New Covenant

[tryme]

This question comes from a reading of Jeremiah 31 , specifically verse 34 that says

‘They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,�

I was always taught that this was speaking of the new covenant especially the quote I will write my laws on their heart� but this all sounds to me a lot like the millennial kingdom in that No one has to even be taught any religion, and everyone is just born believes and knows. What do you think?

[polonius]

Question:

Does a "New Covenant" invalidate the older ones?

[ttruscott]

I too see these promises as millennial rather than Christian era because the unity it promises is just not realized yet.

[PinSeeker]

The millennium of Revelation 20 is not a future event. It was when Jeremiah prophesied, obviously, but is not anymore. Or, to be more exacting, it's no longer merely a future event.

[PinSeeker]

Question: Does a "New Covenant" invalidate the older ones?

No, it consummates them. It's the final, ultimate, perfect expression of them.

[myth-one.com]

Question:

Does a "New Covenant" invalidate the older ones?

Yes:

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13)

[PinSeeker]

Question:

Does a "New Covenant" invalidate the older ones?

Yes:

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13)

No. "Decaying," "waxing away,"and/or "becoming obsolete" does not equate to invalidation. Replacement and invalidation are two vastly different things. But we can agree to disagree.

[myth-one.com]

Question:

Does a "New Covenant" invalidate the older ones?

Yes:

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13)

No. "Decaying," "waxing away,"and/or "becoming obsolete" does not equate to invalidation. Replacement and invalidation are two vastly different things. But we can agree to disagree.

The first covenant was said to be "ready to vanish away" roughly 2,000 ago.

It's difficult to validate something which has vanished.

If the first covenant remains a valid covenant, then one could still gain everlasting life under that first testament.

But the Bible states otherwise:

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

[PinSeeker]

If the first covenant remains a valid covenant, then one could still gain everlasting life under that first testament.

Right, and he/she could. But the problem is that for any man or woman, it is impossible to fulfill every jot and tittle of the law. Such was always the case, both before the cross and after.

But the Bible states otherwise:

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

No, this verse is stating exactly what I'm saying. That since it is impossible for any man or woman to fulfill the Law and thereby merit salvation, only by Jesus's propitiation can any be saved. This was always true, and always will be. It was always, for everyone from Abraham on down, by faith and because of the work of Christ on the cross, as we see in Hebrews 11, which wraps up thusly:

• "And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect." Hebrews 11:39-40

[FWI]

[Replying to post 1 by tryme]


The bible has several prophetic saying that are structured in a type and anti-type way. The decree of God, in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is one of them…Where, the type, would be how God's laws were taught initially and the anti-type would be the future way of teaching these laws to man.

In the beginning (Genesis), these laws were taught by the patriarchs and passed down from generation to generation. Since, this method had its problems, a new method was necessary. Hence, God recorded His laws on tablets of stone (Exodus) and later required all of Israel's leaders to record them on scrolls (the rest of the writings). However, the problems didn't go away and God's laws were still "continually" being broken by the Israelites and mankind in general…The Israelites were supposed to be the example nation for all other nations, but that didn't work out the way it was planned! Therefore, the most logical way for man to receive God's laws would be for God to write them into their minds and being. This would assure that there would be no confusion on what the laws of God are…

This began, with the Son of God and also occurred at Pentecost (Acts 2). Then, a select group of individuals (Luke 12:32, John 6:44 and Matthew 22:14). And, "finally" many will come from the masses, during the resurrection of the dead. Which, will be, during the first thousand years of the "Kingdom of God" on this earth…

So, the decree of God, in Jeremiah 31:31-34 has nothing to with the changing of the laws of God, only the method of receiving them. Thus, there really isn't an old or new covenant, as many teach. There is just God's decrees, in the past and additional ones afterwards…