New and Old Covenant Contrasted (Jeremiah 31)

[RND]

Exactly. :nod So if these two laws are written on our heart, the ten are superfluous.

Not at all.

After all, am I going to steal my neighbors car if I love him?

Lots of people that claim to love others do things that don't appear that they do love others. That doesn't mean that the law has been done away with.

Paul knew specifically that the law pointed out sin, that sin was made known "by the law."

So the new covenant has been inscribed on my heart - not the old one. Moses law (including the ten commandments) has been superseded by a superior covenant.

Nothing has been replaced or superseded and to suggest so is not in keeping with the scriptures. None of the apostles ever wrote that no one has to keep the law. They wrote specifically that it wasn't to be kept for salvic purposes.

The Ten Commandments were kept inside the Ark of the Covenant and the book of the Law was kept on the outside as a "witness against" the COI and what they promised they would do - which would be to obey God and His commandments.

 

[Cyberseeker]

Nothing has been replaced or superseded and to suggest so is not in keeping with the scriptures.

...if that first covenant had been without defect, there would have been no room for another one or an attempt to institute another one. However, He finds fault with them [showing its inadequacy] when He says, Behold, the days will come, says the Lord, when I will make and ratify a new covenant ... When God speaks of a new [covenant or agreement], He makes the first one obsolete (out of use). And what is obsolete (out of use and annulled because of age) is ripe for disappearance and to been dispensed with altogether.
(Hebrews 8:7,13 Amp)

 

[Steve76]

The new covenant is a covenant of grace and the law still stands firm ....

If by "law" here, you mean the Law of Moses, then the idea that that law "stands firm" is simply not sustainable in the light of Jesus and Paul. Both were clear - the age of the Law of Moses as a prescriptive code has come to an end.

I understand that, but the law gives a gauge for and conviction of sin and I believe many Churches that do not teach sin and the law become complacent and like to have God on their terms.
But, this is just my opinion and I am still on milk so to speak..



http://getwiththeword.blogspot.com/

 

[Drew]

I understand that, but the law gives a gauge for and conviction of sin and I believe many Churches that do not teach sin and the law become complacent and like to have God on their terms.

I agree in general, but would point that many elements of the law seem to have no clear connection to what we, in the 21st century, would call "sin". I think of all the food laws and the law about not mixing certain types of cloth, etc.

 

[Steve76]

I understand that, but the law gives a gauge for and conviction of sin and I believe many Churches that do not teach sin and the law become complacent and like to have God on their terms.

I agree in general, but would point that many elements of the law seem to have no clear connection to what we, in the 21st century, would call "sin". I think of all the food laws and the law about not mixing certain types of cloth, etc.

Yes, very true. Still, some interesting parts to the law though. I always think of unclean foods. My Wife loves things like shrimp, crab and other sea-foods but I have never liked those, and since following Christ I point out to her that they are mentioned as unclean foods in the Bible!
She actually eats less of them now!
Hehe...
Sorry for meandering there.. :gah


http://getwiththeword.blogspot.com/

 

[RND]

Nothing has been replaced or superseded and to suggest so is not in keeping with the scriptures.

...if that first covenant had been without defect, there would have been no room for another one or an attempt to institute another one. However, He finds fault with them [showing its inadequacy] when He says, Behold, the days will come, says the Lord, when I will make and ratify a new covenant ... When God speaks of a new [covenant or agreement], He makes the first one obsolete (out of use). And what is obsolete (out of use and annulled because of age) is ripe for disappearance and to been dispensed with altogether.
(Hebrews 8:7,13 Amp)

The first covenant found 'fault' with the people, not with the law, and thus God wrote His law on people's heart. He did not find fault with the law but with the people.

Hbr 8:8 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:

The New Covenant didn't remove the law, it placed the law on the heart. At the same time Christ, as the last sacrifice for sin did away with the necessity to kill bulls and goats and sprinkling their blood on the alter horns or horn of the alter of incense or sprinkle the blood before the Ark.

 

[RND]

I agree in general, but would point that many elements of the law seem to have no clear connection to what we, in the 21st century, would call "sin".

What 'we' in the 21st century would call sin indeed varies greatly from what God would call sin.

I think of all the food laws and the law about not mixing certain types of cloth, etc.

I'm wondering Drew if you see the spiritual symbolism and application (not to mention practical) that these provisions of the law point to?

For example, do you understand why God would not want a farmed, and thus man produced product such as flax (where linen comes from) mixed with wool which was provided by God?

Watch the following video and tell me if God didn't have a specific reason for warning people about the dangers of eating pork products:

[youtube:bx5zxqq5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJCh7bR1Nf0[/youtube:bx5zxqq5]

 

[Steve76]

PHEW!! No more pork chops for me!

And I cannot stand it when people do not wash their hands after going to the public toilet and then touch the door handles that others are to open! :rant




http://getwiththeword.blogspot.com/

 

[Cyberseeker]

Here is the New Covenant prophecy of Jeremiah 31 with each clause supported by verses from the New Testament. Notice how Messiahs ministry was the fulfillment of this text!

Law written internally in heart and mind.
"This is the covenant I will make … I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts." (Jer 31:33a)

• You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. (2 Cor. 3:3)

I will be their God in the sense of ‘relationship.’
"This is the covenant I will make … I will be their God, and they will be my people." (Jer 31:33b)

• When the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir. (Gal 4:4-7)

Knowledge of the Lord personally experienced.
"This is the covenant I will make … No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me." (Jer 31:34a)

• As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real. (1 John 2:27)

Sins forgiven and remembered no more.
"For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." (Jer 31:34b)

• But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. (1 John 3:5)

 

[Cyberseeker]

Thanks and here is the finished study which I have called, ‘New Covenant – New Hope.’ It is in pdf fomat, printed on 2 pages and has a simple question and answer format so that study group leaders can use them.

I took on board some of the comments here and if anyone is still interested I’m open to more feedback to see if it can be improved, tweaked, print correctly, interesting, doctrinally sound, practical, not too complicated etc. etc

Cyberseeker

 

[mondar]

Here is the New Covenant prophecy of Jeremiah 31 with each clause supported by verses from the New Testament. Notice how Messiahs ministry was the fulfillment of this text!....

Cyber,
You did a fine job throughout the thread. There is little doubt that we are under the stipulations of the New Covenant of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and many other texts; we who live after Christs righteous life and his crosswork. I am aware of the extent of the material in the NT which establishes what you have been saying, and you did a good job laying out your subject in way easily understood.

What is on my mind concerns the term "fulfilled." The term "fulfilled" nowhere occurs in the NT in any of the New Covenant passages. On the other hand, It definitely says we are under the New Covenant. That might be a peculiar thing for me to say. The logical question for me would then be... "if we do not use the term `fulfilled,' what term is appropriate?" I would suggest possibly the term "application of the New Covenant promises." The reason I suggest this is that I suspect that there will be multiple applications of the New Covenant, but only one fulfillment. Let me try to explain.

FIRST--- THE FULFILLMENT WILL INVOLVE GENETIC ISRAEL
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
The question of course concerns the terms in red. Is this ethnic promises or is it to more then a certain ethnic group? Lets look at more of the context.
Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people:
Jer 31:36 If these ordinances depart from before me, saith Jehovah, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
Jer 31:37 Thus saith Jehovah: If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, then will I also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith Jehovah.
The end of the passage has reference to specific landmarks in Jerusalem.

When verse 36 speaks of Israel as a nation, then verse 37 speaks of the "seed of Israel" I find it difficult to think of these promises as anything but national promises related to the genetic group of Jews.

I also want to make some observations concerning the context of Jeremiah.
---->God never promised the Jew, or Israel, that he would never share this promise with Gentiles.
---->God promised his grace to Israel, but never promised his grace would not superabound beyond Israel
---->God is not breaking his promise to Israel by giving gentiles the New Covenant.

SECOND--- THIS OPENS THE DOOR FOR MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS
Do you think there is any parallel between Jeremiah and Isaiah....
Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel... and I will be their God, and they shall be my people:
Isa 19:25 for that Jehovah of hosts hath blessed them, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.
The question here is why would Isaiah say the words "Egypt my people?" I recommend reading the context of Isaiah 19:16-25. Egypt sound like one massive believing community in that context. It all happens "on that day." I think the phrase "in that day" or "The day of the Lord" is the key. More on that later.

Now, does this not have this eerie connection to 1 Peter 2:9-10?
1Pe 2:9 But ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
1Pe 2:10 who in time past were no people, but now are the people of God: who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

We were not the "people of God" to whom the promises were made, but when God grace superabounded, his promises were given to a people that the promises were not made to. In doing this God is not breaking his word. Let me illustrate.

If I promise to give to give my son Johnny a dollar at Christmas, and I give his little brother Jimmy a dollar at Thanksgiving, I have not broken my promise to Johnny. Yet, neither did I "fulfill" my promise to Johnny. Now Johnny must receive his dollar. Yet both are my children, there is only one people, one family (Ephesians 2).

THIRD--- THE FINAL FULFILLMENT-- THE DAY OF THE LORD
Israel is to receive her promised fulfillment when her day comes. To return to the subject of the Day of the Lord... (this is actually a huge subject in the scriptures). The day of the Lord is the topic of multiple books in the OT. (Malachi, Zechariah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Joel, etc) The subject is also written on it the New Testament. In my opinion (whatever that is worth ), when the Day of the Lord arrives, that will be the "fulfillment" of the New Covenant.

Yet the text in Jeremiah gives us a hint of the timing of the fulfillment of the promise when it says in Jeremiah....
Jer 31:29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:38 Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that the city shall be built to Jehovah from the tower of Hananel unto the gate of the corner.

So then, the Day of the Lord is the time when God will "fulfill" the New Covenant. He can apply the covenant to all whom he pleases, but must "fulfill" the covenant with the genetic people he promised it to.

The Day of the Lord did not occur with the first coming of Jesus. See the text below...
2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him;
2Th 2:2 to the end that ye be not quickly shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by epistle as from us, as that the day of the Lord is just at hand;

So then, this Day of the Lord, is at least future from the time of 2 Thessalonians.

CONCLUSION
So, I am suggesting that there will be possible multiple applications of Jeremiah's New Covenant promises. Gentiles will come under these applications and Paul can speak of our ministry of the New Covenant in 2 Corinthians. Jesus can hold up the cup and say "this is the new covenant in my blood." The writer of Hebrews can quote Jeremiah (as an application---he does not use the term "fulfillment").

I recognize that what I am saying is very complex. I am talking about the relationship between the "Day of the Lord" and the "New Covenant." Fulfillment will be on the Day of the Lord, but application of the covenant can happen anytime outside the Day of the Lord.

Let me say one final thing. I dont think the application of the covenant was even limited to the times after the crosswork of Christ. Was not David a "man after Gods own heart?" The difference I am expecting to be quantity. I think the fulfillment will be a time when many more then just a few like David experience the outpouring of the promises to Israel.

If anyone made it this far reading this post, I will be amazed... : ).

 

[veteran]

We're told specifically what part of the law was indeed abolished...

Eph 2:14-16
14 For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
(KJV)

Col 2:13-14
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross;
(KJV)

And also why much of God's law STILL exists under The New Covenant...

1 Tim 1:8-11
8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
(KJV)

Clearly, some Churches have taken the Eph.2 and Col.2 examples to mean ALL of God's law was nailed on the cross by our Lord, falsely assuming that it's now dead to everybody. But what does Apostle Paul show in that 1 Timothy 1 example?


This is a VERY important hinge point within Christian Doctrine given through Paul.


What would happen if all of God's law was actually done away with among Christ's Body? A believer would think anything they want to do is alright, and even if in their heart they felt it was wrong, they still might think to escape Christ's chastizement through His Grace. They'd use that as a license to sin, when Paul said Christ's Grace is not a license to sin.

And HOW would the lawless be judged today for correction? HOW even would Christ's Body be able to judge among their own? In other words, God's law helps establish peace, health and prosperity among His people, and even among the non-believer.

And HOW will we be able to judge in the future, for as written we are to judge angels even? (1 Cor.6:3).

This is a rebellious generation we live in today. It has major problems with the idea of any law, the idea of authority, etc., acting like a bunch of spoiled children that want to have their way. This generation is very much like old Israel when they also had the same rebellious mentality. A lot of that has come about from God's people listening to the "workers of iniquity" which work among us that want to 'change' the laws. What's the result? Chaos and division, which is how the devil seeks to destroy God's people.
.
.

 

[Drew]

We're told specifically what part of the law was indeed abolished...

Eph 2:14-16
14 For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
(KJV)

Col 2:13-14
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross;
(KJV)

But the "written code" is the totality of the Law. So there is no part of the Law of Moses that remains in force.

When I and others refer to the abolition or retirement of "the Law", we are specifically referring to the Law of Moses - the written code. It is the Law of Moses that Paul refers to when he uses the term "law".

What would happen if all of God's law was actually done away with among Christ's Body? A believer would think anything they want to do is alright, and even if in their heart they felt it was wrong, they still might think to escape Christ's chastizement through His Grace. They'd use that as a license to sin, when Paul said Christ's Grace is not a license to sin.[/qoute]
Well, suppose someone does think like this - they think that since there is no law, they are free to do what they want. Well, that's not an argument against the abolition of the Law of Moses - something the Bible clearly asserts - it is instead an argument that some people will try to rationalize their own behaviour.

I think the scriptural picture is pretty clear: The Law of Moses has been abolished and we now look to the Holy Spirit to guide our actions.

 

[Cyberseeker]

... much of God's law STILL exists under The New Covenant...

Vet, the sacrificial system, the 10 commandments and the law of Moses in general is all kit and caboodle of the same thing. Here is a diagram I put together to explain this:

[attachment=0:2ze7s6tb]lawofmoses.gif[/attachment:2ze7s6tb]

 

[RND]

... much of God's law STILL exists under The New Covenant...

Vet, the sacrificial system, the 10 commandments and the law of Moses in general is all kit and caboodle of the same thing. Here is a diagram I put together to explain this:

[attachment=0:2x0jqdb8]lawofmoses.gif[/attachment:2x0jqdb8]

Just an observation and a question or two. I noticed the diagram was missing the health laws - isn't God still concerned about our health? Also, since the death of Christ on the cross are we now no longer to observe moral laws or civil laws? If so where is that commandment in the scriptures?

 

[Cyberseeker]

The health laws are usually included with the 'civil law' but the three categories could be four. They are an arbitrary division really, but the point of my diagram is that the 'law of Moses is complete. We cannot slice one segment off and say, "that is abolished and the other part isn't."

As for where it is in the scriptures, well, Romans 7:6 for starters.

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

 

[RND]

The health laws are usually included with the 'civil law' but the three categories could be four.

The health laws were there to protect not on the individual and the entire tribe. Thus they could fall into either moral or civil laws. I think because of this a separate distinction is in order.

They are an arbitrary division really, but the point of my diagram is that the 'law of Moses is complete. We cannot slice one segment off and say, "that is abolished and the other part isn't."

Conversely we can't suggest that it has all been done away with. God doesn't change the things He has uttered.

As for where it is in the scriptures, well, Romans 7:6 for starters.
[quote:195hnlgn]But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

[/quote:195hnlgn] Tell me, were the Ten Commandments written by man or spoken by God? "Its is written, man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."

The "written code" was that which was placed on the "outside" of the Ark of the Covenant for a "witness against" the C.O.I. It is that "written code" of ceremonies that are no longer performed for salvic purposes. Man is still obligated to obey God's moral code, His civil code and His heath code.

 

[mondar]

I was on the way to work today listening to speaker named "Brown." I think he is from Florida. One thing he said that interested me. He was speaking of Rahab the Harlot. He complained that too many Christians want to sanitize the fact that she was a harlot. The he said "but she was drawn near to the covenant people."

I think he was alluding to Ephesians 2....
12 that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.

Also... 19 So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God,

Up the thread I suggested multiple applications of the New Covenant, a literal fulfillment with the remnant of Israel, but other applications that include non-Israelites. I suggested that Gods grace super abounds beyond the direct people to whom the covenants were promised.

Did Rahab have a new heart, a circumcised heart because she was "near to the covenant people?"

When I look at Ephesians 2, I also see verse 14.
14 For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, Brown proposed a Covenant people, and a people near to the covenant people. Verse 14 speaks of making to two people one when the middle wall of partition was broken down (sounds like Hebrews and the heavenly sanctuary and the new covenant).

This whole thing also reminded me of my own previous words. Now there are only one people of God. I wonder how Brown (the guy on the radio) would address verse 14? I am guessing he would say that there is one people of God made up of the Covenant people, and those who are drawn near? Would this be the same as I was suggesting, multiple applications of the New Covenant yet one "fulfillment" related to Israel, the Covenant people?

I am very interested in these things, but maybe I am making the simple complicated. Cyber, I hope you pursue teaching your views on the New Covenant.

 

[MimilovesBibi]

We're told specifically what part of the law was indeed abolished...

Eph 2:14-16
14 For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
(KJV)

Col 2:13-14
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross;
(KJV)

But the "written code" is the totality of the Law. So there is no part of the Law of Moses that remains in force.

When I and others refer to the abolition or retirement of "the Law", we are specifically referring to the Law of Moses - the written code. It is the Law of Moses that Paul refers to when he uses the term "law".

What would happen if all of God's law was actually done away with among Christ's Body? A believer would think anything they want to do is alright, and even if in their heart they felt it was wrong, they still might think to escape Christ's chastizement through His Grace. They'd use that as a license to sin, when Paul said Christ's Grace is not a license to sin.[/qoute]
Well, suppose someone does think like this - they think that since there is no law, they are free to do what they want. Well, that's not an argument against the abolition of the Law of Moses - something the Bible clearly asserts - it is instead an argument that some people will try to rationalize their own behaviour.

I think the scriptural picture is pretty clear: The Law of Moses has been abolished and we now look to the Holy Spirit to guide our actions.

Amen. There are two forms of law...just like there are two covenants.

The law in stone can only condemn, that was it's purpose. The law written on hearts, has LOVE added therein, and we are walking by that form of law, not the letter/stone form.

Love does not harm his/her neighbor. Love fulfills the law/stone.

Without love there is condemnation, and that is why ALL the old covenant saints were not saved by the old covenant, but by looking forward to our day..wherein forgiveness and mercy would be available.

No one has ever been saved by the old covenant.

God bless!

 

[Cyberseeker]

What is on my mind concerns the term "fulfilled." The term "fulfilled" nowhere occurs in the NT in any of the New Covenant passages ...

FIRST--- THE FULFILLMENT WILL INVOLVE GENETIC ISRAEL ...

SECOND--- THIS OPENS THE DOOR FOR MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS ...

Hi Mondar, You make some interesting points. By way of response perhaps I should first of all say that I am of the 'New Covenant Theology' school - neither dispensational nor old covt. theology. The weight of scripture IMO, shows that the new covenant was fulfilled in Christ. However, I agree with you that an aspect of Jeremiah 31 points to a revival of the Jewish nation just prior to the 2nd return of Christ.

As you suggest, not every aspect of it was fulfilled. This is because at the time of Judah’s opportunity - from the cross until the Gentiles were invited in - only a percentage of Jews accepted the message. The Lord specifically says, “They shall all …†so this clause awaits. In the New Testament, St. Paul picks up on it quoting the same text from Jeremiah as we have done:

“Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacobâ€; “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.â€

Yes, it is treated as a future event – not as something which has already happened. Also, that term ‘until the fullness of the Gentiles’ appears again. What it means is the time of hardening was not permanent. A time would come, after a long Gentile era, when widespread national revival would occur in the Jewish nation. So God has gathered them back in this our time, not to achieve the Zionist aims they think they have been gathered for, but pending the fulfillment of an unfinished promise. That means coming face to face with Messiah again! So I am inclined to agree with some of your points.

Cyber