What's New In The New Covenant?

[WebersHome]

[font=Verdana]-
The covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God under oath contains a number of curses for non compliance. They're on display at Ex 34:6-7, Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69.

Those curses are covenanted, i.e. they're contractual; which means that when the Jews, as a people, fail to comply with the covenant, God is obligated to slam them with any number of misfortunes including throwing them to the wolves, e.g. Nebuchadnezzar, Titus, and Hitler.

The new covenant contains no curses of a contractual nature; viz: God isn't obligated to slam Christ's believing followers for non compliance so He's at liberty to be quite a bit more lenient with Christians than He is with Jews.
_[/font]

[bluethread]

[font=Verdana]-
The covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God under oath contains a number of curses for non compliance. They're on display at Ex 34:6-7, Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69.

Those curses are covenanted, i.e. they're contractual; which means that when the Jews, as a people, fail to comply with the covenant, God is obligated to slam them with any number of misfortunes including throwing them to the wolves, e.g. Nebuchadnezzar, Titus, and Hitler.

The new covenant contains no curses of a contractual nature; viz: God isn't obligated to slam Christ's believing followers for non compliance so He's at liberty to be quite a bit more lenient with Christians than He is with Jews.
_[/font]

This is not true. First, because the curses are contractual conditions, not obligations. In any contract, the parties are not obligated to exercise their rights. They are only obligated to exercise their responsibilities. That said, if one party does not exercise their rights, over time, those rights will laps due to the principle of obvious trespass. Of course, this latter is a modern legal principle. Under ancient near eastern covenants, rights remain as long as one is able to enforce them.

Second, the "new covenant" is the "old covenant" written on the hearts of Israel and Yehudah. If a Christian does not identify with Israel and Yehudah, then the "new covenant" does not apply to them any more than the "old covenant" does.

[WebersHome]

[font=Verdana]-
Another thing different in the new covenant is the nature of its high priesthood.[/font]

[font=Georgia]NOTE[/font][font=Verdana]: A biblical high priesthood doesn't consist of a guild of priests, i.e. it's an office held by only one man at a time; typically to his death.

The new covenant's high priesthood is patterned after a man in the Old Testament named Melchizedek (Gen 14:18-20). Mel isn't a precise rendition of the new covenant's high priesthood; he's only what's known as a "type" i.e. an analogy.

In my opinion, the one thing about Mel that really stands out is his superiority over Aaron's high priesthood. In other words: Mel's high priesthood trumps Aaron's; viz: in situations where Aaron's law and Melchizedek's law conflict, Mel's law is the rule.

Another thing about Mel that's very important is the era in which he lived. Mel was contemporary with Abraham, which was something like 400+ years prior to the institution of the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

That's a tremendous advantage because biblical law isn't retroactive viz: it doesn't have ex post facto jurisdiction (Deut 5:2-4, Gal 3:17); which means that none of the covenant's curses for non compliance applied to either Mel or to his constituents; which, at the time, included Abraham. Good thing too because Abe was married to his half sister; a death offense within the jurisdiction of the covenant. (Lev 20:17)

Christ is the new covenant's high priest and his office is patterned after Melchizedek's (Ps 110:4, Heb 5:4-6) which means of course that, like as Mel's, Christ's constituents are in no danger of the old covenant's curses.

Christ will always be the new covenant's high priest because unlike Aaron, Christ is immortal (Rom 6:9). Ergo: Christ's constituents will never, ever, be in danger of the old covenant's curses; from now on till time without end.
_[/font]

[bluethread]

Christ is the new covenant's high priest and his office is patterned after Melchizedek's (Ps 110:4, Heb 5:4-6) which means of course that, like as Mel's, Christ's constituents are in no danger of the old covenant's curses.

Christ will always be the new covenant's high priest because unlike Aaron, Christ is immortal (Rom 6:9). Ergo: Christ's constituents will never, ever, be in danger of the old covenant's curses; from now on till time without end.
_[/size][/font]

So, how specifically does HaMeshiach's priesthood differ from the "old covenant"?

[WebersHome]

[font=Verdana]-
The covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contains an extensive sacrificial system. The most important ritual is Yom Kippur's annual procedure, a.k.a. the great day of atonement.

One of Yom Kippur's purposes is to remind the people that their sins are still on the books; even sins for which they offered regular sacrifices all during the year.

The problem is: the covenant's sacrifices obtain pardons and forgiveness and cleansing for the people, but the sacrifices aren't sufficient to obtain innocence for them nor to get their records wiped clean. In other words; Yom Kippur may obtain forgiveness, pardon, and cleansing for dishonesty; but on the books the offender will still be listed as a liar.

And on top of that, the very moment the ritual ends, people begin accumulating new sins towards the next Yom Kippur so there's never really a moment when the people are guiltless.[/font]

[font=Georgia]BTW[/font][font=Verdana]: Never, ever, ever wish Jews a pleasant Yom Kippur because it's supposed to be a national day of self affliction. (Lev 16:29-31)

So then, Yom Kippurs are endless; one is never enough because the ritual is always for the past, never for the future. In other words; Yom Kippurs are always catching up with the people's sins instead of getting out ahead of them.

The new covenant doesn't have an extensive sacrificial system, nor does it have an endless parade of annual rituals like Yom Kippur. It had but one sacrifice; just one, and it's good for all time. In other words: the new covenant's sacrifice isn't only for past sins, but also for sins of the future that people haven't even committed yet.

Plus, the new covenant's sacrifice is sufficient to get the people off their perpetual guilt trip because it not only obtains pardons and forgiveness and cleansing, but also an acquittal and a complete wipe; something nobody gets from Yom Kippur.
_[/font]

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by WebersHome]


I believe there was a new covenant rather than a "revised" covenant.

It seems to me that is why Jeremiah referred to a future "new" covenant.

This is why Jesus referred to not putting new wine into old wineskin, he was imho trying to explain that combining the old covenant with new or revised "features" will ruin them both, that the whole system had to be replaced.

JW

[WebersHome]

-

[font=Georgia]I believe there was a new covenant rather than a "revised" covenant.[/font]

[font=Verdana]It's illegal to revise the original covenant; not even God can because He is just as much under oath to comply with it as the Jews; viz: the covenant is a legally binding contract.

Deut 4:2
Deut 5:29-30
Deut 29:12-14
_[/font]

[WebersHome]

-

[font=Georgia]the covenant is a legally binding contract.[/font]

[font=Verdana]The Jews can't just walk away from the covenant that their ancestors agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy without first fulfilling this one particular curse:

â—� Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be anyone who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.

The apostle Paul posted a reminder of that curse in one of his epistles.

â—� Gal 3:10 . . Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.

Note the grammatical tense of the curse; it's present tense rather than future, indicating that curses for non compliance are instant; no delay and no waiting period-- "cursed be" is right now. For example:

â—� Lev 19:11 . . You shall not deal falsely, nor lie to one another.

Every time a Jew breaks that law they incur a curse upon themselves; and those curses have a way of piling up. Let's say a Jew racks up 100 counts of dishonesty during their lifetime. Well; that's 100 curses that they need to clear off the books before they can be freed to sign on with the new covenant.

Seeing as how there has been neither a Temple nor a fully functioning priesthood on duty in Jerusalem since Titus destroyed the place in 70ad, then every dishonest Jew since then has had no way to get their accrued curses mitigated with a covenanted sacrifice.

In God's judicious estimation, the only satisfactory alternative, in lieu of slamming the offender, is to lay the blame on a scapegoat.

â—� Isa 53:6 . . All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and Jehovah has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

The scapegoat had to be willing of course or the whole business would've been a ritual murder.
_[/font]

[WebersHome]

.
[font=Verdana]Q: According to Ezek 18:20, people have to pay for their own sins; i.e. another cannot take their blame nor die nor in their place. How then was Christ's sacrifice a legitimate stand-in for the sins of the entire world?

A: The secret is in the timing.

According to 1Pet 1:20, Rev 13:8, and Rev 17:8, Jesus Christ was put on track to satisfy justice for the sins of the world prior to the creation of the cosmos.

According to Deut 5:2-4 and Gal 3:17, biblical law isn't retroactive viz: it doesn't have ex post facto jurisdiction.

So then, seeing as how Jesus Christ was tagged to pay for the sins of the world many, many years prior to Ezekiel's proclamation . . .
_[/font]

[bluethread]

[font=Verdana]-
The covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God as per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contains an extensive sacrificial system. The most important ritual is Yom Kippur's annual procedure, a.k.a. the great day of atonement.

One of Yom Kippur's purposes is to remind the people that their sins are still on the books; even sins for which they offered regular sacrifices all during the year.

So, what is meant by the blood of the sacrifice being placed on Azazel and having him driven out into the wilderness?

The problem is: the covenant's sacrifices obtain pardons and forgiveness and cleansing for the people, but the sacrifices aren't sufficient to obtain innocence for them nor to get their records wiped clean. In other words; Yom Kippur may obtain forgiveness, pardon, and cleansing for dishonesty; but on the books the offender will still be listed as a liar.

And on top of that, the very moment the ritual ends, people begin accumulating new sins towards the next Yom Kippur so there's never really a moment when the people are guiltless.[/font]

It is true that when one sins the process must begin anew. However, It is my understanding that the Temple served as a "sin repository" if you will and is cleansed each year on Yom Kippur. Yes, as Paul points out, this must be done continually. However, as Paul also points out, the sacrifices were never the source of salvation, but were symbolic reminders of one's covenant relationship with Adonai. As with Avraham. it was faith that brought salvation. That is not new, but has been true from the beginning.

[font=Georgia]BTW[/font][font=Verdana]: Never, ever, ever wish Jews a pleasant Yom Kippur because it's supposed to be a national day of self affliction. (Lev 16:29-31)

So then, Yom Kippurs are endless; one is never enough because the ritual is always for the past, never for the future. In other words; Yom Kippurs are always catching up with the people's sins instead of getting out ahead of them.

One is to afflict oneself in anticipation of the cleansing of the Temple. The ritual, like the sacrifices throughout the year, though related to specific events and yeas, are timeless. They are symbolic means of resolving past offences and effecting future behavior.

The new covenant doesn't have an extensive sacrificial system, nor does it have an endless parade of annual rituals like Yom Kippur. It had but one sacrifice; just one, and it's good for all time. In other words: the new covenant's sacrifice isn't only for past sins, but also for sins of the future that people haven't even committed yet.

Plus, the new covenant's sacrifice is sufficient to get the people off their perpetual guilt trip because it not only obtains pardons and forgiveness and cleansing, but also an acquittal and a complete wipe; something nobody gets from Yom Kippur.
_[/font]

Not that we should live in guilt, but this is the problem with that view of the "new covenant". Many view it as a means to blow off one's obligations, because they are forgiven in advance. The "new covenant" spoken of in th Scriptures is just the opposite. It is not a sacrifice that removes all obligation, but the writing of HaTorah on our hearts that makes the sacrifices redundant. If Yeshua's life unto death serves as an effective reminder, then one can say that it fulfilles the purpose of the Various sacrifices and thus the "new covenant". However, it is important to note that, according Yechezk'el(Ezekiel), there will be sacrifices in the future Temple. Why do you believe that will be?