New Covenant of the Church, the only Law is the law of love. Yeshua said, "Do to your neighbor as you would have them do unto you for this sums up the Law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12) What is the difference between "sums up" and abrogates?

Is for the Jew only? That's the panic response I usually get at this point. Then, the New Covenant is for the Jew only as well. Who was the book of Hebrews written to? Yeshua said, "I have not come unto the gentiles but only to the lost sheep fo Israel." (Matthew 15:24). There were only circumcised Jews in the upper room when He instituted the "Lord's Supper." If is only for the Jew, by the same logic, the New Covenant is for the Jew only as well.

Yet, in Romans 11, some of them have been cut off so that we can be grafted in. We find the Church teaching apple tree grafts, not olive tree grafts. The visual picture that is presented to the Church is that the entire tree has been cut down at the base of the trunk and a new shoot is inserted into that trunk: the entire tree is of gentile origin. Romans 11:17 says that SOME of them have been broken off so that gentiles may be grafted in AMONG THEM. The olive tree grafts are individual limbs and branches that are non-producing can be cut out. A wild olive branch can replace that old branch and will take on the same characteristics and produce no longer wild fruit but the same sort of fruit that the rest of the tree is producing.

I've found that thos ewho oppose us respond better to questions than to answers. Cause them to face the hypocrisy of their doctrines. If they are seeking truth, they will eventually begin to ask how you interpret the Scriptures. If they are not, it's not going to matter what you say anyway.

If Paul was so against the Law, why did he say that his teaching establishes the Law in Romans 3:31? Why does Paul stand on the Law for the basis of his faith in Romans 24 if it is no longer valid? Did he lie to the Jews in Acts 21 and in Acts 28?

[Chizuk Emunah]

Absolutely.

We really are a like-minded bunch here aren't we??

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Amein Mark!

[Seeker2]

Question:....In Hebrews 7:18-19 it talks about "annuling of the former commandment because of it's weakness and unprofitableness"....what commandment is that?? (HELP!)

Concern: Later it says in vs 22 that Yeshua "has become a surety of a better covenent" so I'm thinking that it means a covent to be manifested in the future where He will write the covenent on their minds and on their hearts" when "none shall teach his neighbor and none his brother sayin 'Know the L-d' .(8:10-12) for all shall know Him.This is obviously not fufilled so we can't already be living that covenent as christians. What do you all think?Do I have it right?

Reminder: In all fairness to christians, Hebrews is difficult to see through if you had not been taught (remember Phillip and the eunich? He also was reading and not understanding!) It seems more and more that without the crypto-key that the jews had recieved in the , it would be impossible to figure things out in the right context from the correct angle. This I'm saying to remind us to be gracious to those who can't see this (Including me sometimes!) as it may be they simply don't have the key. It has been hidden from them (and they will never search for it if we chase them away!) Occasionally the tone becomes bitter and condecending when it concerns christian theology, and it should be remembered that we don't see with our own eyes but through the Spirit! (Thank G-d for that sight!) Love is the fulfillment of the law....being Kosher is not.b

[Yitzchak]

seeker2 said:

Question:....In Hebrews 7:18-19 it talks about "annuling of the former commandment because of it's weakness and unprofitableness"....what commandment is that?? (HELP!)

Concern: Later it says in vs 22 that Yeshua "has become a surety of a better covenent" so I'm thinking that it means a covent to be manifested in the future where He will write the covenent on their minds and on their hearts" when "none shall teach his neighbor and none his brother sayin 'Know the L-d' .(8:10-12) for all shall know Him.This is obviously not fufilled so we can't already be living that covenent as christians. What do you all think?Do I have it right?

Reminder: In all fairness to christians, Hebrews is difficult to see through if you had not been taught (remember Phillip and the eunich? He also was reading and not understanding!) It seems more and more that without the crypto-key that the jews had recieved in the , it would be impossible to figure things out in the right context from the correct angle. This I'm saying to remind us to be gracious to those who can't see this (Including me sometimes!) as it may be they simply don't have the key. It has been hidden from them (and they will never search for it if we chase them away!) Occasionally the tone becomes bitter and condecending when it concerns christian theology, and it should be remembered that we don't see with our own eyes but through the Spirit! (Thank G-d for that sight!) Love is the fulfillment of the law....being Kosher is not.b

Seeker,

When one studies Hebrews 7 and beyond from the proper context, they learn that these scriptures speak about the priesthood and sacrifices.

It speaks first regarding Yeshua being a Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Then it goes on to speak of His sacrifice.

In other words, we are talking about a change in the priesthood, and sacrificial offerings, and not a change in the covenant.

Shalom,

Yitzchak

[Seeker2]

I see your point on that, but I still don't know what commandment is being spoken about. It is due to my lack of understnding of the sacrifices which is because I havent been taught anything about them. I think it is part of the missing puzzle pieces that jews possessed and part of the reason it was to the "jew first, and also to the gentile." I understand if the subject is too complicated to explain. I have read the posts about sacrifice but am still somewhat confused. I will search for other info elsewhere, but if anyone knows what commandment in Hebrews 7:18-19 is being spoken about or can explain this to me, it would increase my understanding. Thank You for your trouble...b

[Rick]

Just read a little further,(context),these verses are explained here;

For the appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath which came after the , appoints the Son having been perfected forever. [Heb 7:28]

what commandment in Hebrews 7:18-19 is being spoken about

I believe he is refering to Exo 40:15:
"and shall anoint them, as you anointed their father, and they shall serve as priests to Me. And their anointing shall be for them an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.”

Shalom,
Rick

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

The context of the passage describes the Priesthood as found in ...that is the Levitical priesthood and the curious addition of another priesthood. To do this there had to be an additional set of precepts saying who could be a priest and who couldn't. The passage in Hebrews tells us that Yeshua was of the tribe of Judah and thus the reason for amendment. It does not say that the Levitical priesthood has been done away with. In fact, the passage that Rick provided for us shows us that the Levitical priesthood is an everlasting covenant. But, if we serve a G'd that goes around doing away with his "everlasting covenants" than how are we to trust the latest covenant with Him?

This legal language speaking of "disannulling" or "setting aside" as we see in the Greek is hard to understand as many times there were not equivalent thoughts when translating from Hebrew to Greek. In fact, I don't know one place in all of the TeNaKh were it uses this type of language regarding the setting aside of the commandments of the Most High. What I do see in although is the following...

"Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void."
- B'midbar (Num.) 30:13

So, if there were those in Yisra'el that made oral halachah (thus making law) that perfection was indeed only through the Levitical priesthood than the ruling made by the wife (Yisra'el) could be annulled when the husband (G'd) learned of the unacceptable vow/ruling. But, I believe all that we have here is language trying to describe to it's readers in Greek (the best it can) how it would be possible that there would be another type of priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek especially when it is not of the tribe of Levi.

All one needs to do is study the book of Yechezk'el (Ezekiel) and many other passages in scripture to see that the Levitical priesthood has not been done away with permanently. No, Hebrews is not trying to propose that we are doing away with commands...It simply is trying to describe that our Heavenly Father has made provision in His (His compound covenant) for the priesthood of Messiah within His grand plan.

In fact, if the Melchizedek priesthood operated before the Levitical priesthood wouldn't that be the first change of the priesthood? And, if so, was the Melchizedek priesthood first done away with to make way for the Levitical? Of course not, they both operated in different capacities, but made way for one another (stepped aside - could be what is translated as "disannulled") as they had different ways and purposes of ministering to the people of Elohim. In fact, in Hebrews chapter 7:9-10 it describes even Levi being originally submissive to the Melchizedek priesthood as the Levitical order effectively paid tithes to the priesthood of Melchizedek!

Again, we see from the scriptures that both priesthoods will live in harmony together in the future. Please visit the "The Temple and It's Priesthood": theloveofgod.proboards3.com/index.cgi?board=messianic&action=display&n=1&thread=65&page=1

Either Hebrews is hopelessly contradicting what the prophets have already said or we must understand it in a different light.

Shalom chaverim,

Reuel