Jeff in red:
Re: [TruthTalk] Two Covenants
David Miller
Wed, 17 Nov 2004 06:12:27 -0800
Jeff wrote:
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?
Yes the Biblical text
and a Hebraic understanding of the Hebraic texts of said
Bible.
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?
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?
David, David, David
what part of maintaining CONTEXT do you not understand? You must include
Romans 7:7-8:3 at the very least. And the whole book to grasp the context
of this Epistle. That is why I dislike Cut and Paste Theology, as I said before,
it allows one to make any passage of Scripture say what ever is in that persons
personal agenda. This entire letter addresses Jewish believers in
Rome. Sha'ul is telling us that the goodness and love of God is that He
cannot relax the Torah because that is God's very nature. Sha'ul is telling us
that consistant with His Torah, God has a plan to bring people into union with
him through the sin sacrifice of His son, Yeshua. The sin offering required
by God in His Torah. There can be no atonement for sin without the shedding of
blood, Yeshua offered up the ultimate sin sacrifice for us.
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:
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. I belive I just did. 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.
Rom 2:13,
For it is not those who hear Torah who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey Torah who will be declared righteous.Rom 2:14,
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have Torah, do by nature things required by Torah, they are a Torah for themselves, even though they do not have Torah,That goes to the very heart of the issue when I said (many posts ago, early Oct. as I remember it) that many of you would be suprised how many of the 613 commandments you do obey. Now look where that got us!
Rom 2:15,
since they show that the requirements of Torah are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.Rom 3:25,
God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--A sin sacrifice according to Torah for the benefit of mankind!
Rom 3:30,
since indeed there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith, and the uncircumcised through faith.Rom 3:31,
Do we then nullify Torah through faith? May it never be! No, we establish Torah.How do we establish Torah? By keeping the covenant.
Rom 6:17,
But thanks be to God, that, whereas you were bondservants of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto you were delivered.What form of teaching David? The scriptures Sha'ul taught from were the Tanach, the Torah and the Prophets; The Older Testament! Sha'ul does not spell out the covenant because he knew that those to whom he was writing knew and understood that the covenant had been renewed. Contrary to what is generally assumed, Sha'ul did not mean for this epistle to survive for all of posterity, he was addressing issues of importance to one congregation. Does this negate the teaching for us today? No, but we must first understand the context in which he wrote, and then and only then can we begin to understand how this applies to us today.
Rom 7:7,
What shall we say then? Is Torah sin? May it never be! However, I wouldn't have known sin, except through Torah.Rom 8:4,
that the ordinance of Torah might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.Rom 8:5,
For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.The bottom line here is that Sha'ul is addressing Jewish believers, quite possibly many who had, to use the term loosly, backslidden from God's Torah. It is not until Romans 11:13 that Sha'ul specifically speaks to Gentiles.
Rom 12:2,
Don't be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what is the good, well-pleasing, and perfect will of God.How are Gentiles (then and now) to renew their minds? By studying scripture. Yet in Sha'ul's day the ONLY scripture to study was the OT. Hmmm, if more people studied the books in the clean part of their bibles there would be less confusion today. If Torah was taught each sabbath as James refered to in Acts 15:21 I doubt that we would be having this discussion.
Rom 13:9,
For the mitzvot, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," and whatever other mitzvot there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."Rom 13:10
,Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of Torah.Filling up of Torah, not throwing it away. Not reading into scripture things that are not there. Sha'ul's battle is not with Torah, it is with those elements that were dealt with in Acts 15, the legalists that insisted on full conversion of Gentiles and espoused a legalistic hedge around Torah. As I said CONTEXT. You cannot jerk a passage out of it's context in order to support your claims, it might work with most Christians, but it does not work with me or I dare say, anyone who honestly seperates themselves from nearly 2000 years of church dogmatics.
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?
No, ONE REVISED
covenant. With minor adjustments permitting Gentiles into fellowship with
Jews.
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."
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."
The law spoken of here by
Sha'ul is the yoke of legalism, not Torah.
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(legalism) persecute those of the covenant of promise(Torah).CONTEXT!
Now please understand that saying that the covenant of law is obsolete is not the same thing as saying that the law is obsolete.But it is saying that Legalism 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.Wrong David, the covenant IS established by Torah. Again my friend, context, go back to Galatians 3;
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(legalism) persecute those of the covenant of promise(Torah).CONTEXT!
Now please understand that saying that the covenant of law is obsolete is not the same thing as saying that the law is obsolete.But it is saying that Legalism 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.Wrong David, the covenant IS established by Torah. Again my friend, context, go back to Galatians 3;
Gal 3:17
Now I say this. A covenant confirmed beforehand by God in Messiah, Torah, which came four hundred thirty years after, does not annul, so as to make the promise of no effect.The covenant cannot be abolished by man and if Yeshua, the author and perfecter of Torah and the covenant upon which it is based, was so bent on abolishing the covenant, why didn't he do it before his crucifixion? Because He did not replace it, Yeshua corrected it, amended it, perfected it.
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?
No, what I see is people misunderstanding the rabbi from Tarsus.
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.
