ECT Heb 9 vs the "club"

[Interplanner]

The new covenant in Hebrews 9 is:
>present tense
>deals with sin/justification from sin
>says nothing about a separate restoration of Israel as a nation.
The new covenant was Christ's performance that Israel failed to do. 'Sacrifices and offerings, you did not desire, but a body you have prepared.'--this was the 2nd party of this event explaining his role in it. Back in Isaiah, the Father had said of the Servant: 'I have made you a covenant for the nations...' That's it. If you can't see this taking shape in Hebrews 9, it's pretty hopeless.

The "club" is flat wrong in denying these. They claim to be champions of plain meaning, yet every time they get near Heb 9:
>They deny it is present tense by postponing it to the millenium. They are constantly saying it is not now--applicable now.
>they are so concerned with land promises that they don't exult in the victory over sin and guilt here
>they "see" (imagine) all kinds of reference to a separate restoration in Israel. Separate = Christians in heaven, Jews is Judea. There is one item back in the quote from Jer that shows the joining of Israel and Judah but this is far from a total land separation, which is debunked by the rest of Hebrews. Equally disturbing is the blatant rejection of any other ref to the new covenant in the synoptics or I Cor 11.

 

[Danoh]

The new covenant in Hebrews 9 is:
>present tense
>deals with sin/justification from sin
>says nothing about a separate restoration of Israel as a nation.
The new covenant was Christ's performance that Israel failed to do. 'Sacrifices and offerings, you did not desire, but a body you have prepared.'--this was the 2nd party of this event explaining his role in it. Back in Isaiah, the Father had said of the Servant: 'I have made you a covenant for the nations...' That's it. If you can't see this taking shape in Hebrews 9, it's pretty hopeless.

The "club" is flat wrong in denying these. They claim to be champions of plain meaning, yet every time they get near Heb 9:
>They deny it is present tense by postponing it to the millenium. They are constantly saying it is not now--applicable now.
>they are so concerned with land promises that they don't exult in the victory over sin and guilt here
>they "see" (imagine) all kinds of reference to a separate restoration in Israel. Separate = Christians in heaven, Jews is Judea. There is one item back in the quote from Jer that shows the joining of Israel and Judah but this is far from a total land separation, which is debunked by the rest of Hebrews. Equally disturbing is the blatant rejection of any other ref to the new covenant in the synoptics or I Cor 11.

Your teachings of men based hybrid; versus theirs.

It is what it is...

 

[Nick M]

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come


:chuckle:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The new covenant in Hebrews 9 is:
>present tense
>deals with sin/justification from sin
>says nothing about a separate restoration of Israel as a nation.

You confuse the New Covenant with the New Testament, specifically the Last Will and Testament of the Lord Jesus:

"Therefore, He is the mediator of a new testament (diatheke), so that those who are called might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance, because a death has taken place for redemption from the transgressions committed under the first covenant (diatheke)" (Heb.9:15).​

At Hebrews 9:15 the promise which is in regard to the "New Diatheke" is about an "inheritance," and under a Last Will and Testament it is the "heirs" who receive this inheritance. That is in accordance with the Scriptures which declares that one becomes a heir by the Lord Jesus' Last Will and Testament, the gospel:

"That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel" (Eph.3:6).​

In his commentary on Hebrews 9:15-22 Matthew Henry wrote that "In these verses the apostle considers the gospel under the notion of a will or testament, the new or last will and testament of Christ..." (Matthew Henry, Commentary on Hebrews 9:15-22)

We can also see that it is a Last Will and Testament which is in view at Hebrews 9:15 because the verses which follow cannot be speaking of anything other than a will:

"For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a testament is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives" (Heb.9:16-17).

Sir Robert Anderson writes that "Our spiritual and eternal blessings do not depend on a covenant made with us, but upon a testament under which we are beneficiaries" (Anderson, Types in Hebrews [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1978], p.56).

 

[Interplanner]

You confuse the New Covenant with the New Testament, specifically the Last Will and Testament of the Lord Jesus:

"Therefore, He is the mediator of a new testament (diatheke), so that those who are called might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance, because a death has taken place for redemption from the transgressions committed under the first covenant (diatheke)" (Heb.9:15).​

At Hebrews 9:15 the promise which is in regard to the "New Diatheke" is about an "inheritance," and under a Last Will and Testament it is the "heirs" who receive this inheritance. That is in accordance with the Scriptures which declares that one becomes a heir by the Lord Jesus' Last Will and Testament, the gospel:

"That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel" (Eph.3:6).​

In his commentary on Hebrews 9:15-22 Matthew Henry wrote that "In these verses the apostle considers the gospel under the notion of a will or testament, the new or last will and testament of Christ..." (Matthew Henry, Commentary on Hebrews 9:15-22)

We can also see that it is a Last Will and Testament which is in view at Hebrews 9:15 because the verses which follow cannot be speaking of anything other than a will:

"For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a testament is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives" (Heb.9:16-17).

Sir Robert Anderson writes that "Our spiritual and eternal blessings do not depend on a covenant made with us, but upon a testament under which we are beneficiaries" (Anderson, Types in Hebrews [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1978], p.56).

Most of this is worthless (splitting something needlessly that is unified) because the one term involved is 'diatheke' but the last quote is great because it is exacty what I have been saying. He , Christ, was the covenant party ON OUR BEHALF. It wasn't a covenant made with us directly, nor will be it be made with Israel. It was Christ acting for us, and for failed Israel. Nice! We benefit through Christ, just as in Gal 3 we benefit through the Seed which is Christ, not directly, which would and has made people seek out the perfect DNA who would be beneficiaries.

 

[Interplanner]

Please don't muck up something with legal crap and complications that is really beautiful demonstration of the victory over sin for us. Sheesh.

 

[Tambora]

Oh no, not the CLUB !!!!!! :jawdrop:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The new covenant in Hebrews 9 is:
>present tense
>deals with sin/justification from sin
>says nothing about a separate restoration of Israel as a nation.
The new covenant was Christ's performance that Israel failed to do. 'Sacrifices and offerings, you did not desire, but a body you have prepared.'--this was the 2nd party of this event explaining his role in it. Back in Isaiah, the Father had said of the Servant: 'I have made you a covenant for the nations...' That's it. If you can't see this taking shape in Hebrews 9, it's pretty hopeless.

The "club" is flat wrong in denying these. They claim to be champions of plain meaning, yet every time they get near Heb 9:
>They deny it is present tense by postponing it to the millenium. They are constantly saying it is not now--applicable now.
>they are so concerned with land promises that they don't exult in the victory over sin and guilt here
>they "see" (imagine) all kinds of reference to a separate restoration in Israel. Separate = Christians in heaven, Jews is Judea. There is one item back in the quote from Jer that shows the joining of Israel and Judah but this is far from a total land separation, which is debunked by the rest of Hebrews. Equally disturbing is the blatant rejection of any other ref to the new covenant in the synoptics or I Cor 11.

Put down the commentaries, and believe what you read.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Most of this is worthless (splitting something needlessly that is unified) because the one term involved is 'diatheke' but the last quote is great because it is exacty what I have been saying. He , Christ, was the covenant party ON OUR BEHALF. It wasn't a covenant made with us directly, nor will be it be made with Israel. It was Christ acting for us, and for failed Israel. Nice! We benefit through Christ, just as in Gal 3 we benefit through the Seed which is Christ, not directly, which would and has made people seek out the perfect DNA who would be beneficiaries.

You only prove that your Spiritual IQ is non-existent because you are unable to tell the difference between a "covenant" and a "testament."

 

[Interplanner]

You only prove that your Spiritual IQ is non-existent because you are unable to tell the difference between a "covenant" and a "testament."

You're pretty desparate. In 40 years of biblical study, you are the first person to say so. So enjoy your minute of importance, but the point is moot, and the term is 'diatheke.' this is just a stupid sideshow and exception because the 'club' is so flat mistaken about the new covenant features as found in Heb 9 compared to their own.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

In 40 years of biblical study, you are the first person to say so.

You just gave yourself away. You equate Bible Study with what others say (commentaries).
You are fraudulent.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You're pretty desparate. In 40 years of biblical study, you are the first person to say so. So enjoy your minute of importance, but the point is moot, and the term is 'diatheke.' this is just a stupid sideshow and exception because the 'club' is so flat mistaken about the new covenant features as found in Heb 9 compared to their own.

I disagree with Jerry about covenant/testament, but Jerry has forgotten more Bible than you have ever known.
He quotes the scripture, and ties them all together to make a relevant point. Your ramblings are random thoughts picked up from commentaries.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You're pretty desparate. In 40 years of biblical study, you are the first person to say so. So enjoy your minute of importance, but the point is moot, and the term is 'diatheke.' this is just a stupid sideshow and exception because the 'club' is so flat mistaken about the new covenant features as found in Heb 9 compared to their own.

Obviously you do not want to know that the Greek word diatheke has more than one meaning.

Adolf Deissmann wrote:

"Perhaps the most necessary investigation still waiting to be made is that relating to the word 'diatheke,' which so many scholars translate unhesitatingly 'covenant' …. To St. Paul the word [diatheke] meant what it meant in his Greek Old Testament, 'a unilateral enactment,' in particular 'a will or testament.' This one point concerns more than the merely superficial question whether we are to write 'New Testament' or 'New Covenant' on the title-page of the sacred volume; it becomes ultimately the great question of all religious history: a religion of grace, or a religion of works?" (Adolf Deissmann, Light From the Ancient East, translated by Lionel R.M. Strachan [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1927], 337-338).​

J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan say that diatheke "is properly 'dispositio,' an 'arrangement' made by one party with plenary power, which the other party may accept or reject, but cannot alter. A 'will' is simply the most conspicuous example of such an instrument, which ultimately monopolized the word just because it suited its differentia so completely" [emphasis added] (J.H. Molton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930], 148).

 

[Interplanner]

Christ fulfilled what was necessary as required by God as the Representative Man. Stop fixing it into another secret knowledge ugly concoction that few know what it means.

Christ fulfilled the law for us so we can have righteousness through him, Rom 10:4.

Hebrews 9 is about the new covenant NOW, IN CHRIST, OUR SINS and NOT ABOUT ISRAEL IN THE FUTURE. Your rejection of this is the evil you perpetuate by the adulterous (2 Cor 11) and witchcrafted position (Gal 3) that there are other gospels.

 

[Interplanner]

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come


:chuckle:

Check the texts and manuscripts and Greek comments, Nick. The idea is that they were to come (relative to the old covenant) and they are now here (in the present sense). That is why when then main originals are compared "things that are already here" is the majority reading. (That is a case when you compare the following best Greek texts:
Aleph
A
B
D
p46
Because they are the most complete and the most used by ECFs, etc.

Christ brought the things that are already here. I hope your sins are covered because that is what was offered. Why would you want things that were later, when they are already here?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Hebrews 9 is about the new covenant NOW, IN CHRIST, OUR SINS and NOT ABOUT ISRAEL IN THE FUTURE. Your rejection of this is the evil you perpetuate by the adulterous (2 Cor 11) and witchcrafted position (Gal 3) that there are other gospels.

No, in Hebrews 9 the reference is to the New Testament:

"For where a testament (diatheke) is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament (diatheke) is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth" (Heb.9:16-17).​

Dean Alford wrote that "It is quite vain to deny the testamentary sense of 'diatheke' in this verse....I believe it will be found that we must at all hazards accept the meaning of 'testament,' as being the only one which will in any way meet the plain requirement of the verse" [emphasis added] (Alford, The Greek Testament, IV:173, 174; cf. the renderings of ASV, RSV).

Zane C. Hodges writes that the author of Hebrews "treated the Greek word for 'covenant' (diatheke) in the sense of a will. While 'covenants' and 'wills' are not in all respects identical, the author meant that in the last analysis the New Covenant is really a testamentary disposition. Like human wills, all the arrangements are secured by the testator and its beneficiaries need only accept its terms" [emphasis added] (The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, ed. Walvoord & Zuck [Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor Publishing 1983], p.802).

Scott Murray wrote that "the sense of 'last will and testament' was the primary and most prevalent meaning of the word 'diatheke' in Hellenistic Greek" (Murray, "The Concept of Diatheke in the Letter to the Hebrews," Concordia Theological Quarterly, Vol. 66:1, Jan., 2002, p.54-55).

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Check the texts and manuscripts and Greek comments, Nick. The idea is that they were to come (relative to the old covenant) and they are now here (in the present sense). That is why when then main originals are compared "things that are already here" is the majority reading. (That is a case when you compare the following best Greek texts:
Aleph
A
B
D
p46
Because they are the most complete and the most used by ECFs, etc.

Christ brought the things that are already here. I hope your sins are covered because that is what was offered. Why would you want things that were later, when they are already here?

:chuckle:

 

[Nang]

I disagree with Jerry about covenant/testament, but Jerry has forgotten more Bible than you have ever known.
He quotes the scripture, and ties them all together to make a relevant point. Your ramblings are random thoughts picked up from commentaries.

Do you not acknowledge that every post you make in reference to Scripture, is "commentary?"

We all make "commentary" on TOL continuously.

You can not take a principled stand against commentaries, and remain active on these forums.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Do you not acknowledge that every post you make in reference to Scripture, is "commentary?"

We all make "commentary" on TOL continuously.

You can not take a principled stand against commentaries, and remain active on these forums.

:jawdrop:

IP studies commentaries, he does not study the Bible.
So do you, for that matter.

 

[Nang]

:jawdrop:

IP studies commentaries, he does not study the Bible.
So do you, for that matter.

For the first 20+ years of my Christian life, I shunned commentaries and read Scripture only. It was by this method that I escaped the error and the dispensational church my husband and I were wrongly attending and being brainwashed by.

After our being led to Reformed teaching, and finding biblical confirmation the change was from the Lord, we enhanced our bible study by referencing sound Protestant commentaries, in order to avoid further misleading by unsound religionists.

To this day, I only reference a commentary when puzzled and needful of clarification.

I would like to know, why you would ever tell another Christian, they do not read their bibles but only study commentaries? You are not clairvoyant, are you?

No. You are just ornery . . .