Did God put Israel's covenant on hold?

[JudgeRightly]

Matthew 21 doesn't conflict with my view. It is not inconsistent with my view.

Cognitive dissonance.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You're thinking in circles RD ---- can you not see that?

The new earth WILL BE a heaven, a paradise, no?

Jerusalem (tied to Israel) comes down upon the NEW Earth, not the current one, which is, as I'm sure you would agree, NOT a heaven. On the other hand, believers in the Body of Christ will reside in the New Heaven, not on the New Earth (not to say that we won't be able to visit, of course, just that our home will be in New Heaven), where we will live for eternity with Christ.

See how simple that is?

 

[Idolater]

Are you seriously unable to follow simple converstion?

I was saying that your personal opinions do nothing to advance your case. Your desire to differ does not trump the explicit teaching of God's word!

The point is that you need to do something more than merely state your position and pull single sentence proof texts out of random spots in the bible.

Make an argument!

What is so difficult to understand here Clete? This couldn't be clearer. Maybe don't just stop reading right at the start of a thought, and actually see the whole thing through. Paul couldn't have been clearer (though he could have been briefer!) that we should not eat food sacrificed to other deities on other altars offered by other priesthoods, because in so abstaining we might save more people!

1st Corinthians 10
28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: 29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? 30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? 31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

The question answers itself!

The Jews abstain from all kinds of things BECAUSE they are Jews. And I do not mean because they are ethnically Jewish (although most of them are that too) but that they are under the law of Moses. Being subject to the law means that there is a whole list of things that Jews must not eat, including, but not limited to, the eating of meat sacrificed to idols. This includes all of the believers who came to Christ before God cut off of Israel and turned instead to the Gentiles through Paul who preached the Gospel of Grace rather than the Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus and the Twelve preached.

He was asking why it was in the law. He knows it's in the law.

Those saved under the gospel of the kingdom (i.e. the Dispensation of Circumcision) remained under the law until their natural death for "For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Romans 11:29), thus Peter agreed with Paul that he (Peter) and the other Apostles who remain in Jerusalem and minister to the Circumcision believers while Paul went to the whole rest of the world. (Galatians 2)


Paul was concerned about causing unnecessary offense. He was teaching people to consider the other more highly than themselves and therefore not to allow their freedom to cause others to stumble. The passages we are talking about are not written in code. They are as easy to understand as they are to read. The only cause of your confusion is that you refuse to acknowledge the Paul wasn't talking to Messianic Jews but to Christians saved under grace who has no need for the law except as a tool to convict potential converts of their sin and need of a savior. Indeed, Paul's entire ministry has to do with constantly telling his followers not to allow themselves to be placed under the law. That was a primary theme in nearly all of his writings, including the Corinthian letters.

Clete

And not being under the law is not the same as there is no code of conduct. Obviously there is.

 

[Clete]

What is so difficult to understand here Clete? This couldn't be clearer. Maybe don't just stop reading right at the start of a thought, and actually see the whole thing through. Paul couldn't have been clearer (though he could have been briefer!) that we should not eat food sacrificed to other deities on other altars offered by other priesthoods, because in so abstaining we might save more people!

1st Corinthians 10
28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: 29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? 30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? 31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

He was asking why it was in the law. He knows it's in the law.

And not being under the law is not the same as there is no code of conduct. Obviously there is.

Hopeless.

When you respond to the argument I've made rather than simply repeating your position, we can continue. Otherwise, I'm bored.

 

[Derf]

Because the Jews are under different House rules (oikonomia) than the Body of Christ.

Things that are different are not the same...

But what was the purpose of the different house rules for the Jews? Did God really tell the Jews to do something (and to continue doing something for 3000 years) that had no meaning. Was it purely just an exercise in following orders without question?

All of them are important, as Jesus said in Matthew 5:19.

But you can see the importance for the "do not murder" law--it's a case of loving your neighbor. I always thought the "don't worship graven images" was a case of loving God. When did that become something different?

OIKONOMIA

Tell me why this is important for determining if an idol is really something or nothing?

Romans 6:1

Indeed!

 

[Right Divider]

But what was the purpose of the different house rules for the Jews? Did God really tell the Jews to do something (and to continue doing something for 3000 years) that had no meaning. Was it purely just an exercise in following orders without question?

The laws had symbolic meanings. For example: all of the feasts had future fulfillment's in the life of Christ.

But you can see the importance for the "do not murder" law--it's a case of loving your neighbor. I always thought the "don't worship graven images" was a case of loving God. When did that become something different?

It didn't. The moral laws were all negative; i.e., do not do something.

 

[JudgeRightly]

But what was the purpose of the different house rules for the Jews?

RD answered this already, but I think it would help to have scripture:

Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine.And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.” - Exodus 19:5-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus19:5-6&version=NKJV

Did God really tell the Jews to do something (and to continue doing something for 3000 years) that had no meaning.

There was plenty of meaning to it, even if they didn't understand the meaning behind it at the time.

Was it purely just an exercise in following orders without question?

Supra.

But you can see the importance for the "do not murder" law--it's a case of loving your neighbor. I always thought the "don't worship graven images" was a case of loving God. When did that become something different?

See RD's answer.

Tell me why this is important for determining if an idol is really something or nothing?

Because depending on the rules, you could either be sinning, but it not be a capital crime, or you could even be put to death justly.

 

[Derf]

The laws had symbolic meanings. For example: all of the feasts had future fulfillment's in the life of Christ.

RD answered this already, but I think it would help to have scripture:

Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine.And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.” - Exodus 19:5-6

Then you both would say that Christ fulfilled the law in the case of idol worship?

It didn't. The moral laws were all negative; i.e., do not do something.

Jesus reworded them more positively: [Mat 22:37, 39-40 KJV] 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. ... 39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

To me that means a command that is part of the law (or "the prophets") should be traceable to either "Love the Lord your God" or "Love your neighbor" or both. If it's not different now from what it was before, then are you saying that idols ARE something to the Jews, but NOT something to the Gentiles? Why? Wouldn't it merely be because they are less mature in the faith?

There was plenty of meaning to it, even if they didn't understand the meaning behind it at the time.

Can you tell me what the meaning was, now that the law has been fulfilled in the life of Christ?

Because depending on the rules, you could either be sinning, but it not be a capital crime, or you could even be put to death justly.

Are you comparing what it meant to the Jews (death) vs what it meant to Paul's converts (just a sin)?

 

[Right Divider]

Then you both would say that Christ fulfilled the law in the case of idol worship?

You are absolutely obsessed with "fulfilling the law". There is no such thing.

 

[Derf]

You are absolutely obsessed with "fulfilling the law". There is no such thing.

I draw your attention to the post I was responding to:

The laws had symbolic meanings. For example: all of the feasts had future fulfillment's in the life of Christ.

 

[Right Divider]

I draw your attention to the post I was responding to:

Your comment that "Christ fulfilled the law" implies that He fulfilled ALL of the law. Many Christians claim that Christ fulfilled the WHOLE law or some such thing.

But not ALL of the feasts have been fulfilled. The feasts are part of the CEREMONIAL law. So the idea of fulfilling the WHOLE law still falls flat. Since Christ did not "fulfill the MORAL law" for anyone.

 

[Derf]

Your comment that "Christ fulfilled the law" implies that He fulfilled ALL of the law. Many Christians claim that Christ fulfilled the WHOLE law or some such thing.

But not ALL of the feasts have been fulfilled. The feasts are part of the CEREMONIAL law. So the idea of fulfilling the WHOLE law still falls flat. Since Christ did not "fulfill the MORAL law" for anyone.

I agree He hasn’t fulfilled all the feasts. I’m not sure I agree He hasn’t fulfilled the moral law. If His adherence to the law was perfect, and He is our righteousness, and the propitiation for our sin (our breaking of the moral law), and because of His death and resurrection we will defeat death and live again, it sure sounds like He has fulfilled the moral law.

 

[DAN P]

So where in the Bible is the everlasting covenant of Hebrews 13:20 put on hold.

And it was put on hold in 2 Cor 3:10-14 says so and Acts 28:28 when Paul turns to the Gentiles .

There are many translations of everlasting covenant in Heb 13:20 and look at G166 and see !

The everlasting covenant is also mentioned in 1 Chr 16:17 and in Psa 105 : 10 .

This just one of many verse that shows why Israel is set aside .

dan p

 

[Right Divider]

I agree He hasn’t fulfilled all the feasts. I’m not sure I agree He hasn’t fulfilled the moral law.

He kept the moral law. There is no such thing as "fulfilling" the moral law.

If His adherence to the law was perfect, and He is our righteousness, and the propitiation for our sin (our breaking of the moral law), and because of His death and resurrection we will defeat death and live again, it sure sounds like He has fulfilled the moral law.

Only if you invent a nonexistent thing.

 

[Idolater]

And it was put on hold in 2 Cor 3:10-14 says so

Doesn't that just say that the Houses of Israel and Judah are blinded to see the New Covenant which has already been dedicated? They don't know the New Covenant has commenced, was enacted, and is currently in force. Isn't that all it says in 2nd Corinthians 3?

and Acts 28:28 when Paul turns to the Gentiles .

That says that Paul will bring the New Covenant to the Gentiles! Certainly not that the New Covenant is on hold!

There are many translations of everlasting covenant in Heb 13:20 and look at G166 and see !

The everlasting covenant is also mentioned in 1 Chr 16:17

Is that the Old Covenant, is it the New Covenant, or is it some other one? Can you identify which covenant this is?

and in Psa 105 : 10 .

This just one of many verse that shows why Israel is set aside .

dan p

Psalm 105 Egypt was glad when [Israel] departed: for the fear of [Israel] fell upon them. 39 [The LORD] spread a cloud for a covering; and fire to give light in the night. 40 The people asked, and he brought quails, and satisfied them with the bread of heaven. 41 He opened the rock, and the waters gushed out; they ran in the dry places like a river. 42 For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham his servant. 43 And he brought forth his people with joy, and his chosen with gladness: 44 And gave them the lands of the heathen: and they inherited the labour of the people; 45 That they might observe his statutes, and keep his laws. Praise ye the LORD.

 

[Clete]

Doesn't that just say that the Houses of Israel and Judah are blinded to see the New Covenant which has already been dedicated? They don't know the New Covenant has commenced, was enacted, and is currently in force. Isn't that all it says in 2nd Corinthians 3?

That says that Paul will bring the New Covenant to the Gentiles! Certainly not that the New Covenant is on hold!

Is that the Old Covenant, is it the New Covenant, or is it some other one? Can you identify which covenant this is?

Psalm 105 Egypt was glad when [Israel] departed: for the fear of [Israel] fell upon them. 39 [The LORD] spread a cloud for a covering; and fire to give light in the night. 40 The people asked, and he brought quails, and satisfied them with the bread of heaven. 41 He opened the rock, and the waters gushed out; they ran in the dry places like a river. 42 For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham his servant. 43 And he brought forth his people with joy, and his chosen with gladness: 44 And gave them the lands of the heathen: and they inherited the labour of the people; 45 That they might observe his statutes, and keep his laws. Praise ye the LORD.

Short answer to a complex question is....

The new covenant is (was) with believing Israel and is described in detail in Hebrews (which was written to.......wait for it........the Hebrews!).

We are not partakers of that covenant because we are not Jews. There aren't any Jews any longer, at least not as far as God and salvation are concerned. Of course, Jews still exist as a people and God will return to them once the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and, when He does, it will be the New Covenant that will govern the corporate relationship between God and Israel.

For now, Israel has been cut off (Romans 9 and elsewhere) and there is neither Jew nor Gentile (Gal. 3:28) and thus no covenant (new or otherwise). Covenant is a legal term. It is a contract and forms a legal relationship where both parties have their own water to carry. No such relationship exists in the Body of Christ. Today, it is about grace, not law, for you cannot enter into a covenant with a dead man.

Galatians 2:19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”​

​

 

[Idolater]

Short answer to a complex question is....

The new covenant is (was) with believing Israel and is described in detail in Hebrews (which was written to.......wait for it........the Hebrews!).

We are not partakers of that covenant because we are not Jews.

We're not parties to the contract, I agree with that. It is between God the Father and all of Israel.

There aren't any Jews any longer, at least not as far as God and salvation are concerned.

There are to this day genetically distinct Jews, most of them live in either America or in the modern country Israel.

Of course, Jews still exist as a people and God will return to them once the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, and, when He does, it will be the New Covenant that will govern the corporate relationship between God and Israel.

Israel is going to return to God, you have it backward. But the New Covenant has not been on hold all this time. But see Acts 3:21 there are some terms that aren't going to be fulfilled until Christ comes back, and that does depend apparently upon Israel returning to God.

For now, Israel has been cut off (Romans 9 and elsewhere)

2nd Corinthians 3: There is a veil over their hearts, but it's up to them to remove it (verse 16).

and there is neither Jew nor Gentile (Gal. 3:28) and thus no covenant (new or otherwise).

That doesn't follow. The New Covenant was and is between God the Father and all of Israel, mediated by the One High Priest of the Covenant the Lord Jesus Christ. He represented (and represents eternally) Israel in dealing with the Father. He also represented the Father in dealing with Israel. And Israel was represented by the twelve Apostles who are elevated to the level of the twelve patriarchs in the book of Revelation and in Heaven (because they represent all of Israel).

The conclusion of Christ's time on Earth (this time around) is the "Great Commission," and that includes Gentiles.

Covenant is a legal term. It is a contract and forms a legal relationship where both parties have their own water to carry.

Yeah, and the water that Christ instructed Israel to carry is His Church. He said, I'm going to build it on Peter, who is one of the twelve Apostles representing the twelve tribes of Israel in the New Covenant. It's also the Great Commission.

And there is no Gentile representative in the New Covenant, that's surely true enough, even the Apostle to the Gentiles Paul is a Jew, so there isn't any doubt that all the Apostles were all Jews, which is only right, seeing as how they represent the twelve tribes of all Israel.

Also there aren't any tribes discernable anymore, and even in Jesus's day, there were only like three left, all the rest had culturally (through intermarrying) blended together (all between themselves). The twelve tribes today iow are all one big tribe, all Jewish people today are all of Israel, but there aren't anymore discernable tribes----but the Apostles (12 of them) were the 12 representatives of the 12 tribes of all Israel, who entered into the New Covenant with God.

No such relationship exists in the Body of Christ. Today, it is about grace, not law

False dichotomy, there's many Scriptures where grace is essential to the New Covenant.

, for you cannot enter into a covenant with a dead man.

Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant which is between God the Father and all of Israel. But its terms include the Gentiles, see below.

Galatians 2:19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”​

​

Christ died for a predetermined purpose, He knew what His work was before He became man, it was not by accident that He died----it was the plan.

Why didn't Jesus want His disciples to make Him known before the 'DBR' ?

" But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all; 16 And charged them that they should not make him known: 17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, 18 Behold my servant, whom I have...

theologyonline.com

And the plan included Gentiles, Genesis 12:3 (cf. Acts 3:25, Galatians 3:8), Isaiah 49, others.

 

[Clete]

We're not parties to the contract, I agree with that. It is between God the Father and all of Israel.

There are to this day genetically distinct Jews, most of them live in either America or in the modern country Israel.

Israel is going to return to God, you have it backward. But the New Covenant has not been on hold all this time. But see Acts 3:21 there are some terms that aren't going to be fulfilled until Christ comes back, and that does depend apparently upon Israel returning to God.

2nd Corinthians 3: There is a veil over their hearts, but it's up to them to remove it (verse 16).

That doesn't follow. The New Covenant was and is between God the Father and all of Israel, mediated by the One High Priest of the Covenant the Lord Jesus Christ. He represented (and represents eternally) Israel in dealing with the Father. He also represented the Father in dealing with Israel. And Israel was represented by the twelve Apostles who are elevated to the level of the twelve patriarchs in the book of Revelation and in Heaven (because they represent all of Israel).

The conclusion of Christ's time on Earth (this time around) is the "Great Commission," and that includes Gentiles.

Yeah, and the water that Christ instructed Israel to carry is His Church. He said, I'm going to build it on Peter, who is one of the twelve Apostles representing the twelve tribes of Israel in the New Covenant. It's also the Great Commission.

And there is no Gentile representative in the New Covenant, that's surely true enough, even the Apostle to the Gentiles Paul is a Jew, so there isn't any doubt that all the Apostles were all Jews, which is only right, seeing as how they represent the twelve tribes of all Israel.

Also there aren't any tribes discernable anymore, and even in Jesus's day, there were only like three left, all the rest had culturally (through intermarrying) blended together (all between themselves). The twelve tribes today iow are all one big tribe, all Jewish people today are all of Israel, but there aren't anymore discernable tribes----but the Apostles (12 of them) were the 12 representatives of the 12 tribes of all Israel, who entered into the New Covenant with God.

False dichotomy, there's many Scriptures where grace is essential to the New Covenant.

Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant which is between God the Father and all of Israel. But its terms include the Gentiles, see below.

Christ died for a predetermined purpose, He knew what His work was before He became man, it was not by accident that He died----it was the plan.

Why didn't Jesus want His disciples to make Him known before the 'DBR' ?

" But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all; 16 And charged them that they should not make him known: 17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, 18 Behold my servant, whom I have...

theologyonline.com

And the plan included Gentiles, Genesis 12:3 (cf. Acts 3:25, Galatians 3:8), Isaiah 49, others.

So all of that was almost entirely unresponsive to the point. It seems you look for opportunity to focus on semantics and run off onto rabbit trails so as to avoid the issue at hand.

The point is, that the New Covenant has nothing to do with you or any other believer today.
It cannot even be entered into by a person who happens to be a Jew in the genetic sense of the term. Such a person would come to Christ the same way anyone else does because, today, there is neither Jew nor Gentile (Galatians 3:28).

The New Covenant was put into abeyance when Israel was cut off (ROMANS 9 and elsewhere) and will not be in force again until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in and God returns to His dealings with the nation of Israel, which is fitting because the New Covenant is a covenant of law (i.e. it is a modified version of the Old Covenant as described in some detail in the book of Hebrews) and Israel (a.k.a. the Hebrews) is the people of the law (Jeremiah 31:33), while we, the member of the Body of Christ, are not under law but under GRACE ONLY, APART from the law (Romans 3 - the whole chapter) (i.e. the fact that grace under-girds Israel's covenant is beside the point).

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

Why would God simply 'walk away from' the then 1500 year old institution of the office of a bishop (cf. 1 Tim 3:1)?

The "office of a bishop" appears only in Paul's epistles. It has nothing to do with the priesthood of Israel.

1500 years straight without a hiccup (on the fixed institution, not to say there weren't many disputes along the way), but then God suddenly abandons this institution, established by the Apostles themselves?

What about the 400 years of silence of God to Israel? That's a pretty big hiccup.

We have that recorded in the Bible.

Your view of what is recorded in the Bible is badly tainted by the RCC and its false doctrines.

 

[Idolater]

The point is, that the New Covenant has nothing to do with you or any other believer today.

I demonstrated through Scripture this was always untrue, even going all the way back to Abraham (Genesis 12:3, cf. Acts 3:25 and Galatians 3:8). While not a party to the New Covenant, the blessings and requirements fall on believing Gentiles who convert to Christ. The only thing we don't have coming to us is the land. That part requires all of Israel to return to God.

It cannot even be entered into by a person who happens to be a Jew in the genetic sense of the term. Such a person would come to Christ the same way anyone else does because, today, there is neither Jew nor Gentile (Galatians 3:28).

"IN CHRIST," which is, in the Church. And of course in the Church there is no Jew or Gentile; the land promise made to all of Israel and not to Gentiles though, are waiting "until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began" (Acts 3:21).

The New Covenant was put into abeyance when Israel was cut off (ROMANS 9 and elsewhere)

I grant that the land promises are "on hold," but the everlasting New Covenant is not otherwise "on hold" while the Lord Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father.

and will not be in force again until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in and God returns to His dealings with the nation of Israel, which is fitting because the New Covenant is a covenant of law (i.e. it is a modified version of the Old Covenant as described in some detail in the book of Hebrews

Right, it is an amendment of the Old Covenant, some things remain, some things are different. See below.

) and Israel (a.k.a. the Hebrews) is the people of the law (Jeremiah 31:33), while we, the member of the Body of Christ, are not under law but under GRACE ONLY, APART from the law (Romans 3 - the whole chapter)

Leviticus 19:18 is still in force for Gentiles in the New Covenant. Confer Romans 13:9 and Galatians 5:14.

(i.e. the fact that grace under-girds Israel's covenant is beside the point).

Clete

It isn't beside the point. "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17).

As I said and which you did not address, the plan was always for the Lord to be put to death, to dedicate the New Covenant, and it was specifically not just because God so loved all of Israel, but because He so loved "the world," that Christ came (John 3:16!). That was always the plan, as I indicated through Old Testament Scripture, which the Apostles confirmed and which I also referenced.

The parties to the New Covenant are God the Father (represented by the Son) and all of Israel (represented by the 12 Apostles), but the blessings and requirements include Gentiles, the only part which does not is the land. And the Lord Jesus is also the One mediator of the New Covenant, in that He also represented all of Israel in dealing with the Father, and all of the Gentiles, in His sacrificial death on the altar of the cross (1st Corinthians 15:3!).

You just don't seem to understand the terms of the New Covenant.