The Blood of the Covenant

[jeremiah1five]

You are not a biblical Christian.

Which is something you NEVER do. Not only does that not happen in any of your posts here in CCAM, but when another poster does use whole scripture (like myself), two things happen: 1) dissent and 2) self-aggrandizement. There isn't a single thread in this entire forum where you and I have traded posts where I haven't used whole scripture and you've selectively sampled it. I am the one between us that constantly posts what happened prior to Abraham and what the NT states about the OT. Rarely, if ever, do you do either. It is due to our "conversations" that you've corrected your own posts to use "Hebrew" where "Jew" would previously have been used. Recently we've seen the need to change the use of "Hebrew" because you've posted the Babylonian Chaldean Abram was Hebrew when that is not correct. Had whole scripture been used that mistake would not have been made.

None of that is correct.

Moses penned the first five books of Tanakh to cover early human history God deemed salient to His eternal and everlasting purposes. At the time that book was first written "to" the Hebrews (not Jews) and Egyptians, along with other slaves from other countries, he was stewarding (God was leading) across the wilderness to the land God had promised the Babylonian Chaldean Abram (later called Abraham). They were the first to receive the Pentateuch, but the Pentateuch was not written solely to them because the chosen people were supposed to be an example to the entire world AND so too was God's Law. It's like my giving you a truck load of food to distribute among everyone you meet... and you keep it to yourself. If we had a covenant whereby I give you the truck and promise it will never go empty and you distribute its contents but don't..... that makes you a covenant breaker NOT someone with whom I still have a covenant!!!

If whole scripture was used then you'd know that and you'd post the whole truth, not just the selections you like.

Wholes scripture teaches us there were adverse consequences for breaking the covenant, including the destruction of the covenant people. Whole scripture teaches us there wasn't a single moment in human history when the Jews kept God's covenant for any great length of time. Whole scripture teaches us the problem was not only chronic, but got so bad God - the God who hates divorce - divorced Israel.

Jeremiah 3:6-10
Then the LORD said to me in the days of Josiah the king, "Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there. I thought, 'After she has done all these things she will return to Me'; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also. Because of the lightness of her harlotry, she polluted the land and committed adultery with stones and trees. Yet in spite of all this her treacherous sister Judah did not return to Me with all her heart, but rather in deception," declares the LORD.

Israel was divorced from God. For two centuries God sent the Jews a series of prophets calling them back to a covenant relationship, but they continued to refuse, bringing upon them all the curses stated in Deuteronomy 28, and eventually desolation and silence: the intertestamental period. Utter silence. God spoke to them in Babylon, but God ignored the covenant breakers and let Rome occupy the land He'd given Abraham and Jesus and their descendants.


If you'd said, "The first half of the Bible was written to Jews who were supposed to share it with the rest of the world," then that would be correct. Had you said something like, "The New Testament was largely written to Jews who'd converted to Christ," then that would be measurably better than including non-believing, covenant-breaking Jews. Had you said, "The New Testament epistolary was written to early Christians, most of whom were previously Jewish," then that would be correct. Had you said, "The gospels were written about Jesus' time in Israel preaching repentance to the Jews, but they were all written to the world at large so everyone would believe and have salvation," then that would be correct. The gospels were written long after Jesus had come and gone and the gospel had spread throughout the known world.

Colossians 1:21-23
And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach — if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

The four gospels were written about the Jews, but the four gospels were written to the entire world.

Matthew 28:17-20
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Mark 16:15
And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation."

John 1:29
The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Acts 1:8
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria, and as far as the remotest part of the earth.”

You do NOT use whole scripture, the scriptures were NOT written to the Jews alone, nor for the Jews alone, and every word you post in this forum is self-aggrandizing and divisive. You think you are the only biblical Christian hear and you openly state it.

Galatians 5:19-21
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

If we measure your posts by that list, then we'd necessarily have to conclude you will NOT inherit the kingdom of God. Link us to a single op where you did not sow dispute, dissent, and faction into the forum.

That is mostly correct.

I tell you that is mostly correct because I want you to know that I will gladly commend anything you write that is correct. Sadly, most of what you post is incorrect. The first book of the Bible has nothing to do with the nation of Israel. The sons of Israel and the Hebrews of which they are a part, do not become a nation until the early part of Exodus. While Genesis is only one book of the Bible that one book covers multiple millennia of human history. In other words, MOST of what the Bible was written about long precedes the existence of Israel. It does NOT have Israel front and center. If we count books then, yes, it could be said most of the books have Israel front and center, but it is not correct to say most of scripture do so.

Most egregiously, though, everything in God's word is first and foremost about Jesus, not Israel!!! How anyone claiming to be a "Biblical Christian" can assert Israel over Christ is incomprehensible... the epitome of self-contradiction!

Just a really, really dumb thing to post.

I'll take up the rest of Post 75 later (the ungodly misuse of 1 Jn. 4:1 for implicit self-aggrandizing ad hominem in Post 76 will be ignored) when I have the time and inclination. Until then I defy you to prove one sentence I just posted incorrect.

I know I am correct. I don't need validation from you.

 

[Mr GLee]

Got scripture for that?

Thanks yes, I would offer. .

Israel, the second born seed (one) Christ . . begins with Abel (the first born again seed of Christ) the invisible head . .

First mention defines the word

Unconverted mankind. . .

Chaste virgin Bride . . .

Husband Christ. . .

Genesis 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

Previously called Jacob (divorced Israel) one who deceives or usurps .

Because it is speaking of a new creation the bride of Christ . the church. She is called the mother of us all. In that way there is no male or female, Jew nor Gentile in the new family of faith . Believers yoked with Christ are given the spiritual (unseen ) understanding in parables so it can be compared to the same .

Isaiah 49:18 Lift up thine eyes round about, and behold: all these gather themselves together, and come to thee. As I live, saith the Lord, thou shalt surely clothe thee with them all, as with an ornament, and bind them on thee, as a bride doeth.

Isaiah 62;1-5 refers to the change of the new name the father named in Acts Christian a demonym literally meaning "residents of the city of Christ prepared for his bride (the mother us all) Named after the founder and husband Christ . the born again seed

Isaiah 62:1-5 King James VersionFor Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth. And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God.Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. For as a young man (Christ) marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee

Again neither male nor female, Jew nor gentile as what we will be on the last day under the Sun.

Christian a more befitting name to name bride of the Holy Father of all Spirit life .

It seems the word has lost much of its effectiveness to give glory to God. Some say it is a derogatory world. . named by Satan inspired world . Especially these last days days. Gender identification has gone hog wild . It would seem the father of lies giving the illusion the new order has come (Gnosticism )

The. . . . . be whatever you desire to be " the skies the limit " Keep on wondering. ???.
.
Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Genesis 17:16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.

Genesis 37:10 And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?

1 Corinthians 10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

Paul a surrogate mother sufferer in pain of birth until Chrit Holt Spirt was formed in him (the chaste virgin bride)

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

 

[Josheb]

I know I am correct.

No, you are not.

I don't need validation from you.

Red herring. No one, including me, has ever even remotely suggested the validation of your posts should come from me. It should come from whole scripture and, as I have often and repeatedly proved, you do NOT use whole scripture.... and you managed to turn the exchange into a discussion of you and not the blood of Christ. Someone claiming, "I am a Biblical Christian," does not make it so, and it most definitely does not make their views of the blood of the covenant true. The whole appeal to one's own (self-aggrandized) faculty is decidedly unbiblical.

So too is the abject failure to address the op-relevant content in posts 47, 52, and 78. A significant amount of evidence disproving the op is mounting; not just from me but from others. What I have posted is sitting silently unattended while you think to boast about yourself. Every sentence I posted is correct and it's all backed up with scripture ranging from Genesis to Revelation (whole scripture). Not one sentence of what I posted has been proven incorrect.


The facts are:

• Abram was not Hebrew. Abram was Babylonian. Abram's descendants were Hebrew, but the covenant was not originally made with them and the only reason they were the one's chosen by God - according to God Himself - was because of the promise God had made to the Babylonian, Abram. Therefore, every time you say the covenant was made with Hebrews, that is incorrect, and it is incorrect in every single post in which you post it.
• The covenant was made with Abraham and his seed. If all we had was the Tanakh (the Old Testament) we might think Israel was the seed of Abraham, but the New Testament makes it clear that seed is Jesus and only Jesus. The seed is not plural, it's singular, so Jesus is THE promised seed and there is no other. We might reasonably think the promise(s) to the seed was something that was going to be realized solely in the far distant future, but Jesus is pre-existent. He exists and lives before Abram is even conceived. Jesus is the Lord of Abraham, not the other away around. Jesus is the first fruit, the first of the first fruit, not Abraham the Babylonian.
• Israel is not a nation-state until well into Exodus and that is several hundred years after God initiated His covenant with Abram the Babylonian from Ur in Chaldea. "Israel" was the name given Jacob. The word means "God perseveres." It's a name worthy of its own thread because Jacob (the grifter) was NOT renamed, "man perseveres." It is God who perseveres in Jacob's life, even as Jacob resists God. Jacob does not persevere except as God does so in his life. This is the name eventually given to his progeny, but they are first called the "sons of Israel," and not Israel as a geo-political nation-state. Scripture has already been posted to prove that did NOT happen because of some special attribute that group of people held in and of themselves. God explicitly stated it was NOT because of their genetics or their works. Once again, if all we had was Tanakh we might reasonably think differently but centuries after God divorced Israel His appointed apostle Paul shockingly declared not all Israel is Israel and he then defined Israel as God intended the name to be understood. "Israel" are those who live by faith (not works, and not the Law). So, every time we read any mention of the word, "Israel," anywhere in the Bible we should be asking ourselves "Which Israel?" Is God making promises to the Israel that in its faith is faithful to Him? Or is God making promises to the faith-lacking faithless and rebellious?" As a nation the nation of Israel was never faithful. God eventually divorced them and to prove it He was silent for 400 years. Notice also that if we are, in fact using whole scripture then the word "Israel" is used explicitly only three times in the book of Revelation and none of them have anything specifically to do with the geo-political nation-state Israel.
• When God first spoke to Abraham there were no threats. However, by the time God spoke to the Hebrews entering the promised land there were a list of explicitly stated expectations and consequences. One example of that list is found in Deuteronomy 28. The consequences for faith and faithfulness (obedience) were blessing and the consequences for a lack of faith and faithlessness (disobedience) were curses. One of the curses was the promise of their destruction. These promises are everlasting. That means the promise of destruction is just as everlasting as the promise of life in a covenant relationship and no one should be selective with the promises.

One other point I have rarely broached with you (mostly because I can rarely get you to discuss any of the above) is that Jesus is Israel. This is clear from the way in which the apostle Matthew used Hosea 11:1.

Hosea 11:1-5
When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.

Is it the geo-political nation-state or bloodline Israel that is God's son? Not according to Matthew.

After the wise men came to visit the infant Jesus God warned Joseph to take everyone to Egypt to avoid the murderous Herod. When it became safe for them to return to Israel God again told Joseph to move.

Matthew 2:13-15
Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Get up! Take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the child to destroy him." So Joseph got up and took the child and his mother while it was still night and left for Egypt. He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my Son."

The apostle draws a direct connection between the "Israel" of Hosea 11:1 and Jesus. Jesus is "God perseveres." Jesus is the son called out of Egypt. It's a particularly curious commentary by Matthew because if all we had was the Old Testament we would normally think Hosea 11 is only a review of past Hebrew history, but Matthew makes it very clear that was prophetic; it was something indicating events in the future, not just the past. So let's look at what the rest of Hosea 11's opening stanza says...

Hosea 11:1-5
When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son. The more they called them, the more they went from them; they kept sacrificing to the Baals And burning incense to idols. Yet it is I who taught Ephraim to walk, I took them in My arms; but they did not know that I healed them. I led them with cords of a man, with bonds of love, and I became to them as one who lifts the yoke from their jaws; and I bent down and fed them. They will not return to the land of Egypt; but Assyria — he will be their king because they refused to return to Me.

Notice the "I" to a "they." Now the singular God calling the "them of Israel" is a plural "they." It is not "I called them," but "they called them." This, again, would normally be read as something that happened solely in the past but Matthew states it is prophetic. The result of the prophecy is that the Baal-worshiping idolators would be led with bonds of love by a bound man who lifted their yoke and feed them but they would still not worship God. They would not be led back to Egypt. They'd be ed to Assyria and Assyria would be their king because they refused to worship God. That is the prophecy coming true with Christ's birth.


To put it more succinctly, there is a Christological significance to scripture's use of the word "Israel." There is actually some truth to the statement, "God made His covenant with Israel," because God made His covenant with Jesus and Jesus is Israel! What should be understood is that God made His covenant with Israel His Son and not God made His covenant with geo-political nation-state Israel because the latter never happened. ALL mentions of covenant Israel should be understood through what the New Testament states about the Old.


I anticipate this post will also be ignored, or some red herring will be the response, but it is my hope something that is actually in the posts (47, 52, 78 or 83 will be addressed op-relevantly). I hope you'll show up and actually discuss these things..... like a Biblical Christian. Our brother @Ladodgers6 has endeavored to take another approach with you. He has shown how Gentiles were brought into the covenant, so Gentiles of faith are covenant members with God and Israel of faith. He has endeavored to prove it is God, not you, who decides who it is with which God makes His covenant. This is very important because if you believe in the omniscience and immutability of God then God bringing Gentiles into the covenant CANNOT have been a contingency, an after-thought, or a sudden change of course. God has always known He would do this, and He is not changing anything in His thought, will, purpose, or outcomes when He did so. It MUST be that God always planned to do what He did, otherwise it is God who is the covenant breaker and that is not possible.


Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?


.

 

[Josheb]

Thanks yes, I would offer. .

Israel, the second born seed (one) Christ . . begins with Abel (the first born again seed of Christ) the invisible head . .

That is not scripture. That is you reading into scripture things it does not state. So, I will ask you again, have you got scripture stating, "Christ changed the name of His bride from Israel to Christian," or not?

If there is a verse, then post it. If not, then says so. If the position is formed by inference (inferential reading of scripture that otherwise does not actually state the claim made) then make that case but start with scripture, not your opinion. Look at post 82. Three incomplete (meaningless) half-sentences are posted, followed by a single, proof-texted verse that says nothing about any of the three half-sentences. There's no mention of unconverted mankind, a chaste virgin bride, or "Husband Christ" in Genesis 32:28. What does Abel have to do with that? As far as we know Abel was killed before he ever married. I am somehow supposed to think that is an answer to the question asked?


No, it is not.


We're discussing the blood of the covenant. Not only do I want to see scripture proving, "Christ changed the name of His bride from 'Israel' to 'Christian,'" I want to read an answer that is op-relevant because if that observation isn't op-relevant then the post is off-topic and (as misguided as the op is) I won't be helping you derail @jeremiah1five's op. I want to read an answer that does not conflict with other scripture like Romans 11:17-24 in which it is reported we, the converts to Christ are grafted into the exact same tree as Israel (the Israel that is Israel) and, therefore, there is no change of name. The bride covers both Jew and Gentile, there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ, the bride has always been the "saints."

Psalm 16:3
As for the saints who are in the earth, they are the majestic ones in whom is all my delight.

Isaiah 61:10
I will rejoice greatly in the LORD, my soul will exult in my God; For He has clothed me with garments of salvation, He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

After all, a bride cannot forget her attire .


Or, since the bride matter was just addressed, we can move on to more salient matters pertaining to the blood of the covenant .

 

[Josheb]

Notice the "I" to a "they."

Oops! My bad. That should read, "Notice the 'I' changes to a 'they,'" and it is no longer and "I," but a "they" that is speaking to the "them" in the prophecy of Hosea 11 that Matthew says was fulfilled with the birth of Christ.

 

[jeremiah1five]

The facts are:

• Abram was not Hebrew.

.

The bible, the Word of God contradicts your assertion Abraham was not Hebrew.

13 And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; Gen. 14:13.

I have this 'thing' about liars. I'm [not] sorry. I'm not going to play.

 

[Josheb]

The bible, the Word of God contradicts your assertion Abraham was not Hebrew.

13 And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; Gen. 14:13.

I stand corrected, and thank you for that information.

See how easy that is? I have no problem correcting my mistakes. If someone posts scripture that proves something said is wrong, then the correct response is to acknowledge the information and adjust posts accordingly. Give it a try sometime.

I have this 'thing' about liars. I'm [not] sorry. I'm not going to play.

A person who makes a mistake simply makes a mistake. A person who knowingly asserts error with an intent to deceive is lying. Do not assume a simple mistake is a lie. If that were the case then you'd be among the biggest liars we have in CCAM and you would not be able to play with yourself without also being a huge hypocrite . Try keeping the posts about the posts and not the posters and these kinds of problems will be avoided.


However, the op is still incorrect so let's see if you can acknowledge the facts and say, "I stand corrected," as I have just done. The word used in Genesis 14:13 is "haibri," in it means a person who is descended from Eber, or a person from that town. Eber was in Assyria. Eber was descended from Shem, his father was Shelah, and Eber had two sons, Peleg and Joktan (Gen. 10:21-25). The Eberites eventually settled in Assyria, which is in the northern part of Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia covers the land we now call Iraq (as well as Syria, Turkey, Kuwait, and parts of Iran). That is where we'll find Babylon.

So, the two "haibri" (Hebrew) and "ḇaḇəlaye" (Babylonian), are not mutually exclusive terms. Abram was Hebrew because he was descended from Eber in Babylon. Ur is a town within the city-state of Ur, and Ur is in the region of Mesopotamia called Chaldea, which is in the country of Babylon.

Which means the covenant was made with Babylonians, Chaldeans, Urans, and Eberites. The later Hebrews, and then the Jews, of Israel (Jacob and Jesus) were simply descendants that arose centuries later.

So.....

...if we use the logic of this op, the logic that argues bloodline and geo-political nation-state status is what matters then there is still a huge hole in the theology. Using that logic, we could say all the pagan goy of northern Mesopotamia have a covenant with God.


Of course, that is NOT the logic to be employed. Hagar and Ishmael were also Hebrew, but they clearly were NOT included in the covenant relationship. Ishmael and the Ishmaelites were descendants of Abram, but they are not included in the covenant. They are not the seed of promise. The logic to be employed is that of whole scripture that begins with the pre-existent anointed one (Jn. 1:1, Jn. 8:58) of God's Son being the one to whom God made all His promises shared with Abram the Babylonian Chaldean, Uran, Eberite (haibri) and it ends with Christ and his body, because apart from us (the ecclesia, the body of Christ) none of the covenant people of faith in the Old Testament are made complete (Heb. 11:39).


Hebrews 11:39-40
And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.


There are no Hebrews or Jews made complete in the covenant apart from those in Christ and in Christ there is neither Jew or Gentile. It should not be assumed Hebrews and Babylonians were mutually exclusive of one another and the Hebrews set free from Egypt should not be treated as if they came from Eber, or that they had any covenant with God apart from their forefather Abraham. Neither did they have any covenant with God apart from Jesus, the seed of Abraham with whom God also covenanted. Selecting a few chapters from the book of Genesis and a few chapters from the book of Exodus does not qualify as using whole scripture.



Had whole scripture been used you would be telling me all of the above, not the other way around.

Can you provide for me one verse in the Old Testament that explicitly states God has a covenant with Hebrews?​

​

Can you provide for me one verse in the Old Testament that explicitly states God has a covenant with Jews?​

I am NOT asking for a case made from inference. I am asking for just one explicit statement from God that He has a covenant with Hebrews (other than those who are goyim from Babylon ), or Jews.

Can you provide me with any verse in the Old Testament that explicitly states God has a covenant with the nation of Israel that is completely separate from the covenant God made with Abraham?​

Did you know there is only one verse in the Old Testament that explicitly state the words "covenant" and "nation" in the same verse? Judges 2:20 states God burned against Israel because the nation transgressed His covenant. That's the only time a geo-political nation-state is ever mentioned with covenant.

Can you provide me with a single verse explicitly stating the nation of Israel kept God's covenant? Can you provide one explicitly stating the Hebrews kept the covenant? Can you provide one explicitly stating the Jews kept the covenant?​

Is the importance these questions and the meaning of their answers understood? the entire theology of this op is built around God covenanting with people God Himself never once says kept His covenant - unless the one with whom He covenanted is Jesus.

Galatians 3:16
Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.

Nothing in the Old Testament should be understood apart from what the New says about it.

 

[brightfame52]

The Blood of the Covenant was shed for people of all nations. Rev 5:9-10

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood[of the covenant] out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

 

[Mr GLee]

That is not scripture. That is you reading into scripture things it does not state. So, I will ask you again, have you got scripture stating, "Christ changed the name of His bride from Israel to Christian," or not?

If there is a verse, then post it. If not, then says so. If the position is formed by inference (inferential reading of scripture that otherwise does not actually state the claim made) then make that case but start with scripture, not your opinion. Look at post 82. Three incomplete (meaningless) half-sentences are posted, followed by a single, proof-texted verse that says nothing about any of the three half-sentences. There's no mention of unconverted mankind, a chaste virgin bride, or "Husband Christ" in Genesis 32:28. What does Abel have to do with that? As far as we know Abel was killed before he ever married. I am somehow supposed to think that is an answer to the question asked?

Thanks

I would offer.

Isaiah 62:2King James Version And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.

The fulfilment. . . Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Christian. . as a demonym named by Christ . "residents of the beautiful city of Christ" prepared for his bride the church named after her husband Christ.

Revelation 21King James Version21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

I would think a more befitting name to the bride of all the nations A word that has seemed to lost much of its affect.

Abel the second born to represent the believers new birth. Abel the first member of the chaste bride of Christ . . a martyr. Passed the second born, spiritual seed (Christ) down until the birth of the Son of man, Jesus .

The Fathers first born Son of many sons of God (the bride) .

 

[Josheb]

.

Thanks

I would offer.

Isaiah 62:2King James Version And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.

The fulfilment. . . Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

That is a rather wanton cutting and pasting together of two completely different texts that share only the word "name." If you were going to go that route exegetically then Revelation 22:4 is a better alternative. The Isaiah 62 text explicitly stipulates it is God that will give them a new name, not Antiochians.

Isaiah 62:1-5
For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not keep quiet, until her righteousness goes forth like brightness, and her salvation like a torch that is burning. The nations will see your righteousness, and all kings your glory; And you will be called by a new name Which the mouth of the LORD will designate. You will also be a crown of beauty in the hand of the LORD, And a royal diadem in the hand of your God. It will no longer be said to you, "Forsaken," Nor to your land will it any longer be said, "Desolate"; But you will be called, "My delight is in her," And your land, "Married"; For the LORD delights in you, And to Him your land will be married. For as a young man marries a virgin, so your sons will marry you; and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so your God will rejoice over you.

By including the surrounding text we learn a number of things that are ignored by separating and then asserting only verse 2. First, the renaming occurs when the righteousness of the city of peace shines, not beforehand. Second, it is all nations that will be renamed, not just the bride. Most importantly, however, is the renaming in Isaiah 62 is the renaming of the forsaken, NOT the bride. The old name is "Forsaken." The new name is "My delight is in her." It is the land that is called "Married." We should, therefore, be looking for examples that meet all of those criteria. Acts 11:26 does not do that.

But Revelation 22 does. There we find the city of peace coming down out of heaven, and the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. It is then that the land is "wed" to God and all the nations. By then the wedding ceremony of the lamb has already occurred. I could be wrong but my search turned up only two places in the New Testament in which the phrase "new name" is found.

Revelation 2:17
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, to him I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and a new name written on the stone which no one knows but he who receives it.

Revelation 3:12
He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.

Both of these verses were written to Christians. In other words, the new name is applied to those already having the new name Christian. It's Christians who get a new name, an even newer name than the one they already had (assuming "Christian" is a new name). The better place to look is, again, Rev. 22.

Revelation 22:1-5
Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bondservants will serve Him; they will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads. And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever.

So, the "new name" is found specified only in Revelation, but the new name is never named. The new name is given to the bride, but the bride consists of both Jews and non-Jews who've converted to Christ and are, therefore, already called Christians. Might first instinct was thinking the bride's new name was "My people," because of the history of God's people being chosen monergistically and verses like Hosea 1:9, Romans 9:25, and 1 Peter 2:10 but upon further investigation I don't think that sufficient to support the bride given a new name. The forsaken are called His own. But that is not a new name for the bride. So, I have to conclude if the bride is given a new name, then the new name is not Christian or "My people," but some yet to be disclosed name given to us by God on the other side of the last day.

Revelation 21King James Version21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

I would think a more befitting name to the bride of all the nations A word that has seemed to lost much of its affect.

Yes, and if verse 21 is not separated from its surrounding text and we look at the larger text and the book as a whole, and the newer revelation of the NT as a whole then we're still left with the fact Jews were never the bride (not all Israel is Israel), the forsaken and desolate of Isa. 62 are called, "My delight is in her," the bride that is "My delight is in her is given an even newer name, the name of God.

Abel the second born to represent the believers new birth. Abel the first member of the chaste bride of Christ . . a martyr. Passed the second born, spiritual seed (Christ) down until the birth of the Son of man, Jesus .

The Fathers first born Son of many sons of God (the bride).

I know you have a thing for Abel, but you might give some consideration every verse is not about Abel, and it's not all about Abel because Abel is the first (earthly) prophet mentioned in scripture. That same logic applied to any other prophet is sheer nonsense. We could pick some attribute of any prophet (like zeal, or judgment, or even sinfulness), and make everything about that individual or that attribute. That would not be sound exegesis. Besides, before Abel there was Adam, the first Adam. It is he, not Abel, against whom Jesus is soteriologically and eschatologically juxtaposed.

Tell me again from what sectarian perspective you come. I ask because I'm wondering if Abel is a thing there and I might investigate more.



At any rate, I question the premise the bride is given a new name, and I definitely don't find support for the bride's name being changed from "Jew" to "Christian," (especially since bride members Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not Jewish) and Isaiah is not the place to start, and the newer revelation tells us the bride, those made in the image of God found only in Christ, will get an even newer name one day. We'll bear the name of God.

.

 

[Josheb]

@jeremiah1five,

Would you be willing to have a discussion with me on the Bible's covenant(s) in which we each ask the other a single question which is directly answered by the other person? Then after each of us has asked one question and received an answer from the other we ask another, single, question. The conversation then proceeds one question at a time. Any question as long as the question is singular, and the question asked is answered. Any question not immediately and directly answered get counted against the one not answering. The discussion ends when three questions go unanswered. The word "you" in adverse reference* to the other person is prohibited. We keep the posts about the posts and not the posters. Three misguided uses of "you" and the conversation ends. I'm sure the mods can set up a space in the Private Debate section where we can Q&A without interruption, or perhaps a new thread can be set so that only you and I can post.

You up for that?








* For example: A question like, "Do you think God made a covenant in the garden with Adam?" would not be an adverse use of "you." A personal comment of criticism or derision like, "You don't have a clue," or "You're wrong," would qualify. The goal being to keep the posts about the posts and not the posters. The goal being to post kindly, patiently, forbearingly, hopefully, edifyingly, and with grace. These are standards set in scripture for how we're to speak to one another.

.

 

[Mr GLee]

That is a rather wanton cutting and pasting together of two completely different texts that share only the word "name." If you were going to go that route exegetically then Revelation 22:4 is a better alternative. The Isaiah 62 text explicitly stipulates it is God that will give them a new name, not Antiochians.

Antiochians. Pharisees with Sadducees . . .Roman Catholic with Greek Orthodox traditons of ding mankind .

Named by God not by man

Strong's #5537: chrematizo (pronounced khray-mat-id'-zo)
from 5536; to utter an oracle (compare the original sense of 5530), i.e. divinely intimate; by implication, (compare the secular sense of 5532) to constitute a firm for business, i.e. (generally) bear as a title:--be called, be admonished (warned) of God, reveal, speak.

Believers can see God face to face by his revealed knowledge the living word. .A Holy Spirit has not flesh and bone

1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

You could say faith (the unseen eternal things of God to the same faith) revealed by the Holy Spirit Emanuel working with mankind The gospel

Romans 1: 15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

 

[Ladodgers6]

I know I am correct. I don't need validation from you.

People may think so, but perhaps a better way of asking that question is, "What's new about the new covenant?" Since the covenant of grace is the one covenant through which all believers are saved, why did God bother making a new covenant? There are at least six main differences between the old and new covenants that are important to understand.

First, the new covenant is new in relation to the Mosaic covenant, but not the Abrahamic covenant. God's unconditional covenant of grace with Abraham was not interrupted by the conditional covenant he made with Israel 430 years later (Gal. 3:16-18). In fact, the continuity between the Abrahamic and new covenant is so strong that NT writers call all believers---whether Jew or Gentile---the offspring of Abraham (Gal. 3:29).

 

[jeremiah1five]

People may think so, but perhaps a better way of asking that question is, "What's new about the new covenant?" Since the covenant of grace is the one covenant through which all believers are saved, why did God bother making a new covenant? There are at least six main differences between the old and new covenants that are important to understand.

First, the new covenant is new in relation to the Mosaic covenant, but not the Abrahamic covenant. God's unconditional covenant of grace with Abraham was not interrupted by the conditional covenant he made with Israel 430 years later (Gal. 3:16-18). In fact, the continuity between the Abrahamic and new covenant is so strong that NT writers call all believers---whether Jew or Gentile---the offspring of Abraham (Gal. 3:29).

The New Covenant is only the Mosaic Covenant fulfilled by Christ.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Mt 5:17.

And what did He fulfill? As Lamb of God He took the place of the animal sacrifice under the Law to atone for the sins of the children of Israel. And this, Jesus as High Priest did with His body and with His blood for the children of Israel on the cross at Calvary. He didn't change the Law, He didn't destroy the Law by changing it. Jesus Christ, Israel's Prophesied Deliverer, Savior, Messiah, and King, and as the Lamb OF GOD did to atone for the sins of the children of Israel under covenant and under the Law..

33 And he [the high priest] shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation.
34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.
Lev. 16:32–34.

And Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law as the LORD commanded under Moses.

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mt 26:26–28.

And your passage from Saul's letter to Jewish Christians was written to these Jewish Christians and followers of Jesus Christ who were concerned with being a follower of Christ and the effect it would have on the Abraham Covenant. As you can see Saul's statement it had none, for they were still Abraham's seed and heirs according to that Promise.

Gentiles were never included in the Abraham Covenant, and they could never be "heirs according to that Promise." You are misinterpreting Saul's words to Jewish Christians and making them apply to Gentiles and this is your error. These were Jews that were "KEPT" and under the Law until Faith in the Person of the Holy Spirit of Promise should appear.

 

[brightfame52]

@jeremiah1five

The New Covenant is only the Mosaic Covenant fulfilled by Christ.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Mt 5:17.

And what did He fulfill? As Lamb of God He took the place of the animal sacrifice under the Law to atone for the sins of the children of Israel.

Which is the World, Gentiles Jn 1:29

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Thats the Mystery

 

[jeremiah1five]

@jeremiah1five



Which is the World, Gentiles Jn 1:29

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Thats the Mystery

The mystery is "Christ in you."

Stay in context. Jesus is a Jewish Messiah Promised to the Jews. He was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the House of Israel - NOT Gentiles. The "world" is in context to the Jews of whom the animal sacrifice, er...I mean the Lamb of God was sent to atone for the sins of the children of Israel.

Salvation is OF THE JEWS -NOT gentiles.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Jn 14:16–17.

 

[Mr GLee]

The mystery is "Christ in you."

Stay in context. Jesus is a Jewish Messiah Promised to the Jews. He was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the House of Israel - NOT Gentiles. The "world" is in context to the Jews of whom the animal sacrifice, er...I mean the Lamb of God was sent to atone for the sins of the children of Israel.

Salvation is OF THE JEWS -NOT gentiles.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Jn 14:16–17.

God is not a racist.

Satan is. . kill all the flesh a murderer from the beginning Abel the second born .Abel, as a martyr the first born again member of the bride. .

God s not a man as us (flesh and bones) and neither is there any fleshly infalible teaching authroity set between dying mankind seen and God not seen (Blasphemy) called a daysman . (Job 9)

I would offer. . .

Which kind Jew?"(Jew. . .person who seeks gain by sordid means,") it was used to represent to represent the second born as Jacob (the deceiver).

Word meaning matter. . or at least they used to somewhat &5 years ago .Not today gaining end time speed headed toward the Tower of Scrabble . The LGBTQ+. . the new growing alphabet. In need of the gospel .

Satan would make the name Jew all one in the same.. .outward.

The temporal seen according to dying flesh and blood as if it was inward born again Jew as a bride called Israel Not all Israel is born again Israel. Only those signified as born again from . . . Jacob the deceiver

At the time of the first century reformation the veil was rent there was no Jewish King of kings siting in the Holy of Holies (abomination of desolation ) .God does not live in temples made with the dying hands of sinners. never did never will.

Satan fell not being able to deceive all the nations of the world that God is a Jewish man as King of kings .

Then the propmised new name spoken of in Isiah 62. named from our invisible head Christ. . . husband

Christian a more befitting name to name the bride of all the nations .Literally meaning . ".Residents of the city of Christ" (Revelation 21) prepared for his bride the church name after her founder and husband, Christ

God is not served by the dying hands of mankind in any way shape or form He can use a Ass like Balaam, as a prophet. Ass a unclean to represent the need to be redeemed by a lamb. God can sent Ass as an apostle just as easily as a believer.

Romans 2:27-29King James Version And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter (death) and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter;(death) whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Romans 9:5-7King James Version5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all (born again) Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: "but", In Isaac (the second born) shall thy seed (Christ) be called.

Will you acknowledge whether or not the first century reformation has come? If so why? When did it begin?

What was restored .The same as the 15th century (sola scriptura) ?

 

[brightfame52]

@jeremiah1five

The mystery is "Christ in you."

Thats true as well, along with the World of Jn 1:29 whose sin is taken away, is the same world of Israel whose sins are taken away, by Christ

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Rom 11:26-27

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Thats the Mystery

 

[Josheb]

People may think so, but perhaps a better way of asking that question is, "What's new about the new covenant?" Since the covenant of grace is the one covenant through which all believers are saved, why did God bother making a new covenant? There are at least six main differences between the old and new covenants that are important to understand.

Good, so far.

First, the new covenant is new in relation to the Mosaic covenant, but not the Abrahamic covenant.

Would you please elaborate?

If and when that comment is elaborated upon, would you please include support for the implied premise there is a separate covenant with Moses, something that scripture itself indicates is a "Mosaic covenant"? I think you'll find the closest anyone can come is Exodus 34:27, and that is a parallel to Galatians 3:16.

Exodus 34:27
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."

Since Jesus is Israel, not all Isarael is Israel, and that "Israel" occurs in the context of God having made a covenant with the sons of Israel, the parallel is comparable to Abraham and his seed, the one singular seed being Jesus.

Would you also elaborate in a manner that covers Exodus 24, especially verse 8?

Exodus 24:8
So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

Thx

God's unconditional covenant of grace with Abraham was not interrupted by the conditional covenant he made with Israel 430 years later (Gal. 3:16-18).

Would you please show Abraham's covenant was unconditional?

In fact, the continuity between the Abrahamic and new covenant is so strong that NT writers call all believers---whether Jew or Gentile---the offspring of Abraham (Gal. 3:29).

I agree, and that is a very astute observation, so I hope it is accepted (and understood correctly) by @jeremiah1five because "The New Covenant is only the Mosaic Covenant fulfilled by Christ," is absurd and, imo, perversely sacrilegious and heretical.

There is continuity between Abraham and the new covenant, but the covenant (old or new) does not begin with Abraham. Abraham is a "marker," the person scripture itself uses to mark a point in covenant history, but he is not its origin. This is a huge part of the problem because there is a huge swath of Christianity, largely Dispensationalist, that begin with Genesis 15 or 17 and neglect millennia of biblical history. Take, for example, the covenant God established, or re-established with Noah. There'd be no covenant with Abraham absent the already existing covenant God made with Noah.

Genesis 6:18
But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark — you and your sons and your wife, and your sons' wives with you.

This is the first time the word "covenant" is used, but that statement implies a previously existing covenant. Think of Noah thinking, "What covenant? What's a covenant? You've got a covenant and you're going to establish it with me?" Is this a new covenant? Is this the first covenant ever made between God and someone in humanity? The proceeds of that covenant are nearly identical with what God said to Adam (and Eve) without mentioning the word "covenant" . I reiterate: there would be no covenant with Abraham and his (pre-existent) seed if there'd been no Noah.

Those of us on the Reformed end of theology like to point out Galatians 3:16 where Paul explicitly states the covenant promises made to Abraham were also made to Abe's seed, Jesus. When we speak of the "new" covenant it's critical to not get far afield of the only place in the OT where the "new" covenant is mentioned, Jeremiah 31. When we look at that passage, we must adhere to the specifics of that text. I'll take up that matter in a separate post because the Jeremiah passage is a little lengthy.

 

[Josheb]

Part 2:

There's only one place in Tanakh (the OT) where the phrase "new covenant" is used. Any review of any new covenant in the NT should necessarily consider that the already-existing context.


Jeremiah 31:27-40
"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and with the seed of beast. As I have watched over them to pluck up, to break down, to overthrow, to destroy and to bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant," declares the LORD. "In those days they will not say again, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge.' But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge. "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart, I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name: "If this fixed order departs From before Me," declares the LORD, "Then the offspring of Israel also will cease From being a nation before Me forever." Thus says the LORD, "If the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth searched out below, Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel For all that they have done," declares the LORD. Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when the city will be rebuilt for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. The measuring line will go out farther straight ahead to the hill Gareb; then it will turn to Goah. And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the LORD; it will not be plucked up or overthrown anymore forever."


Our brother reads this literally, and therefore concludes there is no covenant with Gentiles, only with the "houses" of Israel and Jacob. He then interprets that to include all Jews. That would be understandable if all we had was the Old Testament but we do not just have the Old Testament. We have a pile of unveiled information about the older revelation and a huge pile of completely new information in the newer revelation, and that newer revelation tells us the "houses" are not measured by bloodline (or Judaism). This Jeremiah text tells us, for one, the covenant was made with the house of Israel when they left Egypt, not when the arrived at Mt. Sinai. It tells us the broke God's covenant. Jeremiah makes that report of covenant-breaking more than once. This passage also states the people with whom God covenanted would cease to be a nation be for God forever. This is another example of the blessings and curses aspect found throughout scripture. Simply put, the curses are just as enduring and the blessings, but certain theologies ignore that fact. The ignore the fact God promised to destroy covenant breakers. That promise is just as everlasting as any and all of the other promises God made that day. In the case of the Jeremiah, we read they are no longer a nation before God and have been cast off. The city of peace will be rebuilt, the dead shall become holy (separated for sacred purpose), and never overthrown. All of this is further elaborated upon in the NT.

Lastly, perhaps for now, is that care must be taken not to treat Hebrews 8:13 as definitive to the point the clear parallels and continuity between Noah, Abraham, the house/sons of Israel, etc. become contradictory and thereby self-refuting.

Hebrews 8:13 ESV
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

There's no continuity with something obsolete, something that has ended, something that is out of date, no longer used, and no longer produced. If verse 13 is the one verse that defines all others, then Galatians 3:16 would be nonsensical. So too would much of Hebrews and the author is not contradicting himself. The exact same condition applies with verse 7 where the author of Hebrews alludes to the priesthood of Aaron and the making of the foreshadowing tabernacle as the "first covenant." God had covenants with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob long before that priesthood and tabernacle were made so that "first" is not an historical or chronological first . Therefore, neither the word "first" or the word "obsolete" can or should be read outside the specific context provided in the Hebrews text = the Aaronic priesthood and the tabernacle of old. That is what has become obsolete. In their place we have the Messianic priesthood, the Order of Mel where Jesus is the great High Priest and Jesus and his body of believers are the tabernacle-replacing, prophecy-fulfilling temple of God.




Lastly, while I hope to enjoy this discussion of the covenant relevant to Post #93, I think it's important to not get too far afield of the op. Large books are written about the covenant(s) of God. The same is true of the Law of Moses, and the Law and covenant are not synonymous. This opening post makes specific assertions. I'd prefer to stay op-relevant. My position, stated as a single, simple, thesis would be there is only once covenant with God and it is revealed to humanity gradually, in an incremental, progressive, and often prophetic manner such that the whole is understood only by considering all that is said (explicitly and implied) in the whole of scripture. It is, therefore, a huge mistake to start a conversation on "the blood of the covenant" with Moses and Exodus 24, as this op has done. It's also a huge mistake to think "the children of Israel" is about bloodline or genetics. These are huge, fatal mistakes and the continuity between old and new proves it.



(apologies for the length)
.