Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

A New Covenant With The House Of Israel, And With The House Of Judah


Recommended Posts

  • Members

too deep for me.

 

what's preterist?

 

Forget it I looked it up and basic definition is one who believes all the stuff in Revelation has already happened which is absolutely impossible for me to believe! Ridiculous!

So am I  antiterist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

too deep for me.

 

what's preterist?

 

Forget it I looked it up and basic definition is one who believes all the stuff in Revelation has already happened which is absolutely impossible for me to believe! Ridiculous!

So am I  antiterist?

 

Wouldn't that be posterist? :nuts: Get it? pre ... post ... um... hee,hee...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

too deep for me.

 

what's preterist?

 

Forget it I looked it up and basic definition is one who believes all the stuff in Revelation has already happened which is absolutely impossible for me to believe! Ridiculous!

So am I  antiterist?

I suggest you read my posts for a Scriptural understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

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 brake, although I was an 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 neighbour, 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. [includes the national sin of killing Messiah]  Jeremiah 31:31-34

 

That's a favourite passage of mine. Quoted exactly in Hebrews 8. We need to note that Hebrews begins by saying, "in these last days...."  He is writing for real, living people, whom he expects to give "more earnest heed ..." Hebrews 2:1-3. Jesus established the new covenant in his blood, as was prophesied before his birth.  Luke 1:32-33  Luke 1:54-55  Luke 1:68-75 

 

Gentiles are counted into the covenant, from the first promise to Abraham Gen. 12:3 All believers are covered by New Covenant blood. And we are included in NC Israel, as children and heirs of Abraham. Gal. 3:13-16  Gal. 3:27-29  

 

The NC is stated in terms of Israel and Judah, but is not exclusive. Never has been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's a favourite passage of mine. Quoted exactly in Hebrews 8. We need to note that Hebrews begins by saying, "in these last days...."  He is writing for real, living people, whom he expects to give "more earnest heed ..." Hebrews 2:1-3. Jesus established the new covenant in his blood, as was prophesied before his birth.  Luke 1:32-33  Luke 1:54-55  Luke 1:68-75 

 

Gentiles are counted into the covenant, from the first promise to Abraham Gen. 12:3 All believers are covered by New Covenant blood. And we are included in NC Israel, as children and heirs of Abraham. Gal. 3:13-16  Gal. 3:27-29  

 

The NC is stated in terms of Israel and Judah, but is not exclusive. Never has been.

Thank you for illustrating Replacement Theology for us.  Now it is clearly seen how you "replace" the Covenants

meant for Israel.  Does that include your plot of land in the holy land?  :nuts:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thank you for illustrating Replacement Theology for us.  Now it is clearly seen how you "replace" the Covenants

meant for Israel.  Does that include your plot of land in the holy land?  :nuts:

I trust my Saviour - John 14:1-3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thank you for illustrating Replacement Theology for us.  Now it is clearly seen how you "replace" the Covenants

meant for Israel.  Does that include your plot of land in the holy land?  :nuts:

 

Yes, in heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What the preterist will do is quote Galatians 6:16 and Romans 9:7, then use the Greek to change the word "covenant" to "testament" (or just refuse to recognize the difference between the two words) and voila, they just kicked Israel out of the passage and replaced her with the church. 

did you mean they will change "New Testament to New Covenant" to make the church Israel?

 

paul quoted Christ telling him "New Testament" and The Author of Hebrews writes "New Testament"  yet they change both of these inthe newer versions and in Replacement theology to "New Covenant".

 

And Like Steve Said the leading OP scriptures will take place in the future not now or did it take place anytime in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

did you mean they will change "New Testament to New Covenant" to make the church Israel?

 

paul quoted Christ telling him "New Testament" and The Author of Hebrews writes "New Testament"  yet they change both of these inthe newer versions and in Replacement theology to "New Covenant".

 

And Like Steve Said the leading OP scriptures will take place in the future not now or did it take place anytime in the past.

 

I don't know which bible you say uses 'new testament' (only?) from Paul and the author of Hebrews, but this is an interesting part of the discussion.

Ever look up the word 'covenant' in the new testament?

It is in the KJV 20 times. Mostly in Hebrews. Chapter 9 has a bunch of the word 'testament', and chapter 8 has just as much and more of the word 'covenant'.

So I don't get it? Why even go there?

 

As for the perversions, we shouldn't even go there either, they do not matter.

But if you compare the 1560 Geneva Bible to the 1611 KJV, you see an interesting comparison.

 

KJV has the word 'testament' in it 13 times, and the word 'covenant' 20 times.

Geneva has the word 'testament' 25 times, and the word 'covenant' times. (Yet the 'notes' lean only toward 'Covenant Theology' and don't touch the 'Dispensationalist' view.)

 

I looked them both up in these 2 sources of Greek - Nestles 23rd Critical Apparatus (perversion base) and Beza's 1598 Textus Receptus (the Greek underlying the English AV1611.)

They read identical for both words- "diatheke", and this word is used in the Greek for both words 'covenant' and 'testament'.

(Except where the few times the verses experience interlocution by the translators from Greek into English.)

 

So that would kinda make one think that the KJV was for Covenant Theology?

And the Geneva for Dispensationalists? ( even though the translators were 'partial preterists' in the notes?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

 

Posted 12 May 2014 - 07:04 PM

Wow! Look at this -  διαθηκη

And compare this -   diatheke

 

One is the Greek word for 'covenant'.

The second is the Greek word for 'testament'. Using English letters of course.

 

Both the same word! Isn't that just strange?

 

*If you have a Textus Receptus Greek New Testament, you will see the word on the cover.

 

 

Once again I repost this for those who believe there is a difference between the two words in English, when the words originate in Greek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

SInce I believe that God has preserved His words for us the way He wanted to in the ENGLISH KJV, then I must assume that the Lord meant for us to understand some sort of difference between Covenant and Testament, if nothing else in a connotative way.  Maybe they come from the same Greek word, but in my mind this only demonstrates the insufficiency of the Greek here.  The Lord is attempting to differentiate between the OT Covenants, primarily to PHYSICAL Israel, and the New TESTAMENT given to the Church. 

 

It is also noteworthy that the term Covenant appears 14/20 in the NT in the Book of Hebrews, and only 3 times in the Pauline Epistles.  Hebrews is one of the most difficult book in the NT to interpret.  Matthew, Acts, and Hebrews cause more doctrinal stumblingblocks for the New Testament Church Age than any other books in the NT, so I am always suspicious of those who want to START in one of these books to prove their case.  Case in point, the title of this Book of the Bible in question should be a huge "warning bell" to the reader - "HEBREWS."  I am a Gentile through and through, not a Hebrew.  Thus, much of the content of this difficult book is pointed to the HEBREWS, and how Christ has partially fulfilled the requirements of the OT LAW.  However, as the OP notes, not ALL of the OT Law and Covenant has been fulfilled literally.  We do not replace Israel, nor are "included" in the New Covenant with Israel.  The OT promises were very specific regarding the PHYSICAL seed of Abraham, Isaac, and JacOB, and the PHYSICAL Land grants, and the PHYSICAL resurrection of David to rule over PHYSICAL Israel in their promised PHYSICAL land.  There is no getting around this, unless one just blithely dismisses 75% of the Bible.

The Bible Believing Christians throughout this present age have been noted to base their doctrine primarily on Paul, i.e. Romans through Philemon, recognizing that while all of the Bible is written FOR us (Romans 15:4), not all of the Bible is written TO us (i.e. the Church). 

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oh, by the way....

 

Jer. 31:34 "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..."

 

Anyone who thinks this has been fulfilled needs to have their head examined!

In fact, this goes contrary to the great commission given to us by none other than Jesus Christ Himself (Matt. 28:19-20) and the Apostle Paul's qualifications for the NT Bishop (I timothy 3:2 - "apt to teach.")

 

Since this verse is undeniably connected to the previous verses in the passage (Jer. 31) regarding this new covenant, then it is clear that this new covenant has NOT YET been fulfilled, at least not completely.  Until the day comes when we no longer need teachers to teach us the way of the Lord, then it has not yet been fulfilled.  That day will not come until Christ returns PHYSICALLY to this present earth (not the New Heavens, New Earth, and New Jerusalem!), and establishes a physical Kingdom.  When Christ is PHYSICALLY present, nOBody will be allowed to teach or preach on this earth.  See Zech. 13:3 - note the context - the Second Coming of Christ to this earth!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...