Saved,
Thanks for the informative site. Here are my responses to the writer-
HOW THE NEW COVENANT
CONCERNS US
Since the New Testament, or Covenant, was specifically made with "the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" (Jer. 31:31), some have concluded that it can have no relation to the Gentiles and that therefore the Lord's supper should not be practiced today.
But this is an error. The Old Covenant, like the New, was made with Israel, but it vitally affects the Gentiles. See Paul's words in Rom. 3:19,20:
"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that EVERY MOUTH may be stopped, and ALL THE WORLD may become guilty before God.
"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall NO FLESH be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."
ddub: Again, we have the classic mistake being made regarding the New Covenant. It is often confused with the law, and it is not the law. They are two different things. Therefore, what is written in Rom 3:19,20 pertains to the law, NOT to the New Covenant.
What is often neglected is the fact that the law is the main component in the New Covenant. It is what will be placed in the hearts and minds of the people. So it really doesn't make any sense that the law would be the New Covenant. Yet, this classic mistake is continually made.
The Gentiles never were, and are not today, under the covenant of the law, but it would be a mistake to argue that the law does not affect the Gentiles, for it was given that the whole world might be brought in guilty before God.
Israel represented the world before God. Israel was the only nation with which God still had dealings after He gave up the Gentiles. When she finally fell, it meant that the whole world had fallen. If God should demand from any group of people the righteous standards of the Old Covenant (Ex. 19:5,6), that group would surely be condemned. That is why the New Covenant was necessary.
Again, this would fall under the category of the classic mistake.
After Israel's failure under the Old Covenant had become increasingly apparent, God promised to make a new covenant with them. This New Covenant was to be made with the favored nation alone. Jeremiah distinctly states this, as we have seen above.
And God did make this new covenant with Israel and Judah -- at Calvary (Matt. 26:28). It was there that Christ procured for His covenant people what they could not attain to under the law. It was there that Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled:
"For the transgression of my people was He stricken" (Isa. 53:8).
It was on the basis of Calvary and the blood of the New Covenant that the kingdom blessing was offered to Israel at Pentecost, but that generation in Israel refused the blessing and the New Covenant awaits a future fulfillment.
ddub: Interesting take. I contend that the blood of Christ wasn't only for the New Covenant, but was for the Old Covenant also. Also, I agree that the covenant was for Israel alone. It is never said to be for the Gentiles in the Bible.
But it does not follow from this that the New Covenant does not affect the Gentiles.
If the Gentiles come under the curse of the Old Covenant, they may also partake of the blessings of the New, for why was the blood of the New Covenant shed if not to remove the curse of the Old?
First, the Gentiles are included in the Old Covenant. The Gentiles have always been included in that promise. The Bible states as much. However, Gentiles have never been included in the New Covenant as recipients. This has always been an assumed thing.
If by the Old Covenant with Israel God showed how the whole world stands condemned in His sight, then, by the New Covenant with Israel God shows how all may be justified in His sight.1 Heb. 2:9-16 says that Christ "took on Him the seed of Abraham." But why? "That He by the grace of God might taste death for EVERY MAN."
At Calvary God vouchsafed to Israel by solemn covenant: "I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer. 31:34, cf. Matt. 26:28). God did not make such a covenants with the Gentiles, but what He promised by covenant to Israel, we receive by grace.
The problem here is that the Bible never says we are to receive the New Covenant by grace. Also, it says that grace was under the Old Covenant. You can add to that the fact that the Bible says we're under the same covenant that Isaac is under.
For some reason, we want to put grace and redemption under the New Covenant, but the Bible doesn't support this. Redemption and grace came under the Old Covenant.
The reader should carefully examine Jer. 31:31-34 and note that the blessings of the New Covenant are all spiritual.2 There is nothing about the land, the kingdom or the throne. Do members of the body of Christ today receive the blessings outlined there? Yes, all of them.
I agree that Jeremiah isn't speaking about the land, kingdom or throne. But I disagree that anyone is receiving the blessings he spoke of today-
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD:
What people don't teach their neighbor? What people know the Lord, from the least to the greatest, not needing teaching? I don't know of any.
Has He not written His law upon our hearts? Is it not our desire to obey Him? Do we not "know the Lord"? Is He not our God? Are we not His people? Has He not forgiven our iniquities? Does He remember our sins against us?
This statement just doesn't take into account what Jeremiah is saying. Jeremiah tells us there will be a "change" in the hearts and minds of these people. They will have the written word within them, and therefore won't require any teaching from reading or hearing the Word of God.
We must not forget that "we have redemption through His blood" -- that same "blood of the New Covenant." That blood saves us even while Israel gropes in blindness and staggers in unbelief.
But the Bible says that this redemption came under the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant (Hbr 9:15). Therefore, this statement just isn't true.
God Bless!