EVERLASTING OLD COVENANT (Jew V Christian)

[gideondavid40]

When I asked a Jew about whether the new covenant made the old covenant obsolete, here was his response.

"I will start with a verse “The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul.” Psalm 19:8
God law is perfect. Let me begin…
So why is there a contradiction you ask.

Where a new vs old concept maybe confused is in Jeremiah. The issue at hand is a discussion with the Jewish people. Let me explain by citing Jeremiah 31:31 claiming it speaks of a “New Covenant” that makes the covenant of Torah Law obsolete, as the New Testament says, “By calling the new covenant ‘new’, He has made the first obsolete" – Hebrews 8:13 which you cited in your discussion raises this.

This claim that you say contradicts dozens of passages that say the commandments are eternal, for example, "The statutes, the ordinances, the law, and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall be careful to observe forever." – 2 Kings 17:37, and “He has commanded His covenant forever” – Psalm 111:9. God also promised He would never break His covenant with the Jews as it says, “I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them” – Leviticus 26:44. In context, Jeremiah 31 speaks of a new and improved covenant. In addition to not being broken by God, this covenant will no longer be broken by the Jewish people because, in the future messianic age, God will give the Jews a new heart, and they will no longer be tempted to transgress the commandments. (See Ezekiel 36:26-27)

In conclusion confounding terms in the word maybe where the confusion begins that is statutes, the ordinances, the law, and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall be careful to observe forever." – 2 Kings 17:37, and “He has commanded His covenant forever” – Psalm 111:9.

 

[sooda]

A righteous and wise individual whom Ezekiel places in the company of Noah and Job (Ezek. 14:14, 20; 28:3). Although the name is vocalized “Daniel” by the Masoretes and by most English translations, the Hebrew spelling suggests “Danel” is more correct. Thus, there may be a connection between Ezekiel’s Danel and the Danel of the Aqhat text from Ugarit (2nd millennium B.C.), an esteemed judge who protected the rights of widows and orphans. The connection is more plausible when one considers that Ezekiel alludes to Daniel in an oracle against Tyre (Ezek. 28), for the cultures of Ugarit and Tyre were both Canaanite . The hero of the book that bears his name. The book of Daniel tells of a Jewish youth who was taken into exile in Babylon, where the Babylonians trained him to serve as one of the king’s counselors.” [William B. Nelson, Jr. “Daniel.” Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. ed. David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 311.]

1. First, the spelling of the name is of no consequence since these are variant spellings of the same name. [Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 1-24, 448.]

Is The “Daniel” of Ezekiel 28 The Same Person As The Book of Daniel?

 

[Tumah]

When I asked a Jew about whether the new covenant made the old covenant obsolete, here was his response.

"I will start with a verse “The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul.” Psalm 19:8
God law is perfect. Let me begin…
So why is there a contradiction you ask.

Where a new vs old concept maybe confused is in Jeremiah. The issue at hand is a discussion with the Jewish people. Let me explain by citing Jeremiah 31:31 claiming it speaks of a “New Covenant” that makes the covenant of Torah Law obsolete, as the New Testament says, “By calling the new covenant ‘new’, He has made the first obsolete" – Hebrews 8:13 which you cited in your discussion raises this.

This claim that you say contradicts dozens of passages that say the commandments are eternal, for example, "The statutes, the ordinances, the law, and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall be careful to observe forever." – 2 Kings 17:37, and “He has commanded His covenant forever” – Psalm 111:9. God also promised He would never break His covenant with the Jews as it says, “I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them” – Leviticus 26:44. In context, Jeremiah 31 speaks of a new and improved covenant. In addition to not being broken by God, this covenant will no longer be broken by the Jewish people because, in the future messianic age, God will give the Jews a new heart, and they will no longer be tempted to transgress the commandments. (See Ezekiel 36:26-27)

In conclusion confounding terms in the word maybe where the confusion begins that is statutes, the ordinances, the law, and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall be careful to observe forever." – 2 Kings 17:37, and “He has commanded His covenant forever” – Psalm 111:9.

No. Confounding the issue is that you are reading what you want into Jeremiah.

Jeremiah doesn't say that G-d will give us a new Law, but a new Covenant. Previously, the Torah was bound to us under a covenant where we were to access the Law externally, through study. Under the new Covenant, we would not need to study in order to access the very same Law, we would be able to look inward and know it. I will not need my Rabbi to teach my the Laws of Sabbath, or to avoid eating the first three years of fruit from a tree, or to attach strings to my four-cornered clothing. I will simply know it.

The Law of G-d is perfect, everlasting, forever, etc. And there will come a time, says Jeremiah, where we will know it without being taught it.

 

[LightofTruth]

When I asked a Jew about whether the new covenant made the old covenant obsolete, here was his response.

"I will start with a verse “The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul.” Psalm 19:8
God law is perfect. Let me begin…
So why is there a contradiction you ask.

Where a new vs old concept maybe confused is in Jeremiah. The issue at hand is a discussion with the Jewish people. Let me explain by citing Jeremiah 31:31 claiming it speaks of a “New Covenant” that makes the covenant of Torah Law obsolete, as the New Testament says, “By calling the new covenant ‘new’, He has made the first obsolete" – Hebrews 8:13 which you cited in your discussion raises this.

This claim that you say contradicts dozens of passages that say the commandments are eternal, for example, "The statutes, the ordinances, the law, and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall be careful to observe forever." – 2 Kings 17:37, and “He has commanded His covenant forever” – Psalm 111:9. God also promised He would never break His covenant with the Jews as it says, “I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them” – Leviticus 26:44. In context, Jeremiah 31 speaks of a new and improved covenant. In addition to not being broken by God, this covenant will no longer be broken by the Jewish people because, in the future messianic age, God will give the Jews a new heart, and they will no longer be tempted to transgress the commandments. (See Ezekiel 36:26-27)

In conclusion confounding terms in the word maybe where the confusion begins that is statutes, the ordinances, the law, and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall be careful to observe forever." – 2 Kings 17:37, and “He has commanded His covenant forever” – Psalm 111:9.

The problem is not with the covenant but with the flesh. Under the Mosaic system of laws was included the priesthood and sacrifices not to mention the judgments for not fully adhering to it.

Any Jew who is still under that covenant need to keep its demands or else.

 

[Lionel Refson]

Let's not forget God's Blessing and Covenant to the sons of Noah, the only true Blessing and Covenant ever given, unless of course you believe that God somehow made an error with the words God spoke, in which case you would be a blasphemer.
God spoke to the children of Noah. God never spoke again. We know this because we believe God could never make an ommission/error/mistake

 

[Redemptionsong]

No. Confounding the issue is that you are reading what you want into Jeremiah.

Jeremiah doesn't say that G-d will give us a new Law, but a new Covenant. Previously, the Torah was bound to us under a covenant where we were to access the Law externally, through study. Under the new Covenant, we would not need to study in order to access the very same Law, we would be able to look inward and know it. I will not need my Rabbi to teach my the Laws of Sabbath, or to avoid eating the first three years of fruit from a tree, or to attach strings to my four-cornered clothing. I will simply know it.

The Law of G-d is perfect, everlasting, forever, etc. And there will come a time, says Jeremiah, where we will know it without being taught it.

Hi,
We are told in the Tanakh that the law of the LORD is perfect [Ps. 19] . But many of the laws are temporal in nature. Surely, it is the truth they point to that is eternal and everlasting.

So what came first, the law or the LORD? Surely, the law is only perfect because the Law-Giver is perfect.

The better way is not to know the temporal law better, but to know the eternal giver of the law better. And the only way to know the LORD better is through Jesus Christ and his Holy Spirit.

The New Testament tells us that temporal laws (as perfect as they are) point towards eternal truths in the person of Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 10:9 -18, ' Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first [covenant], that he may establish the second [covenant]. By the which will, we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From hence forth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he hath said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.'

 

[Wandering Monk]

Jesus himself says he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Nearly any Jew can tell you, that in rabbinic parlance, 'abolish' and 'fulfill' in this sense means to 'nullify' and 'affirm or establish.' I can provide numerous examples of this if you like.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Additionally, if you read beyond Jeremiah 31:31 you will see the 'better promises' of the New Covenant through chapters 31 to 34.

• I will put my Torah within them.

• I will write my Torah on their hearts.

• All Israel will “know the LORD.”

• I will forgive their wickedness.

• I will not remember their sins.

• Israel will never cease to be a nation before God.

• I will never reject the seed of Israel.

• I will rebuild Jerusalem as an eternal structure.

• The entire city will be holy to the LORD.

• The Messiah will rule on David’s throne.

• The Levitical priesthood will serve in the Temple before me.

 

[pearl]

Let's not forget God's Blessing and Covenant to the sons of Noah,

Nor the Covenant with Abraham, absolute and eternal.

 

[metis]

Just for the record, the Catholic Church does feel that these covenants are both valid, and numerous recent popes have had dialogues and even joint services with various Jewish communities.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Let's not forget God's Blessing and Covenant to the sons of Noah, the only true Blessing and Covenant ever given, unless of course you believe that God somehow made an error with the words God spoke, in which case you would be a blasphemer.
God spoke to the children of Noah. God never spoke again. We know this because we believe God could never make an ommission/error/mistake

Technically it doesn't say God speaks to Noah. It uses a different term.

Hi,
We are told in the Tanakh that the law of the LORD is perfect [Ps. 19] . But many of the laws are temporal in nature. Surely, it is the truth they point to that is eternal and everlasting.

So what came first, the law or the LORD? Surely, the law is only perfect because the Law-Giver is perfect.

The better way is not to know the temporal law better, but to know the eternal giver of the law better. And the only way to know the LORD better is through Jesus Christ and his Holy Spirit.

The New Testament tells us that temporal laws (as perfect as they are) point towards eternal truths in the person of Jesus Christ.
Hebrews 10:9 -18, ' Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will, we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From hence forth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he hath said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.'

For all practical purposes Hebrews is merely arguments, not a list of star locations. Its is pointless to print its opinions as if they were facts, particularly if we don't understand its arguments.

 

[shunyadragon]

The similarity in the different religions each claiming that their revelation and supersedes the previous Revelation is also common within the OT (Torah and Tanakh). where spiritual laws and revelation as to the nature of God's relation to humanity changed over time. To claim impermanence and no change is common with each religion over time as with Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

The reality that ancient religions avoid is the spiritual and physical nature of humanity is diverse and evolved over time, and the choose to live and remain in the past paradigme.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Technically it doesn't say God speaks to Noah. It uses a different term.


For all practical purposes Hebrews is merely arguments, not a list of star locations. Its is pointless to print its opinions as if they were facts, particularly if we don't understand its arguments.

I'm sorry if the point was missed.

For Christians, the book of Hebrews has as much weight prophetically as any of the books of the Old Testament. And of more significance than my opinion, or that of other Christians, is the witness provided by Jesus himself, who chose Paul as his apostle and prophet.

In the passage quoted, Paul points out that the sacrificial practices of the Old Testament did not have the power to cleanse from sin. The sacrifice of blood demonstrated obedience and right intention, but did not have the power to 'wipe the slate clean'.

As Paul says elsewhere, 'Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he [Jesus] entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.' [Hebrews 9:12]

 

[Amicus]

No. Confounding the issue is that you are reading what you want into Jeremiah.

Jeremiah doesn't say that G-d will give us a new Law, but a new Covenant. Previously, the Torah was bound to us under a covenant where we were to access the Law externally, through study. Under the new Covenant, we would not need to study in order to access the very same Law, we would be able to look inward and know it. I will not need my Rabbi to teach my the Laws of Sabbath, or to avoid eating the first three years of fruit from a tree, or to attach strings to my four-cornered clothing. I will simply know it.

The Law of G-d is perfect, everlasting, forever, etc. And there will come a time, says Jeremiah, where we will know it without being taught it.

Response to the above, infra:

In Jeremiah 31-34 it also talks about how God will forgive the Jewish people. What Jeremiah declares is that God will establish a "new covenant" yes, but this is in regards with Israel, that is it is unlike the old and will be faithfully observed by Israel, because it will become innately part of their being.

In short is it fair or more likely than not that God will then grant them freedom from subjection to their foes according to Leviticus 26:44 which collaborates and substantiates?

 

[Brickjectivity]

In the passage quoted, Paul points out that the sacrificial practices of the Old Testament did not have the power to cleanse from sin.

Paul's work is exegesis from Torah and prophets, but its preposterous quoting his exegesis to outsiders like they are supposed to accept him on reputation. Its insulting, too.

 

[Tumah]

Hi,
We are told in the Tanakh that the law of the LORD is perfect [Ps. 19].

That's right!

But many of the laws are temporal in nature. Surely, it is the truth they point to that is eternal and everlasting.

Yes, all of them relate to time.

So what came first, the law or the LORD? Surely, the law is only perfect because the Law-Giver is perfect.

The better way is not to know the temporal law better, but to know the eternal giver of the law better.

G-d says: "I commandeth thou O Israel, doeth x, y, z."

@Redemptionsong says, "That's a good idea G-d, but I have a better idea."

And the only way to know the LORD better is through

You probably should have stopped your sentence here, so I'll help you out.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Just for the record, the Catholic Church does feel that these covenants are both valid, and numerous recent popes have had dialogues and even joint services with various Jewish communities.

They really can't declare both as valid as that would mean that Jews aren't saved by Jesus, as if there's a separate system of salvation for Jews, which goes against the Gospels, Paul's writings and the doctrines of the Church. Dual covenant theology is a heresy. So they don't really make clear statements on it lately, because they don't want to offend Jews.

 

[metis]

They really can't declare both as valid as that would mean that Jews aren't saved by Jesus, as if there's a separate system of salvation for Jews, which goes against the Gospels, Paul's writings and the doctrines of the Church. Dual covenant theology is a heresy. So they don't really make clear statements on it lately, because they don't want to offend Jews.

The Church changed it's position without officially saying it changed its position (VERY Catholic, btw ), and the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" states that the Abrahamic Covenant with the Jews is very much valid, plus the belief is that Jesus died for all sinners, not just some.

Where there's a caveat, however, is that the Church also teaches that if one realizes the significance of Jesus and what he died for, but still refuses to join the Church, their salvation could be in jeopardy. However, this pope seems to not care about that position, even going to the point of stating that atheists might even be saved and should be treated as brothers and sisters.

Also, a reminder that the Church is not a proponent of Biblical inerrancy, as it's more the fundamentalist Protestants and JW's that are much more that way.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The Church changed it's position without officially saying it changed its position (VERY Catholic, btw ), and the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" states that the Abrahamic Covenant with the Jews is very much valid, plus the belief is that Jesus died for all sinners, not just some.

Where there's a caveat, however, is that the Church also teaches that if one realizes the significance of Jesus and what he died for, but still refuses to join the Church, their salvation could be in jeopardy. However, this pope seems to not care about that position, even going to the point of stating that atheists might even be saved and should be treated as brothers and sisters.

Also, a reminder that the Church is not a proponent of Biblical inerrancy, as it's more the fundamentalist Protestants and JW's that are much more that way.

The Catechism doesn't clearly say that:

"839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus."

Like I said, they make wishy-washy statements about it and basically act like the Jews don't need Jesus, but haven't come out officially to change the doctrines, which would be heretical.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Paul's work is exegesis from Torah and prophets, but its preposterous quoting his exegesis to outsiders like they are supposed to accept him on reputation. Its insulting, too.

No more insulting than quoting the Torah and Prophets and expecting an outsider to believe that they are the Word of God. Are we to accept Moses on reputation any more than Paul?

By rejecting Paul, you reject Jesus, who called him as his apostle.

Luke wrote the account of Saul's conversion in Acts. Are we now to dismiss Luke's Gospel because he don't like what he wrote about Paul being a chosen apostle?