From Hebrews 8:6-13:
But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
 
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
 
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
 
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fatheers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
 
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
 
And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
 
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
 
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 9:15-17:
 
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament(covenant), that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament(covenant), they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
 
For where a testament(covenant) is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
 
For a testament(covenant) is of force sfter men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
 
That ought to get you started.
 
~JEBUS

Hi Jebus
 
Funny way we have of not talking on this MISC BB.
 
Anyways, from the information you provide the following words appear to be important.
 
"Better covenant"
"Better promises"
"House of Israel & Judah"
"First old"
"redemption of the transgressions"
"testament (covenant)"
"death of the testator"
"force after men are dead"
 
However, it does not appear to answer my original question of "what is the new covenant" or its logical opposite which was "what was the old one that it replaced." It seems to me that your post establishes the fact that there IS a "New Covenant" without directly answering what either the "New" or "Old" Covenant actually is. Would you like to expand on your thoughts?
 
Cheers
IBIJ

Looking at Hebrews 8:6-10 one can see that the "old" covenant came from God via Moses at Sinai. It was a covenant of works through the law and ordinances. It was our taskmaster, pointing us towards Christ. Yes, it was perfect in its own way, for it accomplished what its purpose was. Yet, it could not gain salvation for anyone.
 
In Hebrews 9 one can see that a worldly tabernacle was created for man's divine service within it. This obtained only a temporary redemption from sins whereas the "new" covenant is based upon better promises in Christ Jesus. Christ became our sacrifice for sin, He became the High Priest, He offered His pure, holy, blood for our sins. Once for all. I know that you know the verses that these statements come from. Grace and faith are the new covenant that is so much better in its promises than the old covenant that required works to approach into the presence of God. I also know that you understand about the tabernacle. I also know that you do not believe that the old covenant has passed away, even though scripture here tells us otherwise.
 
~JEBUS

Hi Jebus
 
I expected this from you long ago as it seems you have a handle on the Scriptures far better than most other people here. Thank you, for breaking it down to this level. Would you be surprised that I still have some questions? It is my hope that you choose to answer the following with as much graciousness and thouroughness as you just presented if not more (if that be possible).
 
> Looking at Hebrews 8:6-10 one can see that the "old"
> covenant came from God via Moses at Sinai. It was a covenant of works
> through the law and ordinances. It was our taskmaster, pointing us
> towards Christ.
 
The word Moses isn't even used in these passages, so how is it that we can make these inferences? Yes, I would agree this is commonly thought and taught, but shouldn't we be able to clearly justify what we teach directly from Scripture? This response obviously does call attention to our continued dialog of whether or not there is a separation between the 10 Commandments and the "Old Covenant". However, we've already visited that topic extensively so there is no reason to continue that here minus the fact that Exodus 20 does not contain the word covenant in either the KJV or NIV scriptures. However, let's not get bogged down in these details and push forward to the topic at hand instead.
 
> Yes, it was perfect in its own way, for it
> accomplished what its purpose was. Yet, it could not gain salvation
> for anyone.
 
Okay, what was the purpose of the "Old Covenant"? While the words old and new covenant are freely used I still am at a loss as to exactly what the "Old Covenant" is.
 
> In Hebrews 9 one can see that a worldly tabernacle was created for
> man's divine service within it. This obtained only a temporary
> redemption from sins whereas the "new" covenant is based
> upon better promises in Christ Jesus.
 
Interestng thoughts here, would you say that the "Old Covenant" is the mosaic tabernacle? Or is it the sacrifical process that takes place within the tabernacle? Thus the "New Covenant" would focus around Christ? But how would communion tie into that, as their are some Scriptures that I have found recently that directly relate to communion when talking about the "New Covenant".
 
> Christ became our sacrifice for sin,
 
Hmmmm, it seems that we might be on to something here or am I misreading what you are saying?
 
> He became the High Priest,
 
Off topic, but was Christ ever not our high priest even before He came to earth as man? That's off topic though, so you might choose not to answer that in-order to stay on topic.
 
> He offered His pure, holy, blood for
> our sins. Once for all.
 
Hey, here we are back at sacrifice again. Is the old and new covenant all about sacrifice?
 
> I know that you know the verses that these
> statements come from. Grace and faith are the new covenant that is so
> much better in its promises than the old covenant that required works
> to approach into the presence of God.
 
Wait, we were talking about sacrifice and suddenly we are talking about grace and faith. What happened? I did a search from BibleGateway.com on the following topics.
 
KJV - Faith Covenant - No results
 
NIV - Faith Covenant
Malachi 2:10
[ Judah Unfaithful ] Have we not all one Father ? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our fathers by breaking faith with one another?
 
Malachi 2:14
You ask, "Why?" It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.
 
KJV - Grace Covenant
Hebrews 10:29
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
 
NIV - Grace Covenant
Hebrews 10:29
How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?
 
While these words are used together, they do not seem to lend credibility to the topic at hand. Or, am I missing something?
 
> I also know that you understand
> about the tabernacle.
 
Well, yes, I've spoken about the tabernacle before. But how many times do we talk about things that we don't fully understand? Such is the case with "old" and "new" covenant and understanding exactly what it is or is not. I could write a volume of information on the "new covenant", but do I really understand what it is. This is why I persist with this question.
 
> I also know that you do not believe that the
> old covenant has passed away, even though scripture here tells us
> otherwise.
 
Well, that would depend on if one links the 10 Commandments to the "old covenant" or not. Which brings us back to the beginning of what the "new covenant" is; as well as what was the "old covenant" that it replaced? I'm not tryin to belabor a point here, but I certainly am attempting to fully understand this concept.
 
Cheers
IBIJ

I need to chase down some scriptures so I will probably not post a reply until tonight sometime. Just letting you know that I am working on your questions.
 
~JEBUS

Hi Jebus
 
Thank you, I appreciate the fact that someone here has taken my questions seriously. Not that GP13 didn't, but he chose not to dialog beyond one post which certainly doesn't result in completed answers.
 
Cheers
IBIJ

We need to realize that before the Mosaic covenant God had established with Abraham a covenant of promise. Starting in Genesis 7:19 God established a covenant with Abraham and his seed(singular). This did not get passed on to Ishmael but to Issac who was Sarah's son. This was the inheritance that Jacob bilked Issac out of later on. This is the inheritance that Christ came to obtain for each of us. Galatians 3:16 tells us that God meant the singular with "seed." And that that seed was Christ.
 
What got in the way of this promise was the old covenant made with Moses. This covenant came from the Israelites choosing law rather than the promise of grace from God. The law required works to achieve temporary redemption from sin. Hebrews 10:1 tells us the exact same as what I just wrote. The Mosaic Law requires the Tabernacle, that is why they were given together. The sacrifices of the Tabernacle are pointless if there is no Law to satisfy; the requirements of the Law are pointless if there is no way to pay the wages of sin. Once Christ came we were able to claim free grace, a promise kept by Christ when He was crucified.
 
I will stop right there and wait for your reply.
 
~Jebus
 

I don't know what you guys are dialoguing about, everyone knows the "Old Testament attest to the the Old Covenant," and the "New Testament attest to the New Covenant." Even an atheist understands that.

..'In a nutshell','grandpa', the most atrocious speller and Caissa
member, though not, for much longer { : .. on this 'BB', wants
one of the more basic {if important} precepts of the Bible, 'spelled-
out' for himself.
 
..Given the fact that 'IBIJ' embraces many Bible interpretations
on different subjects, that require more contortions-of-logic
than you or I have; I suppose that "JEBUS" is to be commended
for his research efforts on 'IBIJ's behalf{!}.. even at the risk
risk that 'IBIJ' is merely wasting the time of Yet another 'Saint',
ie., "JEBUS."

Hi Gamma
 
How is answering a question about God's Word considered a waste of time?
 
Cheers
IBIJ

Hi GP13
 
Perhaps they do, but do we really know what the Old or New covenants are or were?
 
Cheers
IBIJ

Hi Jebus
 
The quotes were taken from your statements...
 
â01CCovenant of promise:â01D
Genesis 7:19
They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.
 
I donâ019t see the word covenant in this verse and it certainly doesnâ019t seem like a promise of any sort. What am I missing?
 
â01CThis did not get passed on to Ishmael but to Issac who was Sarah's son.â01D
And where do you take this statement from?
 
â01CThis was the inheritance that Jacob bilked Issac out of later on.â01D
Upon what Scriptures do these two accounts correlate?
 
â01CThis is the inheritance that Christ came to obtain for each of us.â01D
I thought Christ came to provide a way back to the Father that was not available before.
 
Galatians 3:16
16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ.
 
While I get the idea of see from the above verse, was the mission of Christ on the earth to be a seed?
 
â01CWhat got in the way of this promise was the old covenant made with Moses.â01D
Wouldnâ019t this be the sacrificial system?
 
â01CThis covenant came from the Israelites choosing law rather than the promise of grace from God.â01D
Did they have the option of grace in their time?
 
â01CThe law required works to achieve temporary redemption from sin.â01D
I would concur.
Hebrews 10:1
1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are comingâ014not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.
As would the Holy Word of God.
 
â01CThe Mosaic Law requires the Tabernacle, that is why they were given together.â01D
Upon what Scripture do you draw these together? The Tabernacle is where the sacrificial system was housed and perhaps to that extent you are correct. Is this what you are trying to get at?
 
â01CThe sacrifices of the Tabernacle are pointless if there is no Law to satisfy; the requirements of the Law are pointless if there is no way to pay the wages of sin.â01D
I would agree, but how is it that we know what sin is?
 
Romans 5:13
for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
 
Romans 7:13
Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
 
This is the part Iâ019ve never understood in our dialogâ019s Jebus. How can you support the laws of our land which are largely built off the 10 Commandments when you think these self same commandments have been put aside and are no more?
 
â01COnce Christ came we were able to claim free grace, a promise kept by Christ when He was crucified.â01D
 
Grace from what?
 
Happy Sabbath
IBIJ

IBIJ
 
That single verse in Genesis is not alone, I said that it "began" at that point in scripture. Noah was promised something, and later on Abraham was promised something, and then it passed along to Issac and then to Jacob. Since you know the Old Testament so well I figured that you would know exactly what I was talking about. Hebrews talks about the men of "faith" from in the OT, I just thought that you would connect the dots, so to speak.
 
Galatians 3:16 speaks of Christ as the seed and it was as a seed that He became the first fruits of a new creation. We are the multiplied first fruits springing up from His seed. A seed cannot multiply itself until it "dies" in the ground upon germination and grows into a new plant. Christ accomplished that for us. He also kept God's promise to man.
 
The Israelites did have the option to rely totally upon God and His promise of future grace. They opted not to and ended up with the Law and the sacrificial system that goes with it.
 
Of course the Law hasn't gone away. I have repeatedly stated that and the reasons for it. The Law has no power over saints for we are operating under the power of grace, grace given to us by Christ. We are made righteous because Christ lives in us. To turn back to trying to live our lives according to the Law puts us back under the Law and we must then offer up sacrifices all over again. Not to mention that we would make Christ's sacrifice of His blood of no effect. The Law and the ordinances that go with it are all one and the same system. You cannot have one without the other.
 
In Matthew 22:19-21 Jesus told everyone how to approach paying tribute. In John 19:11 Jesus told Pilate(I believe) that his authority only came from heaven.
 
Got to go.
 
JEBUS

Well put, but it won't register with IBIJ.

Hey GP
 
Still haven't heard back from you on your last query to me. In the mean time let me answer Jebus who does have the ability to respond unlike some on this MISC BB.
 
Hi Jebus
 
This is going to be another of those YOU SAID / MY RESPONSE type posts. So here we go.
 
YOU SAID:
> That single verse in Genesis is not alone, I said that it "
> began" at that point in scripture.
 
MY RESPONSE:
Okay, right you are.
 
YOU SAID:
>Noah was promised something,
> and later on Abraham was promised something, and then it passed along
> to Issac and then to Jacob.
 
MY RESPONSE:
True, but were they all promised the same something? Where is your supporting Scriptures for this being the same something to each individual?
 
YOU SAID:
>Since you know the Old Testament so well
> I figured that you would know exactly what I was talking about.
 
MY RESPONSE:
That figuring has often not bode well for us in the past, I would think present and future figurings would produce the same results.
 
YOU SAID:
> Hebrews talks about the men of "faith" from in the OT, I
> just thought that you would connect the dots, so to speak.
 
MY RESPONSE:
Sure, Hebrew speaks of the men of faith, but we need to establish what Hebrews exactly says about the men of faith before we can make any "thus says the Lord" assertions, no?
 
YOU SAID:
> Galatians 3:16 speaks of Christ as the seed and it was as a seed that
> He became the first fruits of a new creation.
 
GOD's WORD:
Galatians 3:16
16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ.
 
MY RESPONSE:
It certainly speaks of Christ as being the "seed" (amazing, you understand Christ as a seed but not the leader of the angel's; anyways I digress.) but I do not see this verse speaking of Christ as "the first fruits of a new creation". As I understand it we are the same creation under the era of grace rather than law (Mosaic Law).
 
1 Corinthians 15:20
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
 
NOTE: We see in this verse what happened to Christ after He died as well as what will happen to us until our resurrection. Never-the-less, let's not let that distract us from trying to understand what the New Covenant is or is not.
 
YOU SAID:
> We are the multiplied
> first fruits springing up from His seed.
 
MY RESPONSE:
I thought Christ was the firstfruit? If not Him, then wouldn't it have been all the righteous that came out of the tomb when He was raised from the dead that would be the firstfruit instead of us? Upon what Scriptural support do you make this assertion?
 
GOD's WORD:
Matthew 27:53
They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
 
YOU SAID:
> A seed cannot multiply
> itself until it "dies" in the ground upon germination and
> grows into a new plant. Christ accomplished that for us. He also
> kept God's promise to man.
 
GOD's WORD:
John 12:24
I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.
 
MY RESPONSE:
I would agree that a seed does not multiply itself until it dies, but upon what Scripture did you make the leap to the fact that since Christ died once for all mankind that we therefore don't need to die ourselves before we truly live. Even Paul tells us that he himself has to die daily to live for Christ. Though this is figurative language in his illustration, I am not aware of any Scriptures that keep this event from happening in it's totality upon our death. What am I missing?
 
GOD's WORD:
1 Corinthians 15:31
I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
 
MY RESPONSE:
Thus far I am unclear as to how what you are saying relates to explaining what the New or Old Covenant is or is not. Let us continue.
 
YOU SAID:
> The Israelites did have the option to rely totally upon God and His
> promise of future grace. They opted not to and ended up with the Law
> and the sacrificial system that goes with it.
 
MY RESPONSE:
According to what Scripture did the Israelites have the option for grace which they opted out of? I will agree that since they had the Mosaic covenant they also had the sacrifical system to live by as a result. Would this be the Old Covenant?
 
YOU SAID:
> Of course the Law hasn't gone away. I have repeatedly stated that and
> the reasons for it.
 
MY RESPONSE:
Either the law has or has not been nailed to the cross. It is not logically possible for it to be both ways at the same time. Which is it?
 
YOU SAID:
> The Law has no power over saints for we are
> operating under the power of grace, grace given to us by Christ.
 
MY RESPONSE:
If we loop the 10 Commandments into this then are we not saying that the Christian does not need to live by the Commandments because of grace while those outside of God's plan are still bound to follow these self same Commandments? The logical end of such a concept would indeed be a very scarey one, no?
 
YOU SAID:
> We
> are made righteous because Christ lives in us.
 
MY RESPONSE:
Amen!
 
YOU SAID:
> To turn back to trying
> to live our lives according to the Law puts us back under the Law and
> we must then offer up sacrifices all over again. Not to mention that
> we would make Christ's sacrifice of His blood of no effect.
 
MY RESPONSE:
So then the New & Old Covenant revolves around the sacrificial systems and where we are or are not currently at as a result of the age of grace that we live in today?
 
YOU SAID:
> The Law
> and the ordinances that go with it are all one and the same system.
> You cannot have one without the other.
 
MY RESPONSE:
But are the Law and the 10 Commandments linked at the hip? This is where we have often hit our disconnects. Upon what Scriptures would you say that this is so?
 
YOU SAID:
> In Matthew 22:19-21 Jesus told everyone how to approach paying
> tribute.
 
GOD's WORD:
Matthew 22:19-21
19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
 
MY RESPONSE:
This speaks of paying taxes. How does this relate to the Old or New Covenants?
 
YOU SAID:
> In John 19:11 Jesus told Pilate(I believe) that his
> authority only came from heaven.
 
GOD's WORD:
John 19:11
11Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."
 
MY RESPONSE:
Yes, this does speak of authority and who it has or has not been merited out to. How does this relate to the New or Old Covenants?
 
Thanks for responding, it is greatly appreciated.
 
Happy Sabbath
IBIJ
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

IBIJ,
 
I apologise if it is a little hazy when talking about the Jews having an option between simply being led by God and having the Law, the Judgments, and the Ordinances handed down over them. In Exodus 19:4-8 we can see this:
 
You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.
 
Now if you obey me fully and keep my oovenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine,
 
you will be for my a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.
 
So Moses went back and summoned the elders of the people and set before them all the words the Lord had commanded him to speak.
 
The people all responded together, "We will do everything the Lord has said," So Moses brought their answer back to the Lord.
 
I think that they did have an option to simply be led of God, but that they continually mumbled and doubted that God would take care of them out in the wilderness. Their unbelief led to God handing down the Mosaic Covenant. This, to me, is the "old covenant." Physical sacrifices were required to cover individual sins of people. These were only temporary fixes, bandaids so to speak.
 
What Noah was promised came from his faith in God. Hebrews 11:7 says that Noah inherited righteousness because of his faith. In Hebrews 11:8-11 Abraham journeyed in the land of promise and did so in faith, purchasing for himself and his heirs the promise. Now faith, as we all know, is in things not seen. And as we read on through verse 22 we see all of these individuals through faith receiving the promise. The actual record of Abraham's faith is in Genesis 22:16-18 where he took Isaac up the mount to be sacrificed to God. God rewarded him for that faith and we are the spiritual seed who also inherit that same promise since we have faith in Christ.
 
I will continue tomorrow with answers to your posed questions.
 
~JEBUS

Hi Jebus
 
If there has ever been a person upon this MISC BB that I enjoy speaking with the most it is you. Rather than just "bursting" out with your own "opinions" you do use the Word of God (not Grandpa) to position your statements. I respect and appreciate that, and will attempt to respond in kind thru the majority of our dialog's.
 
YOU SAID:
> I apologise if it is a little hazy when talking about the Jews having
> an option between simply being led by God and having the Law, the
> Judgments, and the Ordinances handed down over them.
 
MY RESPONSE:
Well, clearly I do not think this is your responsibility, so I'm not sure why you "apologize". Never-the-less, I thought you and I both agreed that if something is not clear from within God's Word that it should not be focused upon. Therefore if something is "a little hazy" then perhaps focusing upon it would break our established agreement, no? In any case...
 
GOD's WORD:
4 'You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you [a] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."
 
7 So Moses went back and summoned the elders of the people and set before them all the words the LORD had commanded him to speak. 8 The people all responded together, "We will do everything the LORD has said." So Moses brought their answer back to the LORD.
 
MY RESPONSE:
We start out with God talkin to Moses here and then Moses taking God's Words to the people. A phrase used within God's dialog to Moses is... "Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant"... wouldn't this directly be talking about "keeping the law"? Since this is an "IF" "THEN" statement with the above quote being the "IF" part it hardly sounds to me like a statement of grace. What am I missing?
 
YOU SAID:
> I think that they did have an option to simply be led of God, but that
> they continually mumbled and doubted that God would take care of them
> out in the wilderness. Their unbelief led to God handing down the
> Mosaic Covenant.
 
MY RESPONSE:
If their disobedience led to the issuance of the "Mosaic Covenant" then why does the above dialog contain the word "Covenant"? Many people are "simply led of God", in directions that God Himself would abhore are they not? At any rate, if they had an option for implied grace why isn't this concept directly identified within the Scriptures and how often are we ourselves found mumbling and doubting about God's ways even within the age of grace for which we now preside?
 
YOU SAID:
> This, to me, is the "old covenant."
> Physical sacrifices were required to cover individual sins of people.
 
MY RESPONSE:
FINALLY!!!! A direct answer to one of my two questions. Okay, the "old covenant" is built on a sacrifical system involving lambs, blood, and the like. Is this correct? Would it then be safe to say that the "new covenant" is also built upon a "new sacrifical system" that replaces the requirements of the "old covenant" with something quite different from the regulations of the "old covenant"?
 
By the way, you never did answer my question about non-Christians. If Christians are no longer "under the law" because of grace while non-Christians remain in bondage to the law; wouldn't this put the Christian in the position of being able to do whatever they please while the non-Christian is regulated to how they can and cannot live?
 
YOU SAID:
> These were only temporary fixes, bandaids so to speak.
 
MY RESPONSE:
Oh... so the "old covenant" is a temporary system and the "new covenant" is one of permanance?
 
YOU SAID:
> What Noah was promised came from his faith in God. Hebrews 11:7 says
> that Noah inherited righteousness because of his faith. In Hebrews 11:
> 8-11 Abraham journeyed in the land of promise and did so in faith,
> purchasing for himself and his heirs the promise. Now faith, as we
> all know, is in things not seen. And as we read on through verse 22
> we see all of these individuals through faith receiving the promise.
> The actual record of Abraham's faith is in Genesis 22:16-18 where he
> took Isaac up the mount to be sacrificed to God. God rewarded him for
> that faith and we are the spiritual seed who also inherit that same
> promise since we have faith in Christ.
 
MY RESPONSE:
From reading your response it would seem to me that they all received different promises for their faith. Therefore, does it make sense to view all these different promises as the same promise when they did not receive the same promise from God? Whatever the case, how does this paragraph relate to the "old" or "new" covenants?
 
Happy New Year
IBIJ
 
 
 

IBIJ,
 
I did point out that it was my belief that the Jew's had an opportunity to continue to be led by God just like they had been while on their way to the Promised Land, but they failed to be grateful for being rescued out of Egypt and for being fed out in the desert. Thus the Law and the Judgments and the Ordinances were handed down to govern their lives, both personally and corporately as a nation. There is no "recorded" choice made by the people, as I apologised for.
 
You ask if since the old covenant dealt with physical sacrifices to cover sins is there a similar system in the new covenant? Yes, there was a similar physical sacrifice that was made. Christ sacrificed Himself once, for everyone, for all time. Do I need to post the verses that state this? Do I need to trace the argument God made as to why Christ had to do this for us? Let me know. But there is also a new component to this new covenant. Believers need to be a living sacrifice to Christ. Romans 12:1 says, "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." A living sacrifice promotes a continual condition in us as saints. Each and every act born out of a love for Christ raises a sweet savor up to heaven. Each represents a sacrifice of some sort. Believers who yield themselves to God as being alive from the dead and whose members are as instruments of righteousness to God, are in God's eyes, not ritually but really are "holy" and so are "acceptable" or well-pleasing to God. Our reasonable service is not worship of idols, animal sacrifice, nor daily adherence to the Law. I will post more on this aubject at another time.
 
You ask if we, as Christians, can do whatever we please while the non-Christians are regulated as tohow they can and cannot live? The unbelievers can live any way that they choose. Should they? Of course not. But they will live however they so choose. Christians cannot live any way that they feel like. Part of this question is addressed by Paul in Romans 6. In verses 14-16 you can see, "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" He also spoke in chapter 7 about sin and carnal nature and the law. The first three verses tell us about the fact that law has dominion over a person while they are living, but after death they are freed from the law. Likewise, once we die in Christ we are dead to the Law as is said in verse 4 and 6. Verse 7 asks if the Law is sin and gives the answer as No! The Law made sin known to me, and then ran rampant in my life. Verse 10 speaks about how the commandments are meant to give us a healthy, long life but how that sin takes those commandments and uses them to deceive me and cause me to die. Verse fourteen tells us that the Law is spiritual and we are not. Then Paul goes into a discourse on the conflict that wages continually within each of us as believers. The spiritual versus the carnal natures. Now, if we continue on to chapter 8 we find Paul speaking about the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus." This new law has made each believer free from the law of sin and death. He goes on to cover a much broader scope than what our discussion seeks to settle here.
 
Let's look in Galatians chapter 3. Verses 12-19 relate to us the fact that the law, when given, could not negate the promise given to Abraham. Our inheritance does not come from any law, or set of commandments that were given to Moses, but it comes from God's promise. Verse 14 tells us that the promise was the receiving of the Holy Spirit. We receive the Spirit once we accept Christ on faith. Verses 21-29 elaborate on how the law is not against the promises of God but the law was meant to direct people to obtain the promises of God. Verse 23 states plainly that before faith came we could not get out from under the law, faith in Christ had to come first before freedom could be given to each of us.
 
I am still getting to your other questions.
 
~JEBUS

IBIJ,
 
I am addressing your question about Christ being the forstfruit.
 
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
I Corinthains 15:20
 
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preminence.
Colossians 1:18
 
Yes, Christ is the firstborn from the dead and so He is the fristfruit of the resurrection. All of them that slept were those from before He came, Old Testament beleivers. He rose from the dead first, hence the headship of the body. We are His body of believers thus we will rise from the dead also.
 
And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, wven we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
Romans 8:23
 
For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
Romans 11:16
 
These two verses continue the same thought. Christ as the firstfruits is holy and so we too become holy through the redemption of our bodies through His Spirit. He is the head of the body and thus the entire body becomes holy.
 
This entire concept of "firstfruits" comes from out of the Old Testament. Here are eight references for you to check out and probably comment upon:
 
Exodus 22:29 Leviticus 2:12-16 Numbers 18:12
 
Deuteronomy 18:4 II Chron. 31:5 Nehemiah 10:35, 37, 39
 
Proverbs 3:9 Jeremiah 2:3
 
Jesus fulfills what a firstfruit offering was and is.
 
~JEBUS

Fianally, a good explanation of the new covenant.
 
Thanks
grandpa13