I see one covenant. God's covenant with man, begun with Abraham, amended with Moses, Again amended with David. Jeremiah prophesied a renewal, as did Isaiah, etc. That renewal was accomplished through Yeshua. The "New Covenant" is not new, it is Renewed.
On what basis are you confident that the "New Covenant" is a "Renewed Covenant" and not new? I recognize that this is an assumption made by Messianics and Nazarenes, but is this only an assumption on your part, or is there some argument that has convinced you that "Renewed" is the proper translation and understanding?
Did you see my post about Romans 7 where Sha'ul speaks of it being adultery to be bound to both the Torah and to Christ at the same time?
Romans 7:3-6
(3) So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.
(4) Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.
(5) For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
(6) But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
I had asked in that post if Slade considered a widow who had married another man to have a "renewed" marriage contract or a new one. Maybe you can answer this question for me, and perhaps you also can exegete the passage above (Rom. 7:3-6). Perhaps you have another translation you think is better. I have the Hebraic Roots Version by James Trimm and some other translations that I can consult too.
Jeff wrote:
Sorry David, but Cut and Paste Theology is perfected in the church and allows it's practitioners to distort almost any passage of scripture and make it say anything when it is removed from it's original context.
Oh, come on Jeff, be a man. If you think that I have taken something out of context, say that. Don't make me infer it by saying that such theology is perfected in the church. If you think that I have yanked something out of context, say that and then explain the context. Make your case. Comments like this paragraph above are nothing but a smoke screen and say absolutely nothing. I have done no "Cut and Paste" theology. I argue as the apostles argued in New Testament times: It is written... You need to do a little more "It is written" style argument here. Nobody is going to just take your word for it on this matter.
Jeff wrote:
I do not accept that. Gen 17, see Acts 15. God's Holy Word, not mine!
Put Acts 15 in the context of Hebrews who venerated the Torah. How can Acts 15 be true unless we understand covenants and recognize that we are talking about two covenants?
I asked you previously to look at the Galatians 4 passage and tell me whether or not you accept that there are two covenants. You reply that you only see one covenant. Please, then, exegete the following passage:
Galatians 4:19-31
(19) My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,
(20) I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.
(21) Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
(22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
(23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
(24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
(25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
(26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
(27) For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
(28) Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
(29) But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
(30) Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
(31) So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
What I see in this passage is Paul pointing us to two women: Hagar and Sarah. Sarah was the freewoman. Her slave was Hagar, whom she made to be Abraham's wife. Later, Abraham had to kick Hagar and her son out of his household. Paul argues that this historical event is an allegory that represents two covenants. The one covenant was from mount Sinai, and it "gendereth to bondage" or leads to bondage... the heavy yoke spoken about in Acts 15. Hagar's being a slave represents this bondage. Paul continues to point out that the city of Jerusalem is represented by this woman Hagar. At this time, Jerusalem was in bondage to Rome. The Jews there also were in bondage to the law; hence Paul's terminology in addressing them, "you who desire to be under the law." Now the historical lesson here is that Hagar and her son Ishmael persecuted Sarah and her son Issac, which resulted in Abraham having to cast out the bondwoman Hagar and her son Ishmael. Even so it is now, that those of the covenant of Sinai persecute the followers of Christ, even though they have the same father. Now as Abraham had to cast out the woman Hagar and her son, so must the talmidim of Christ cast out those of the covenant of Sinai. We are of the freewoman, Sarah, and like her child Issac, and of the heavenly Jerusalem which is above all.
I might add something Paul did not. The allegory can be extended further in understanding that just as Hagar and her son were blessed, so also would those of the covenant of Sinai continue to be blessed. The problem is that they cannot continue side by side because they are of different covenants. Those of the covenant of law persecute those of the covenant of promise.
Now please understand that saying that the covenant of law is obsolete is not the same thing as saying that the law is obsolete. I believe like you do that the law will not pass away until heaven and earth pass away (Mat. 5:17-20). Furthermore, I believe that we need to teach the law and observe it in every detail. Where I draw the line is in the area of covenants. If one forms a covenant with God through the Torah, that is different than forming a covenant with God through Jesus Christ. A person in Jesus Christ is free to observe the commandments of Torah as Jesus did and all the apostles, but his covenant with God is not established by Torah. It is established by Jesus Christ. It might seem to you at first that this would be a subtle distinction to make, but I think it is a rather important one for reconciling the passages that seem to pose you problems with the way others have expressed their viewpoint.
So now that you have seen my exegesis of the passage above, how about sharing yours. I cannot see how you can read the passage above and simply respond that you see only one covenant. Do you think that Rabbi Sha'ul had it wrong?
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
