-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Is the term Old Covenant ever mentioned in Scripture?
- Thread starter Verifyveritas76
- Start date
Where? What did he do? He never violated Torah. If he did he couldn’t be the messiah.
Thats an interesting mantra. Kinda like the idea of the canon. Do your own research. Study the phrase cut off specifically as it relates to the Passover week. Not all of them apply but it only takes one.
And just because they apply does not equal that Christ sinned or couldn’t be Messiah. Yet another interesting mantra.
You are the one making the claim. Please point it out. And explain what you mean.
You’re a bright enough guy and it’s an easy enough study with Bible apps. If youre convinced I’m wrong don’t study it. If after you’ve done your due dilligence you still havent connected the dots, I’ll be happy to have that conversation.
There is no contract. This is a prophecy about something that hasn't happened yet. Ephraim has not been restored. The New Jerusalem has not been revealed. There is a whole chapter surround that verse. It is not a stand alone passage. And what does the Noahide Law have to do with anything? Are we even talking about the same thing?
You read the rest of the chapter it seems like it's tying the whole thing to New Jerusalem too.
Your implication here is that Jesus committed one of these "don'ts" and so was cut off from Israel. This is theologically adventurous if it is. I'm not sure if you were around the last time we had this whole "Jesus broke the Torah" go around. Maybe you were because it seems like @IshChayil was involved. I have never seen anything that would lead me to believe Jesus could be condemned under the Law. The incident with the wheat picking on the Sabbath was close but it didn't hold up on examination. Jesus was cursed but not because He broke the Law. It was because He took on our curse. The whole point was that He was sinless and an innocent sacrifice. If He was actually guilty of something the whole thing falls apart.
I am obligated to point out that your track record with mystical secret knowledge is spotty at best and what seemed obvious to you in your own studies was less than self evident when others examined it. If this is just a debate tactic then fine, it's not an effective one but we can ignore it. But if you actually have some knowledge that would keep a large number of your obviously weaker brothers in Christ from wasting precious time and energy on a spiritual folly then you should be forthcoming with it. We've obviously missed it and are in need of guidance. I can honestly say that at times I question Torah observance and am in such a period right now. So as long as it's not the Code of Hammurabi or the Talmud or some other non-believing source I'm open to what you have.
Justification through faith, apart from works of the Law, predates Sinai by 430 years. Reading Galations 3, it seems pretty clear why the Law was given. Therefore it seems safe to conclude that the Law written on our hearts is the Law of love. “Love one another”
Strictly a comparison of Torah with the Passover week. Some would think it funny to hear a non TO guy saying study Torah. In my experience, its usually not studied enough, by all of us.
I’d also be interested to know if any of you looking at this study get to a point where you identify a Christianity bias. As in you discount a Torah precept because Christ did it so it was ok.
For the record, I do have a Christianity (Christ supreme) bias. But. . . . I know it and try to be aware of it in my studies.
That came through a little more confrontational than I meant it to. I apologize. My gist was that I don't always put the same weight on some sources as you do. As far as I can tell there isn't a whole lot in the Bible proper about the Passover week.
C
Cap
Guest
It's the interpretation that matters.
C
Cap
Guest
There is a whole segment of Christianity that understand that Jeremiah 33 is pointing to the new covenant (new testament). To disregard that is removing the foundation of faith and love from God's point of view.
At the time written it was prophecy, just as the prophecy of the 3 days to rebuild the temple. It was about building it with living stones and it is the process we are currently in. It's not complete yet, but will be. The temple is currently being built. Prophecy is hard to see when you are in the middle of its fulfillment.
Whoa Nelly! I think you were fishing for me there weren't ya Zec?
Did you just say "Code of Hammurabi" and "Talmud" and "non-believing source" in one breath?
The Code of Hammurabi was invented by Pagans, the Talmud is a recorded discussion about scripture, how to apply scripture to various legal situations, and how this meshes with accepted/rejected positions; written by believers in the G-d of Israel and many of the discussions are from the time of Yeshua or before. With the 400 years of silence it's kind of hard to fault the Rabbis for having some conversations.
*** next part I'm just responding to your current position; maybe you'll like what I have to say, maybe others in the same boat will appreciate it, take it or leave it as you see fit ***
Now questioning Torah observance; that's being intellectually honest so who could fault you for that?
One thing that may be helpful for you, and others in your situation is to separate out the parts of Torah which predate Torah, i.e. the Sabbath day. The Sabbath day is blessed before there is any Torah and Adam rishon observed it even writing a psalm about it.
As such, the status of the Sabbath day may be unaffected by any of the Torah / non-Torah talk (as is the Malkhitsedeq priesthood as mentioned earlier in the thread).
Some may include also pure / impure animals in the "pre-Torah" items as they were known. Maybe try those things on for size and see if you have shalom in your heart about it. After observing all the pre-Torah stuff with the right attitude (i.e. loving G-d and having an attitude of gratitude to know about these things even), then maybe it's time to revisit what needs doing today and what doesn't?
In my experience, most folks have a few dishes they love that are Kosher and it's really not a big deal to avoid pork; at least living in the 1st world where everything is available in Turkey substitute forms or whatever.
Certainly there are aspects of the Torah which don't need doing any more, or at least can't be done any more.
(I'd submit that killing our own Paschal lamb is one of the things that's either been handled for us already, or it can't be done properly any more
For those who love the Torah, it's actually fairly effortless and goes on autopilot after you've been doing it a while; granted it helps to have a support system or to borrow one instead of always trying to reinvent the wheel as many Hebrew roots folks do. Perhaps the question is wrong. Maybe the question isn't "to do or not to do Torah" but "to make it excruciatingly difficult or not?" Yeshua said "my yoke is easy" yet to me it often seems many Hebrew roots folks way of observing is very painful and not at all enjoyable. Maybe being grafted in to Israel means doing Torah Israel's way?
Maybe not who knows. I'm just rolling.
At the end of the day, if you just do the things which predate Torah and you're wrestling with the text, and you've got the Messiah, well you've got an answer you can give on the judgement day. I might start with "Hashem, why was it so confusing! Why was Paul so difficult to understand if you wanted me to do all that stuff? Why are there verses which seem contradictory?" Not accusingly just wrestle-lingly.
Even if Full blown Torah observation is required by you; why not follow the way Israel does this for baalei-teshuva (those who are coming back to Torah)? Start with Shabbat, and gradually add stuff slowly over time; otherwise folks get overwhelmed by the restrictions on their life and it doesn't feel anything like a blessing. When it's done slowly, incrementally, it's not so noticeable even.
OK sorry I wrote so much, better end this before it's a full page.
In short don't be so hard on yourself brothers!
There are many covenants in the scripture; did Yeshua's death also "nullify" the covenant G-d made with the world to not destroy it with water again? Did his death nullify the covenant with Abraham?
Instead of continuing to list covenants obviously still in affect, I'd rather challenge you on your strong wording with "nullify" and "since there's a new covenant the old one is nullified.
Now regarding those covenants made with the Earth, I'm sure someone else has said this in here somewhere but I'd direct you to Matthew 5:18 before you develop the understanding that the "old covenant" was "nullified".
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished
That doesn't sound like nullification to me brother...
A very useful exercise can be to just read the words of the Living Law, Yeshua. Just read the gospels through again, or pick one. Don't go to Paul yet; let's just see what the Messiah Himself says and demonstrates by His actions. Then ask yourself what exactly was nullified by his death.
Something for sure was nullified, but that was not the eternal Law of G-d given "l'olam vaed" (forever and ever).
Peace
So in answer to the op's question, "is the term old covenant ever mentioned in scripture?"
I'd have to say "maybe".
Why maybe?
"old" is a translation choice to some extent. It's a loaded word in some contexts, "do you want an old lady to be your new wife or a young one?" Sounds negative.
What about, "do you want an experienced mom to join your family or an 18 year old facebook head?"
According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (10 volume set), one word choice for this Greek word is "venerable".
Think how that would affect you English language readers of the bible if most places the translators chose "the venerable covenant" as their word choice?
Folks who are quibbling about if "new covenant" can mean "renewed covenant" or not; the same word is also used when Yeshua says "I make all things new".
So if the venerable covenant is in set all things and Yeshua makes everything in set all things new, well what exactly does it mean to "make something venerable new"?
There's an easier way to say it which is "renew".
I'd have to say "maybe".
Why maybe?
"old" is a translation choice to some extent. It's a loaded word in some contexts, "do you want an old lady to be your new wife or a young one?" Sounds negative.
What about, "do you want an experienced mom to join your family or an 18 year old facebook head?"
According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (10 volume set), one word choice for this Greek word is "venerable".
Think how that would affect you English language readers of the bible if most places the translators chose "the venerable covenant" as their word choice?
Folks who are quibbling about if "new covenant" can mean "renewed covenant" or not; the same word is also used when Yeshua says "I make all things new".
So if the venerable covenant is in set all things and Yeshua makes everything in set all things new, well what exactly does it mean to "make something venerable new"?
There's an easier way to say it which is "renew".
This, I believe, is a colossal misunderstanding of what Torah observance brings.
For those who try to keep G-d's Torah the point is not to get something in return, i.e. salvation, but to give something for what we've been given already.
We see the Torah as G-d's love language so we use it to express our love to Him.
The question you ask is a loaded question. Who can say if one person is saved? Who knows how deep their faith is? In the end you should keep the Torah if you feel convicted to do so. If you feel convicted and you don't act, then for you that is sin. What's clear to me is that everyone who is truly loyal to the G-d of Israel is then motivated to do stuff. For some, that's Torah. For others, it's spreading the good news. Others do other things but the point is that active faith is not lethargic. It's not GOT and video games all week with some lip service 1x per week feel good praise music and a sermon. Can such a faith save?
***responding now to others asking the same question you are asking, but not really speaking directly to you Cap****
If you are thinking, "I'm saved but I don't do anything really worthy for the kingdom" well that should scare the hell out of you. Literally.
Anyone in that boat needs to get off their duff and start DOING. "don't just be listeners to the word but doers..."
I need you to lay this out. This is usually the argument I get from Jews who refuse to recognize Him as the Messiah but from a few believers as well. So I've done my own study on it.
I heard something like this before. They point to Matthew 12 and say Yeshua worked on the Sabbath and taught against Torah.
12 At that time Yeshua went through the grain fields on Shabbat. His disciples became hungry and began to pluck heads of grain and eat them. 2 But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not permitted on Shabbat.”
3 But He said to them, “Haven’t you read what David did when he became hungry, and those with him? 4 How he entered into the house of God, and they ate the showbread, which was not permitted for him to eat, nor for those with him, but only for the kohanim? 5 Or haven’t you read in the Torah that on Shabbat the kohanim in the Temple break Shabbat and yet are innocent? 6 But I tell you that something greater than the Temple is here. 7 If you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice, you wouldn’t have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of Shabbat.”
9 Leaving from there, He went into their synagogue. 10 A man with a withered hand was there. And so that they might accuse Him, they questioned Yeshua, saying, “Is it permitted to heal on Shabbat?”
11 He said to them, “What man among you will not grab his sheep and lift it out, if it falls into a pit on Shabbat? 12 How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is permitted to do good on Shabbat.”
13 Then He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out and it was restored, as healthy as the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted against Him, how they might destroy Him.
Please tell me your argument doesn't rest on Mathew 12. There is nothing here being taught against Torah, only tradition and interpretation of Torah. There is no act that violates the Sabbath here only tradition and interpretation of Torah about what is acceptable on the Sabbath.
Or they point here 'Anyone who touches a corpse, the body of a man who has died,
but don't finish with
and does not purify himself, defiles the tabernacle of the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from Israel Because the water for impurity was not sprinkled on him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is still on him
Forgetting the many times it spoke about Him being washed (the tear incident comes to mind) and anointed with oil.
They say it never said he mikvah, John the Immerser comes to mind, that was before but not afterwards. I tend to reply. It never says he pooped either are you saying he never did.
Now if you're talking in the Biblical context to be cut off, physical death ie dyeing because of sin. He was cut off.
Last edited: