-

[Scott Bushey]

I find it funny that White says:

"If we approach the topic backwards, beginning with traditions regarding covenant membership, signs, or a particular view of apostasy, we run a great danger of turning the direct and plain exegesis of the text of Hebrews upon its head."

and Neill says:

"From the outset, note that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews inserts the entire quotation of Jeremiah 31:31-34 to assert the truths of the New Covenant. The entire quotation is concerned with the "œnewness," not just verse 11, so whatever interpretation is derived from this text must be applied to the entire quotation. One cannot come to a single verse and declare, "œThis is what is new!" without regard for the other phrases and realities; the author is making a point about the newness of the New Covenant, and the quotation from Jeremiah corroborates that point. Let us now begin to consider some specific matters that are not new in the New Covenant.

The passage does not teach a radical separation between the peoples of the Old and New Testaments

I will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. (8:8)

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. (8:10)

The passage is clear: this new covenant will be made with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. The Church of this New Covenant era is referred to as Judah and Israel, the people of God. This fact is in perfect consonance with the teaching of the New Testament. The Apostle Paul writes to the Church in Galatia and refers to the saints as "œthe Israel of God" (6:16) and refers to himself and the disciples in Philippi as members of "œthe circumcision" (3:2). The Church in the New Covenant era is frequently described in the same terms used to refer to the people of God during the Old Covenant administration (1 Peter 2:9-10; Romans 9:24-26). Additionally, note that God did not initiate a new standard of conduct for His people in the New Covenant era. The text is clear: "œI will put my laws into their minds, and I will write them upon their hearts" (8:10). God´s law, the transcript of His holiness and expectation for His people, being upon the hearts of His people is not part of the newness of the New Covenant."

It looks to me like White hasalready turned the plain exegesis of the Hebrews passage on it's ear...........first paragraph!

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
It doesn't appear that Rich is keeping up on the Web site. I can't get to the other Journals.

Rich said, "The website is under construction. It could be messed up and we have not updated the site in some time. We have a new one coming soon."

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Scott Bushey
The text is clear: "œI will put my laws into their minds, and I will write them upon their hearts" (8:10). God´s law, the transcript of His holiness and expectation for His people, being upon the hearts of His people is not part of the newness of the New Covenant."

This is applicable to all of the New Covenant members as it is not applicable to all those under the Covenant given in Moses or Abraham. This has to do with a heart that is circumcised or regenerate. Not all of the Old Covenant members were circumcised in their hearts. Neither were all those circumcised in Abraham circumcised in their hearts.
All New Covenant members have the law written on there New hearts unlike the other covenants who only had some regenerates in the covenants.



[Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[Dan....]

Excellent articles!

But unfortunately, he stops just when it is getting to the meat of it. He only has one paragraph on the newness of the law written on the heart in the New Covenant (i.e., the ceremonial). One paragraph? Please tell me there is a part IV that you didn't link to. Why did Part III end in a cliff-hanger?? Is part IV in the book The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism ? Or is the thought continued at all in the book?

[Edited on 9-5-2005 by Dan....]

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Paul manata
The Newness of The New Covenant
Part I
Part II
Part III

Very interesting reading.

The last paragraph reads:

What is new is for the ceremonial law to be written on the hearts of God´s people. Prior to the New Covenant, inaugurated by Jesus Christ, the command to obey the ceremonies was not an optional matter for the follower of the Lord. Since the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, those ceremonies are no longer in effect and, thus, cannot be observed and any attempt to revert to them is a falling from grace, a severance from Christ (Galatians 5:4).

Does this change anything with regards to who is and who isn't in the covenant? If the ceremonial law is written in one's heart, doesn't that assume a changed heart. Can a 'covenant child' who proves himself to be unregenerate be said to have the law (whether moral or ceremonial) written in their heart?


[Edited on 9-6-2005 by blhowes]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
This is applicable to all of the New Covenant members as it is not applicable to all those under the Covenant given in Moses or Abraham. This has to do with a heart that is circumcised or regenerate. Not all of the Old Covenant members were circumcised in their hearts. Neither were all those circumcised in Abraham circumcised in their hearts.

Are you sure that's what the text is getting at? Look at what God told Israel long ago, long before their return from Babylonian captivity:

Deuteronomy 30:
4 Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the LORD your God will gather you and bring you back.
5 He will bring you to the land that belonged to your fathers, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers.
6 The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.


Before the Israelites were dispersed, God promised to bring them back, and to circumcise their hearts, and the hearts of their descendants. And yet after the return from Babylonian captivity, covenant members still proved to be apostate. So, did God break His promise the first time? If not, then neither did He break His promise this time.

Rather, you are reading the incorrect meanings into God's promises.


God promised to circumcise Israel's hearts in Deuteronomy 30, in anticipation of their return to Israel from Babylon.

God promised to circumcise Israel's hearts in Jeremiah 31, in anticipation of their second recovery from dispersion (cf. Acts 2).



You cannot apply a different standard to Jeremiah 31 than you do to Deuteronomy 30.



[Edited on 9-6-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Are you suggesting that everyones heart was regenerate? If you examine the text a little closer you will see conditions laid upon this promise. This is a perfomance based promise. Unlike the New Covenant Promise. The New Covenant is without conditions as is the Promise of God to Noah that He wouldn't destroy the earth again with a flood. No condition was set upon that. The Isrealites in Deuteronomy 30 have an obedience clause attached to what you are trying to show me. Read verse 2.

Deu 30:1-2 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul;

Jeremiah doesn't have an obedience clause.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

The New Covenant IS the Abrahamic Covenant.

"¢ Acts 3:25 "It is you who are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.'

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

 

[kceaster]

I see a hinge...

Tell me if you see it, too. In Jer. 31:34b, the author begins the clause with a "for" (therefore, because, since, so that, etc.) If the New Covenant is new (brand new), is it new because God will forgive the iniquities and sins of both houses, whereas before He didn't?

Has anyone commented on this before? It seems a most important little word that cannot be overlooked, but also should not be overstated. What is the therefore, there for?

If we look at the Jeremiah prophecy plainly, it seems to me that Jeremiah may be looking back to the covenant made on the plain of Moab. But it would also seem that the Hebrew writer wouldn't have seen it that way.

This verse is perplexing because we have to use Hebrews to understand it. Yet we can't ignore the rest of Scripture.

Remember that both the original prophecy and the book of Hebrews were written to Jews. There is significance in talking about the house of Israel and Judah. With Israel, it is easy for us to spiritualize it. But with Judah... exactly who is spiritual Judah? Jeremiah is obviously pointing to the divided kingdoms here. What do we do with Judah? How is the new covenant in Christ's blood made also with Judah?

In Christ,

KC

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Kevin,
I think I understand your question (maybe not) but Hebrews 8 definitely relates this passage to the New Covenant which is a better Covenant to which Messiah is the mediator of.
Matthew 28:19 and Acts 1:8 testifies that this covenant is to be world wide. According to the Acts passage starting with Jerusalem, then going to Judea, Samaria, and the to rest of the world.

It isn't just physical in Isreal and Judea. It is to all who are children of Abraham by faith, the inward jew of Romans 2.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Kevin,
I think I understand your question (maybe not) but Hebrews 8 definitely relates this passage to the New Covenant which is a better Covenant to which Messiah is the mediator of.

Randy,
Was Christ NOT the mediator for the OT saint?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Kevin,
I think I understand your question (maybe not) but Hebrews 8 definitely relates this passage to the New Covenant which is a better Covenant to which Messiah is the mediator of.

Randy,
Was Christ NOT the mediator for the OT saint?

Yes He was but not all of Isreal was Isreal. He is the mediator of all that are given to him in the COR.

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Kevin,
I think I understand your question (maybe not) but Hebrews 8 definitely relates this passage to the New Covenant which is a better Covenant to which Messiah is the mediator of.

Randy,
Was Christ NOT the mediator for the OT saint?

Yes He was but not all of Isreal was Isreal. He is the mediator of all that are given to him in the COR.

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]

Randy,
The COR was decided outside of time; it was the covenant between God the father & God the Son. In this covenant, Christ has always been mediator. I'm not following you..........

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The Passage of Hebrews 8 is speaking of Christ Priesthood and mediation

Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

In what way is Christ mediator Scott? Is it not in the fact that he offered an offering on behalf of the elect? Is this not how he is the mediator of a better Covenant.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
The Passage of Hebrews 8 is speaking of Christ Priesthood and mediation

Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

In what way is Christ mediator Scott? Is it not in the fact that he offered an offering on behalf of the elect? Is this not how he is the mediator of a better Covenant.

Is not the efficacy provisional to the OT saint?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
The Passage of Hebrews 8 is speaking of Christ Priesthood and mediation

Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

In what way is Christ mediator Scott? Is it not in the fact that he offered an offering on behalf of the elect? Is this not how he is the mediator of a better Covenant.

Is not the efficacy provisional to the OT saint?

Why? Who implied it wasn't.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Didn't we have this discussion a bit back in another thread?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
The Passage of Hebrews 8 is speaking of Christ Priesthood and mediation

Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

In what way is Christ mediator Scott? Is it not in the fact that he offered an offering on behalf of the elect? Is this not how he is the mediator of a better Covenant.

Is not the efficacy provisional to the OT saint?

Why? Who implied it wasn't.

Here's what you said:

Kevin,
I think I understand your question (maybe not) but Hebrews 8 definitely relates this passage to the New Covenant which is a better Covenant to which Messiah is the mediator of.

Why would you need to point out that Christ is mediator of the NC?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

In the New Covenant Sin is removed by the propitiating act of Messiah. All sin is forgiven based upon this offering. It encompasses the OC saint who is an object of the COR as well as those who are redeemed after the Propitiating death of Christ. All of Isreal will be saved.
Kevins question was in relation to a hinge. That hinge seemed to be relative in the names of Isreal and Judah. In the NC this encompasses more than ancestoral heritage according to the Priesthood of Christ and His charge of going to all of the world. The full scope of the NC is world wide. Not just physical heritage.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
In the New Covenant Sin is removed by the propitiating act of Messiah. All sin is forgiven based upon this offering. It encompasses the OC saint who is an object of the COR as well as those who are redeemed after the Propitiating death of Christ. All of Isreal will be saved.
Kevins question was in relation to a hinge. That hinge seemed to be relative in the names of Isreal and Judah. In the NC this encompasses more than ancestoral heritage according to the Priesthood of Christ and His charge of going to all of the world. The full scope of the NC is world wide. Not just physical heritage.

Would this statement be also true?
In the old Covenant Sin is removed by the propitiating act of Messiah.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

(Heb 8:7-10) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when 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 when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:


What does this passage say Scott?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

To answer your question. The OC saint didn't find propitiation in the OC. He finds it in the NC. The old was a shadow. The New is the image the shadow comes from.

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Randy,
The passage is irrelevent to the question: For the OT saint, is sin removed by the propitiation of Christ?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Randy,
The passage is irrelevent to the question: For the OT saint, is sin removed by the propitiation of Christ?

You were typing while I posted.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
To answer your question. The OC saint didn't find propitiation in the OC. He finds it in the NC. The old was a shadow. The New is the image the shadow comes from.

I wonder is Kevin got answered. I am going to go take a pipe break. To bad you couldn't join me Scott. We could have some fun.

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
To answer your question. The OC saint didn't find propitiation in the OC. He finds it in the NC. The old was a shadow. The New is the image the shadow comes from.

So, when Moses died, what happened to his sin?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
To answer your question. The OC saint didn't find propitiation in the OC. He finds it in the NC. The old was a shadow. The New is the image the shadow comes from.

So, when Moses died, what happened to his sin?

His justification was based upon what Christ would do for Him. I guess he went to Abrahams bossom and his sin was placed in the Messiah who is Eternal.

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Does this passage say anything to this?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

The New Covenant IS the Abrahamic Covenant.

"¢ Acts 3:25 "It is you who are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.'

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

we still partake, Randy

Ephesians 3:6 to wit, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,

I agree. In fact I hold to the position of the scriptures that we are one. A holy nation. The Spiritual Isreal. But there are some promises to Abraham and his children that are not attributed to the Saviour. Even though Ishmael was circumcised he was not a child of the promise.

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
To answer your question. The OC saint didn't find propitiation in the OC. He finds it in the NC. The old was a shadow. The New is the image the shadow comes from.

So, when Moses died, what happened to his sin?

His justification was based upon what Christ would do for Him. I guess he went to Abrahams bossom and his sin was placed in the Messiah who is Eternal.

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Does this passage say anything to this?

So, was Moses sin propitiated ? (See your previous quote above that is bolded).

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
The full scope of the NC is world wide. Not just physical heritage.

The full scope of the Abrahamic Covenant was worldwide, just as much as the New Covenant. (And this makes sense, since they are one and the same.)

The Abrahamic Covenant was inaugurated to bless not only His physical descendants, but people of all nations, worldwide (cf. Genesis 12:3, 17:5).

The Abrahamic Covenant was not restricted to the borders of Israel. Rather, God promised the entire world to Abraham (cf. Romans 4:13).