The Prophesied New Covenant Vs the Christian Covenant

[Aractus]

All throughout the Bible, the Judeo-Christian deity makes Covenants. Christianity is quite inconsistent about which covenants they think still apply, and why, and ignores the problems that some of these covenants present. For example, Christians believe that the Adamic Covenant still applies today, because this is where their deity asserts his authority to be the Judge of all mankind, and without it there is no reason to think that the Judeo-Christian deity wishes to prosecute humans for their "sins". And, every other covenant made in the Old Testament is between Jehovah and the Hebrew people. That is to say, the Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, and the Davidic Covenant are all between Jehovah and Hebrews.

In Jeremiah 31 a New Covenant is prophesied:


It is quoted verbatim in Hebrews 8:


Hebrews clearly makes the claim that Jesus brought the fulfilment of this prophesied New Covent. But did he? The New Covenant prophesied in Jeremiah has many differences to the Christian Covenant.

Specifically:

1. It is to be between Jehovah and the Israeli/Judaic people (not gentiles or people of other nations).
2. Priests/Religious Authorities will be done away with because Jehovah will personally tell his people about himself. Thus proselytising is also not required.
3. It is unconditional - that is, obedience not required. Faith not required either.
4. Jehovah will not just forgive Jews their sins, but he will even forget them. Thus, there is no point in repenting of them since Jehovah can't remember them anyway.
5. It is a direct replacement of the Mosaic Covenant.

How, oh how did Christians get this so wrong? In the Christian New Covenant, God's forgiveness must be earned. According to Jesus by obeying the Law of Moses, according to Paul through faith in Jesus as a mediator between Jehovah and mankind, and according to James through good works. According to Christianity, Jehovah is still interested in judging and punishing sinners, even though his interest in doing so is meant to have ended with the implementation of the New Covenant. Remember, he can't even remember sins after the New Covenant, so even if he wanted to change his mind he wouldn't be able to remember any sins to punish people for. So if this covenant really has come to pass now, Jehovah can't judge anyone even if he wants to.

In order to deal with this problem are the competing theories of Dispensationalism, and of Covenant Theology. Neither can fully explain and resolve this theological problem. And both ignore what Jeremiah specifically says about prophecy - i.e.:


Of course, it is nondescript as to what happens when a prophecy is made but does not come to pass, luckily that is addressed in Deuteronomy here:

Scripture Verse: Deuteronomy 18:22

If a prophet speaks in the name of YHWH but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that YHWH has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.

© Copyright Original Source

Right. So by the Bible's own criteria for a prophecy to be tested against, the New Covenant prophecy is false. This is a big problem for Christian theology, because this prophecy is the only justification for throwing out the Mosaic Covenant. That's why the author of Hebrews uses it to justify the Christian Covenant.

Thoughts?

[shunyadragon]

Great post!!!

[Kbertsche]

Thoughts?

My first thought is that you have proven what I said in your thread on Jesus' body (message #155):

This would be an interesting discussion for a theology thread. But I don't see much point in trying to explain such theological nuances to unbelievers.

You have demonstrated that you do not have even a basic understanding of what Christianity teaches. If you misunderstand the basics, how can you ever hope to understand more complex concepts? It would be like trying to explain calculus to someone who does not understand basic high school algebra.

One of your most fundamental misunderstandings is here:

How, oh how did Christians get this so wrong? In the Christian New Covenant, God's forgiveness must be earned. According to Jesus by obeying the Law of Moses, according to Paul through faith in Jesus as a mediator between Jehovah and mankind, and according to James through good works.

This is completely opposite of what Scripture actually says! It stresses that salvation (and forgiveness) CANNOT be earned. Salvation is a free gift from God, based on what Christ did on our behalf, not on what we do.

[guacamole]

All throughout the Bible, the Judeo-Christian deity makes Covenants. Christianity is quite inconsistent about which covenants they think still apply, and why, and ignores the problems that some of these covenants present. For example, Christians believe that the Adamic Covenant still applies today, because this is where their deity asserts his authority to be the Judge of all mankind, and without it there is no reason to think that the Judeo-Christian deity wishes to prosecute humans for their "sins". And, every other covenant made in the Old Testament is between Jehovah and the Hebrew people. That is to say, the Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, and the Davidic Covenant are all between Jehovah and Hebrews.

Technically, some of that is incorrect. The Noachide covenant is between God and Humanity (that is specifically, all of Noah's descendants). The Abrahamic Cov. is between God and Abraham, though other people do benefit. The Mosaic Covenant is the only one listed that is, technically, specific to God and Israel. The David Cov. is specific to David's line, though presumably other people benefit.

Hebrews clearly makes the claim that Jesus brought the fulfilment of this prophesied New Covent. But did he? The New Covenant prophesied in Jeremiah has many differences to the Christian Covenant.

Specifically:
It is to be between Jehovah and the Israeli/Judaic people (not gentiles or people of other nations).

I don't know that this is logically warranted given that the prophecy isn't defined as exclusive in the passage you cited (though perhaps it might be in other places?). In any case, it is possible for gentiles to be "grafted in" to the promises given to Israel, at least according to the NT, and according to the Mosaic Covenant, allowance can be made for gentiles who want to live as Jews.

Priests/Religious Authorities will be done away with because Jehovah will personally tell his people about himself. Thus proselytising is also not required.

Presumably, the Christians believe this is the whole point of the Incarnation, no? Again, I think you're reading more into the text about priests/religious authorities being done away with which isn't necessarily reasonable given the passage as cited.

It is unconditional - that is, obedience not required. Faith not required either.

Again, you're bringing things into the text that I think simply aren't there.

Jehovah will not just forgive Jews their sins, but he will even forget them. Thus, there is no point in repenting of them since Jehovah can't remember them anyway.

I'm not sure why you're trying to make a distinction given the famously inflationary diction of Hebraic poetry. It is suffice to say that the intensifying repetition was a hallmark of Hebraic poetry and that it isn't necessarily warranted to draw theological conclusions from such passages.

It is a direct replacement of the Mosaic Covenant.
[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure the position you are staking out here. Are you asserting that the Jeremiad Covenant is going to be a direct replacement? Or that Christianity was a direct replacement? Again, I think you're trying to draw a theological point where scripture is being mostly poetic.

How, oh how did Christians get this so wrong? In the Christian New Covenant, God's forgiveness must be earned. According to Jesus by obeying the Law of Moses, according to Paul through faith in Jesus as a mediator between Jehovah and mankind, and according to James through good works. According to Christianity, Jehovah is still interested in judging and punishing sinners, even though his interest in doing so is meant to have ended with the implementation of the New Covenant. Remember, he can't even remember sins after the New Covenant, so even if he wanted to change his mind he wouldn't be able to remember any sins to punish people for. So if this covenant really has come to pass now, Jehovah can't judge anyone even if he wants to.

I'm not sure all Christians would agree with your reading of scripture in the NT. I would argue that Jesus, Paul, and James are in agreement. I would also argue the universalist position on salvation, or at least a more inclusivist one reflective of the covenant. Again, as a technical point, it is the logical position of a "just God" that sin be punished regardless, and indeed Paul is quite clear that the punishment was handed down already--that is, it fell on Christ.

In order to deal with this problem are the competing theories of Dispensationalism, and of Covenant Theology. Neither can fully explain and resolve this theological problem. And both ignore what Jeremiah specifically says about prophecy - i.e.:


Of course, it is nondescript as to what happens when a prophecy is made but does not come to pass, luckily that is addressed in Deuteronomy here:

Scripture Verse: Deuteronomy 18:22

If a prophet speaks in the name of YHWH but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that YHWH has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.

© Copyright Original Source

Right. So by the Bible's own criteria for a prophecy to be tested against, the New Covenant prophecy is false. This is a big problem for Christian theology, because this prophecy is the only justification for throwing out the Mosaic Covenant. That's why the author of Hebrews uses it to justify the Christian Covenant.

Thoughts?

I think you're being a little sloppy here. There's no way to prove that such a cosmic prophecy is false until all time ends. Presumably, Deuteronomist was speaking about time limited prophecies not bound by doctrines of repentance--hence little more than divinations. I mean you could have cut straight to this point from the end, given the loosey-goosey nature of scriptural interpretation, rather than bothering with the supposed differences between Jeremiah and the NT that can be reconciled easily even by most traditional strains of Christianity. Believe me, if it were as cut and dried as you have tried to lay it out, this stuff would have been settled a long time ago.

fwiw,
guaca.

[firstfloor]

Thoughts?

Yes, we have noticed that the Bible is more a holy menu than a holy book.

[Aractus]

One of your most fundamental misunderstandings is here:

This is completely opposite of what Scripture actually says! It stresses that salvation (and forgiveness) CANNOT be earned. Salvation is a free gift from God, based on what Christ did on our behalf, not on what we do.

Right, I'll address that first: That's exactly what I just said that Paul of Tarsus teaches.

You have demonstrated that you do not have even a basic understanding of what Christianity teaches. If you misunderstand the basics, how can you ever hope to understand more complex concepts? It would be like trying to explain calculus to someone who does not understand basic high school algebra.

Which Christianity? Do I know what every sect believes? Of course not, and neither do you. I'm an ex-Anglican, I know very well what the Anglican church teaches. I know discriminatingly about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, about what the Pentecostal churches teach, about what Latter Day Saints teach, and about what the Orthodox Church teaches. I'm actually not that interested in what the many different thousands of today's church denominations teach, I'm far more interested in understanding the early church. One of the greatest fallacies that Christians have is that they believe they know and understand what ancient Judaism taught, which is refuted by today's Rabbi's, and that the Christian belief has been cohesive since the beginning. In reality the early church was highly malleable, and if you bother to consult your experts like Larry Hurtado you will find that's exactly what they tell you.

And to top it off, you make the claim that I don't understand Christian theology all the while making no reference whatsoever to the theories of Covenant Theology or Dispensationalism. I've helped you out here by telling you where the theories are that try to reconcile Jehovah's erratic covenants, and you haven't even bothered to tell me which of the two you believe and follow.

[Aractus]

Technically, some of that is incorrect. The Noachide covenant is between God and Humanity (that is specifically, all of Noah's descendants). The Abrahamic Cov. is between God and Abraham, though other people do benefit. The Mosaic Covenant is the only one listed that is, technically, specific to God and Israel. The David Cov. is specific to David's line, though presumably other people benefit.

Which theory are you quoting from here? Because I didn't say Israel, I said Hebrews - Hebrew People. I'd agree that the Adamic covenant is made between the whole world, although most Christians would agree that Adam wasn't a literal person either, which means that this is a covenant made with a mythological figure.

I don't know that this is logically warranted given that the prophecy isn't defined as exclusive in the passage you cited (though perhaps it might be in other places?). In any case, it is possible for gentiles to be "grafted in" to the promises given to Israel, at least according to the NT, and according to the Mosaic Covenant, allowance can be made for gentiles who want to live as Jews.

It is defined as exclusive, and it says specifically it will restore Israel & Judah.

Presumably, the Christians believe this is the whole point of the Incarnation, no? Again, I think you're reading more into the text about priests/religious authorities being done away with which isn't necessarily reasonable given the passage as cited.

I beg to differ, what else can possibly mean? That's the strongest possible statement that Jehovah could make to say "I will teach people personally, and no longer rely on Priests and teachers of the law".

Again, you're bringing things into the text that I think simply aren't there.

No I'm not, it's an unconditional covenant. There are two types of covenants that Jehovah makes - some are conditional, and some are unconditional. An example of an unconditional covenant is the Abrahamic Covenant, which he did not keep! The Abrahamic Covenant God makes with Abraham (Gen 15 & renewed in Gen 17) and tells him that his ancestors shall inherit the whole of Canaan to posses as an eternal possession. Now this is a big theological problem because even by the Bible's account, his descendants never managed to possess all of the promised land, nor were they able to continue the possession of the land they did manage to take. You can't ignore this problem and say it isn't there - if it isn't there why are there theological theories to try and explain it?

My ex-church definitely followed the theory of dispensationalism. We never heard that word uttered, but that's what was believed. I shouldn't need to explain the theory to a Christian, but essentially it teaches that God's people decided to make a new deal later (i.e. the Mosaic Covenant) of their own free will and relinquish God's obligation to keep his word to Abraham. The problem with that theory, is that Abraham was long since dead, and God knew that he wasn't going to keep the Abrahamic Covenant when he made it (because he knows all things), and therefore by making the covenant with Abraham he is knowingly lying to him. It's the complete opposite of what a faithful deity would do. If you don't like that theory, perhaps you follow Covenant Theology - but it's no more cohesive I'm afraid to say, it still leaves the problem that God lied to Abraham when he made an unconditional covenant with him.

I'm not sure why you're trying to make a distinction given the famously inflationary diction of Hebraic poetry. It is suffice to say that the intensifying repetition was a hallmark of Hebraic poetry and that it isn't necessarily warranted to draw theological conclusions from such passages.

Again, it is an unconditional covenant. Look it up if you don't believe me.

I'm not sure the position you are staking out here. Are you asserting that the Jeremiad Covenant is going to be a direct replacement? Or that Christianity was a direct replacement? Again, I think you're trying to draw a theological point where scripture is being mostly poetic.

It is a prophecy. You can't just decide when to take a prophecy "literally" and when to give it much more room for success. If that's the case, there are plenty of Nostradamus's for you to knock yourself out with.

I think you're being a little sloppy here. There's no way to prove that such a cosmic prophecy is false until all time ends.

Exactly! But, the Bible itself says to test a prophecy - so we can't just wait an unlimited stretch of time to wait for prophecies to happen, Deuteronomy 18:22 clearly says if a prophecy does not come to pass it is not from Jehovah. The punishment for false prophecy is death by the way (Deuteronomy 13:5), so how are God's people supposed to punish false prophets if they're allowed to wait until the end of time for the prophecy to happen? It's nonsensical.

[guacamole]

Which theory are you quoting from here? Because I didn't say Israel, I said Hebrews - Hebrew People. I'd agree that the Adamic covenant is made between the whole world, although most Christians would agree that Adam wasn't a literal person either, which means that this is a covenant made with a mythological figure.

I'm not quoting a theory. It's self-evident.

It is defined as exclusive, and it says specifically it will restore Israel & Judah.

Yes, but I explained, and you ignored, the loopholes given in both the OT and the NT. It's not irreconcilable.

I beg to differ, what else can possibly mean? That's the strongest possible statement that Jehovah could make to say "I will teach people personally, and no longer rely on Priests and teachers of the law".

It could mean that they will return and be faithful to the covenant established earlier. It could mean that all Jews will be believing Jews and not need to be brought back into the fold through some sort of evangelism.

No I'm not, it's an unconditional covenant. There are two types of covenants that Jehovah makes - some are conditional, and some are unconditional. An example of an unconditional covenant is the Abrahamic Covenant, which he did not keep! The Abrahamic Covenant God makes with Abraham (Gen 15 & renewed in Gen 17) and tells him that his ancestors shall inherit the whole of Canaan to posses as an eternal possession. Now this is a big theological problem because even by the Bible's account, his descendants never managed to possess all of the promised land, nor were they able to continue the possession of the land they did manage to take. You can't ignore this problem and say it isn't there - if it isn't there why are there theological theories to try and explain it?

My ex-church definitely followed the theory of dispensationalism. We never heard that word uttered, but that's what was believed. I shouldn't need to explain the theory to a Christian, but essentially it teaches that God's people decided to make a new deal later (i.e. the Mosaic Covenant) of their own free will and relinquish God's obligation to keep his word to Abraham. The problem with that theory, is that Abraham was long since dead, and God knew that he wasn't going to keep the Abrahamic Covenant when he made it (because he knows all things), and therefore by making the covenant with Abraham he is knowingly lying to him. It's the complete opposite of what a faithful deity would do. If you don't like that theory, perhaps you follow Covenant Theology - but it's no more cohesive I'm afraid to say, it still leaves the problem that God lied to Abraham when he made an unconditional covenant with him.

I don't think you've established enough evidence or logic to prove any of those points. In any case, you're proposing here a false binary of either Dispensationalism or Coventantalism, which isn't warranted. Neither term is scriptural, both simply try to describe separate readings of scripture.

Again, it is an unconditional covenant. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Irrelevant to whether or not you can draw Theological points from the inflationary diction of Hebraic couplet poetry.

It is a prophecy. You can't just decide when to take a prophecy "literally" and when to give it much more room for success. If that's the case, there are plenty of Nostradamus's for you to knock yourself out with.

I don't know how you get to be the one to decide when a prophecy has had enough time and therefore becomes false. Perhaps you could explain.

Exactly! But, the Bible itself says to test a prophecy - so we can't just wait an unlimited stretch of time to wait for prophecies to happen, Deuteronomy 18:22 clearly says if a prophecy does not come to pass it is not from Jehovah. The punishment for false prophecy is death by the way (Deuteronomy 13:5), so how are God's people supposed to punish false prophets if they're allowed to wait until the end of time for the prophecy to happen? It's nonsensical.

Presumably, as I already noted, the passage is in reference to divinatory practices specifically forbidden by the law, practices that would have been used to entice people to break the covenant, practices associated with foreign gods or false teaching, rather than statements about the far and distant future. Indeed, there are several such "end times" prophecies in apocalyptic texts that are not sanctioned by scripture. You may argue all you want that it's foolish, and it might be, but that's on you--It's no inconsistency in the Bible.

fwiw,
guac.

[Aractus]

I'm not quoting a theory. It's self-evident.

Self-evident to whom?

I don't know how you get to be the one to decide when a prophecy has had enough time and therefore becomes false. Perhaps you could explain.

The Bible's own criteria for testing the validity of a prophecy is irrelevant if we can wait an unlimited amount of time for prophecies to come to pass.

[guacamole]

Self-evident to whom?

Self-evident here meaning that it is easy to understand the specifics of each covenant by simply reading the text.

The Bible's own criteria for testing the validity of a prophecy is irrelevant if we can wait an unlimited amount of time for prophecies to come to pass.

You're being disingenuous. I specifically mention eschatology as a type of prophecy that wouldn't be testable. Clearly scripture, both OT and NT, contains apocalyptic and eschatological passages. Therefore, the prophetic tests for those would logically wait until the end of days or the fulfillment of the covenant. I've already specified the types of prophecies where this would be useful.

You still have dealt with either the Pauline "Grafted-in" loop hole or the Torah allowance for converted gentiles to share in the promises.

fwiw.
guaca.

[37818]

1. It is to be between Jehovah and the Israeli/Judaic people (not gentiles or people of other nations).

Latter covenants do not negate the earlier promises.

". . . in thee [Abram] shall all families of the earth be blessed. . . ." -- Genesis 12:3.

". . . All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. . . ." -- Psalm 22:27.

". . . I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; . . ." -- Isaiah 42:6.

". . . And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. . . ." -- Isaiah 49:6.

[The Pixie]

Latter covenants do not negate the earlier promises.

... Except when Christians want to eat pork or shellfish.

[Sparko]

... Except when Christians want to eat pork or shellfish.

sigh. The Old Covenant was not between Christians and God. It was between Hebrews and God and it was the ceremonial portion of the LAW (dealing with cleanliness and separation of the Hebrews from the Gentile nations), not the moral portion, and God specifically revoked that condition in a vision to Peter. This is typical of Atheists who like to play "gotcha" without understanding a single thing about the covenants.

You might also want to read Acts 15.

[37818]

... Except when Christians want to eat pork or shellfish.

You are cofusing promises with latter restrictions of the ceremonial Law which are to be a teaching on separation from the world. Under the Law those restrictions still stand. (Deutronomy 27:26.) [Since 70 CE even any delusions of keeping the law are impossible.]

[The Pixie]

The Old Covenant was not between Christians and God. It was between Hebrews and God and it was the ceremonial portion of the LAW (dealing with cleanliness and separation of the Hebrews from the Gentile nations), not the moral portion,...

How do you decide which parts are moral and which parts are ceremonial? A cynical person might suppose that you declare the bits you do not want to be ceremonial; I am sure you will be able to state exactly what the criteria really are.

With regards to the "separation of the Hebrews from the Gentile nations", do you think that racial segregation is a good thing?

... and God specifically revoked that condition in a vision to Peter.

He also specifically said he was not revoking it in Matthew 5:17. hmm, I guess that gives Christians free rein to pick and choose what they want from the OT.

This is typical of Atheists who like to play "gotcha" without understanding a single thing about the covenants.

And this is typical of Christians who think that their twisting of the Bible must necessarily be true.

You might also want to read Acts 15.

That is an interesting passage. Peter quotes Amos 9:11-12 to support his position, right? Would you say, then, that the event prophesied in Amos 9 had occurred by the time Peter was talking?