Meat MEAT!!!!!!!! What is the "New Covenant"?

[The Revolting Man]

Recently @Asforme&myhouse started a thread loosely based on a suggestion I had made about defining what the "New Covenant" is. We hear about it a lot but I don't know that anyone has ever really defined it for me and shown in scripture where and when it was made and what it entails.

I want to cut through a some of the fog first though. The "New Covenant" is not in Jeremiah 31:31. I know that Jeremiah 31:31 says the phrase "new covenant" but it also says that it's with Judah and Israel and since Israel still hasn't shown back up yet that covenant is so new it hasn't been driven off the lot yet. It still has that new covenant smell because it's still at the dealership.

So what scripture do we go to find the new covenant that we're operating under? Certainly the book of Hebrews talks about a "new covenant", although in chapter 8 it is indisputably quoting Jeremiah 31:31 including the direction of the "new covenant" towards Judah and Israel. It seems to me that we're going to have to deep dive into Hebrews to answer this question of what is the "new covenant".

I'm going to give you my hypothesis. The answer seems to be in Hebrews 9:8-15. The new covenant is the one time substitution of Christ for the sacrifice and the removal of the Tabernacle and especially the Holy of Holies which we're allowed to enter now. I believe that Christ Himself points us to this conclusion at The Last Supper when He, as related in Mark 14:24 when He said, "This is my blood of the new covenant, which for many is being poured out." (YLT) This is laid out very clearly in Hebrews 9 again although a more intense focus should be placed on verses 12-15. Although I am not trying to avoid verse 10 which could possibly be easliy misconstrued.

Now some one is going to want to point out that I'm contradicting myself, I claim that the Jeremiah 31:31 covenant hasn't been put in to effect yet and then show that covenant is reference in Hebrews 8 and that Hebrews 9:8-15 defines the new covenant of Christ's sacrifice. Is the new covenant in effect of not? It's a fair question. My working theory right now is that the writer of Hebrews was using the prophesy of Yahweh's future new covenant with Judah and Israel as an example that He will make new covenants plural. It's a working theory and might now stand up to scrutiny.

Also, we should pay special attention to Hebrews 8:13 where we are told that the old covenant is "ready to vanish away," not that it had already passed away. This is important because at the point of this writing Christ had been crucified, risen and ascended and the Holy Spirit had come. If the old covenant hadn't passed away by that time when would it have?

Also, can anyone find an Old Testament reference to the Law being a covenant. Its entirely possible I didn't look hard enough because I haven't found it yet. Please keep this thread narrowly focused on defining the various covenants. We can take our conclusions here back to other threads to beat each other over the heads with.

So here is my challenge, show me what the new covenant is. Where it is. When it started and what it requires of us.

 

[Pacman]

So what scripture do we go to find the new covenant that we're operating under?

We aren't yet.

Also, we should pay special attention to Hebrews 8:13 where we are told that the old covenant is "ready to vanish away,"

Nope Covenant is in Italics there bro the covenant is not vanishing. That verse is talking about the priesthood.

 

[The Revolting Man]

We aren't yet.


Nope Covenant is in Italics there bro the covenant is not vanishing. That verse is talking about the priesthood.

I'm not sure what you're reacting to. The priesthood is a part of the Law so if they priesthood is about to vanish then a portion of the Law is in deed vanishing. I submit though that at the writing of Hebrews the priesthood had vanished spiritually. That which was about to vanish would have to be something else. You have to acknowledge that something is going to vanish or disappear and the context of the chapters is the old covenant. A portion of the Law is changing. The way it changed when the priesthood and Tabernacle/Temple were added.

 

[Pacman]

I'm not sure what you're reacting to. The priesthood is a part of the Law so if they priesthood is about to vanish then a portion of the Law is in deed vanishing. I submit though that at the writing of Hebrews the priesthood had vanished spiritually. That which was about to vanish would have to be something else. You have to acknowledge that something is going to vanish or disappear and the context of the chapters is the old covenant. A portion of the Law is changing. The way it changed when the priesthood and Tabernacle/Temple were added.

In the context of Hebrews yes something is about to vanish. The priesthood. And it did that's not a change in the law it is simply prophecy. You have to read chapters 7 and 8 together and remove the italics. It isn't even making the Levitical priesthood void it is simply emphasizing the Melchizedek priesthood (which has been Yeshua for all of time)

 

[The Revolting Man]

In the context of Hebrews yes something is about to vanish. The priesthood. And it did that's not a change in the law it is simply prophecy. You have to read chapters 7 and 8 together and remove the italics. It isn't even making the Levitical priesthood void it is simply emphasizing the Melchizedek priesthood (which has been Yeshua for all of time)

Oh dear lord, then the Levitical priesthood going away is still a change. There was no Levitical priesthood, then there was a Levitical priesthood and now there isn’t. I don’t know what you think italics indicate but they can’t make three changes in to no changes.

 

[Pacman]

Oh dear lord, then the Levitical priesthood going away is still a change. There was no Levitical priesthood, then there was a Levitical priesthood and now there isn’t. I don’t know what you think italics indicate but they can’t make three changes in to no changes.

Yes it's a change. I am not saying otherwise. You are missing my point. The point of the whole thing is establishing that Yeshua is the high priest in Heaven. He is Melchizedek. The covenant is not going away. The earthly priesthood is what is being spoken about.

 

[Quartus]

Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

here's how I see the new covenant being the Abrahamic covenant

There can be a number of stages to a contract or covenant.

A bit on the (English) Law of Contract:

An Offer is made.
The offer can be accepted or rejected until such time as the offer is withdrawn. It can of course be ignored completely…
Different people can accept multiple offers at different times.
There can be no contract(s) unless there has been acceptance.
A contract can be made subject to a future event being fulfilled e.g. if someone agrees to buy a house but only after it has been built.

Void Contract
If for instance the law changed so that the contract became illegal then the contract would become void automatically and would have to be terminated.

Breach of Contract
If one party breaks the covenant, the other party gets to choose whether to terminate the contract or demand that the other party completes their obligation. Thus the contract becomes “voidable” at the option of the party that is not in breach rather than automatically “void”. (Otherwise it would be just too easy for either party to avoid the obligations of any contract simply by breaking it).

I’m not saying God’s Covenants are made to be governed in accordance with Laws of England but it’s rather difficult to imagine a workable basis for agreements that would be very different from those principles.

Moving on to that which is spiritual, here are my thoughts on the Abrahamic Covenant:

God made Abraham an offer – but only IF he went to the land.. and separatd from Lot. Abraham accepted the offer by fulfilling those conditions over several years (Gen 12:4 etc). That covenant then became binding 3000 years ago but even so it couldn’t come into effect until Christ died (Heb 9:16-17).
When Christ had offered up himself, the new covenant in his blood came into effect for the first time and could therefore for the first time the Abrahamic covenant be described as “new”. (Luke 22:20).
That new covenant was then offered to Jew and Gentile but would still require acceptance. Individual hearers who responded to the preaching of the apostles accepted the offer 2,000 years ago.
National Israel did not. Jer 31 describes the time when Christ has returned and Israel will accept the new covenant and be regathered redeemed and ransomed (Jer 31:10-11, 28,33-34). They were not regathered redeemed and ransomed in the time of the apostles with only a few years left before AD70.

So the Abrahamic covenant can have several stages and applications, some past, some present, and some still future.

But it was not annulled by the Law of Moses and what it promised is not going to become of none effect (Gal 3:17).

 

[Quartus]

Also, we should pay special attention to Hebrews 8:13 where we are told that the old covenant is "ready to vanish away," not that it had already passed away. This is important because at the point of this writing Christ had been crucified, risen and ascended and the Holy Spirit had come. If the old covenant hadn't passed away by that time when would it have?

My feeling is that things changed at the crucifixion - that's when the vail of the temple was torn asunder and the offer became available. As I see it the offer to Israel nationally remained open until AD70. It's a matter of speculation how things might have developed if the temple had remained standing and national Israel had remained in the land having accepted their king and invited him back to Jerusalem. It seems to have been expected that they would not do so at that time. After AD70 the offer still remained open but could then only be accepted on an individual level by Jew or Gentile, not on a national level by Israel.

During that period up to AD70, the gospel was taken by the apostles to Jews/Israelites not in the land but in other countries, so giving those abroad the opportunity to accept as well as those in Jerusalem. And also during that period, instead of a national repentance, the apostles who preached the Good News were persecuted and killed and so there was no remedy and Jerusalem was to be trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are also fulfilled.

Probably worth considering that Israel changed from a family during the time of Abraham to a nation by the time of Moses. After AD70 Israel ceased to exist as a nation in the fullest sense, with its own land and borders. We are now once again more like strangers and pilgrims as Abraham was (Heb 11:13, 1Peter 2:11).

 

[The Revolting Man]

Yes it's a change. I am not saying otherwise. You are missing my point. The point of the whole thing is establishing that Yeshua is the high priest in Heaven. He is Melchizedek. The covenant is not going away. The earthly priesthood is what is being spoken about.

That’s what I said.

 

[rockfox]

The new covenant is the one time substitution of Christ for the sacrifice and the removal of the Tabernacle and especially the Holy of Holies which we're allowed to enter now.

"No one puts a piece from a new garment on an old one; otherwise the new makes a tear, and also the piece that was taken out of the new does not match the old."

I don't know that anyone has ever really defined it for me and shown in scripture where and when it was made

When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. 15Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”
17Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
20Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. 21But behold, the hand of My betrayer is with Me on the table. 22And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”

So what scripture do we go to find the new covenant that we're operating under?

As Paul says...

You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.

4And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

He was presently a minister of the new covenant, it is here now. What letter and Spirit does he speak of?

Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. 5For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. 6But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

We are no longer under the old covenant, but under the new one.

1Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2a Minister of the [a]sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.
3For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. 4For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

13In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

And while once ready to it now has vanished away. The temple is gone. The priests are gone. The sacrifices are gone. The people long since cut off.

We have a new high priest, Christ, seated at the right hand now. This is the same new covenant Paul speaks of. And in doing so the writer of Hebrews quotes Jerimiah, confirming that contra your assertion, it is our covenant now. You may not understand the details of the fulfillment of that prophecy, but it is here now all the same.

And we know this is true because "their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." and Christ has made the old Covenant obsolete. For as the writer explains in Hebrews 10

Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law), 9then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10By that will we have been [c]sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being [d]sanctified.
15But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
16“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 18Now where there is [e]remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

Which all means that this isn't true...

I'm going to give you my hypothesis. The answer seems to be in Hebrews 9:8-15. The new covenant is the one time substitution of

Christ for the sacrifice and the removal of the Tabernacle and especially the Holy of Holies which we're allowed to enter now. I

Christ didn't just keep the same covenant but swap out the sacrifices for His own, His sacrifice once and for all made the old covenant obsolete. It wasn't fixed, it wasn't modified, it was replaced.

Which all makes it very plain, we are now under the new covenant, not the old. Which Paul also makes clear in his letter to the Galatians...

Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

Which not only points out how dangerous all this talk is of being under old law is, but how patently ridiculous it is.

 

[The Revolting Man]

"No one puts a piece from a new garment on an old one; otherwise the new makes a tear, and also the piece that was taken out of the new does not match the old."








As Paul says...



He was presently a minister of the new covenant, it is here now. What letter and Spirit does he speak of?



We are no longer under the old covenant, but under the new one.



And while once ready to it now has vanished away. The temple is gone. The priests are gone. The sacrifices are gone. The people long since cut off.

We have a new high priest, Christ, seated at the right hand now. This is the same new covenant Paul speaks of. And in doing so the writer of Hebrews quotes Jerimiah, confirming that contra your assertion, it is our covenant now. You may not understand the details of the fulfillment of that prophecy, but it is here now all the same.

And we know this is true because "their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." and Christ has made the old Covenant obsolete. For as the writer explains in Hebrews 10



Which all means that this isn't true...



Christ didn't just keep the same covenant but swap out the sacrifices for His own, His sacrifice once and for all made the old covenant obsolete. It wasn't fixed, it wasn't modified, it was replaced.

Which all makes it very plain, we are now under the new covenant, not the old. Which Paul also makes clear in his letter to the Galatians...



Which not only points out how dangerous all this talk is of being under old law is, but how patently ridiculous it is.

Well the first point is that God wasn’t putting a new patch on an old cloth. He was removing a section of the old cloth. But also you haven’t defined what the new covenant is. And I understand Jeremiah 31:31 very well, it was a prophesied covenant to be made with Judah and Israel and would kick in when no one has to teach scripture anymore, Israelites will just know it miraculously. Has that day arrived? No. We all obviously need Bible teachers still and Israel hasn’t even shown back up yet. It’s not in effect yet, and probably won’t be until the Millenium at the earliest.

You can’t make a new covenant theology for gentiles off of Jeremiah 31:31 when absolutely nothing in the verse applies to gentiles. They’re not Judah or Israel and don’t have a miraculous and complete knowledge of scripture and clearly you at least still see a need to teach your understanding of scripture to your neighbor. So how can you claim that the Jeremiah 31:31 covenant is in effect when absolutely none of its provisions have been realized yet?

So I ask again, what is the scriptural definition of the covenant we’re currently under? Jeremiah 31:31 doesn’t work.

 

[Joleneakamama]

You can’t make a new covenant theology for gentiles off of Jeremiah 31:31 when absolutely nothing in the verse applies to gentiles.

If you go back to Genesis 48:19
But his father refused. “I know, my son; I know,” he replied. “Manasseh will also become a great people, but his younger brother will become even greater. And his descendants will become a multitude of nations.”
Some translations render that last line "The fullness of the nations" and that word nations is the Hebrew word Goy.

John 10:16
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

In John 7:35 when He said where he was going they could not come...they said "Will he go to the dispersed among the Greeks and teach the Greeks" oh wait! King James said dispersed among the gentiles. Hmmm.

"Gentiles" was actually the translators acknowledging the connection of blood between Jews and those cast into the nations. It is from the Latin gentiles and means of the same gens clan or tribe.

When he sent his disciples to the "Lost sheep of the house of Israel" this was them hearing his voice. He did make one fold. Since Shiloh came his servants have been called by a new name.....BUT that never changed who they are.

These were the seed of Israel that YHWH says will be a nation before Him forever.

Israel hasn’t even shown back up yet

Because you are using the wrong search parameters. Like maleficent's minions looking for a baby for 16 years, those looking for "lost tribes" will not see those gathered to Shiloh and going by a new name as Israel.

 

[The Revolting Man]

If you go back to Genesis 48:19
But his father refused. “I know, my son; I know,” he replied. “Manasseh will also become a great people, but his younger brother will become even greater. And his descendants will become a multitude of nations.”
Some translations render that last line "The fullness of the nations" and that word nations is the Hebrew word Goy.

John 10:16
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

In John 7:35 when He said where he was going they could not come...they said "Will he go to the dispersed among the Greeks and teach the Greeks" oh wait! King James said dispersed among the gentiles. Hmmm.

"Gentiles" was actually the translators acknowledging the connection of blood between Jews and those cast into the nations. It is from the Latin gentiles and means of the same gens clan or tribe.

When he sent his disciples to the "Lost sheep of the house of Israel" this was them hearing his voice. He did make one fold. Since Shiloh came his servants have been called by a new name.....BUT that never changed who they are.

These were the seed of Israel that YHWH says will be a nation before Him forever.



Because you are using the wrong search parameters. Like maleficent's minions looking for a baby for 16 years, those looking for "lost tribes" will not see those gathered to Shiloh and going by a new name as Israel.

That’s too speculative. It could be so but there’s no proof of it and until there is I’m not going to incorporate it in to anything as important as the definition of the “new covenant “.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Romans 9:24 and 25
Tells us that God called some of these "Gentiles" and Paul said this was fulfilling Hosea.
It is not speculation. Ephraim's descendants were prophesied to become a multitude of goy....same word translated gentiles and nations. That is fact.

But it sure isn't possible for anyone to make you see what it appears He has not opened your eyes to.

If you cannot see that those of Judea and many "Gentiles" are one now....and following the good shepherd I may as well stop now.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Romans 9:24 and 25
Tells us that God called some of these "Gentiles" and Paul said this was fulfilling Hosea.
It is not speculation. Ephraim's descendants were prophesied to become a multitude of goy....same word translated gentiles and nations. That is fact.

But it sure isn't possible for anyone to make you see what it appears He has not opened your eyes to.

If you cannot see that those of Judea and many "Gentiles" are one now....and following the good shepherd I may as well stop now.

You may as well. There’s no proof. Not one shred. Your proof texts could mean that if they don’t mean anything else.

 

[PeteR]

@Joleneakamama you usually start in the right place (Ephraim cast into the nations and lost his identity) but then get lost in, as @The Revolting Man refers, a flight of fancy with names, land, etc.

Ezekiel 37, Hosea 1 & 2, Jeremiah 31, etc all clearly state that Ephraim, aka the house of Israel, will return home and live in the land God gave Jacob.

Jeremiah even says that it's such a sure thing you have to remove the sun from the sky before i'm to listen to you. Make no mistake, you are not living in the promised Land, and the Messiah will not reign from Washington DC or Phoenix, AZ.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Gal 3:15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

here's how I see the new covenant being the Abrahamic covenant

There can be a number of stages to a contract or covenant.

A bit on the (English) Law of Contract:

An Offer is made.
The offer can be accepted or rejected until such time as the offer is withdrawn. It can of course be ignored completely…
Different people can accept multiple offers at different times.
There can be no contract(s) unless there has been acceptance.
A contract can be made subject to a future event being fulfilled e.g. if someone agrees to buy a house but only after it has been built.

Void Contract
If for instance the law changed so that the contract became illegal then the contract would become void automatically and would have to be terminated.

Breach of Contract
If one party breaks the covenant, the other party gets to choose whether to terminate the contract or demand that the other party completes their obligation. Thus the contract becomes “voidable” at the option of the party that is not in breach rather than automatically “void”. (Otherwise it would be just too easy for either party to avoid the obligations of any contract simply by breaking it).

I’m not saying God’s Covenants are made to be governed in accordance with Laws of England but it’s rather difficult to imagine a workable basis for agreements that would be very different from those principles.

Moving on to that which is spiritual, here are my thoughts on the Abrahamic Covenant:

God made Abraham an offer – but only IF he went to the land.. and separatd from Lot. Abraham accepted the offer by fulfilling those conditions over several years (Gen 12:4 etc). That covenant then became binding 3000 years ago but even so it couldn’t come into effect until Christ died (Heb 9:16-17).
When Christ had offered up himself, the new covenant in his blood came into effect for the first time and could therefore for the first time the Abrahamic covenant be described as “new”. (Luke 22:20).
That new covenant was then offered to Jew and Gentile but would still require acceptance. Individual hearers who responded to the preaching of the apostles accepted the offer 2,000 years ago.
National Israel did not. Jer 31 describes the time when Christ has returned and Israel will accept the new covenant and be regathered redeemed and ransomed (Jer 31:10-11, 28,33-34). They were not regathered redeemed and ransomed in the time of the apostles with only a few years left before AD70.

So the Abrahamic covenant can have several stages and applications, some past, some present, and some still future.

But it was not annulled by the Law of Moses and what it promised is not going to become of none effect (Gal 3:17).

I think I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. How would you define the “new covenant”?

 

[The Revolting Man]

I am extremely disappointed that none of our New Covenanters other than @rockfox , who’s always up for a good fight much to his great credit, are willing to define and support what the “new covenant” is. It is the centerpiece of their faith and they tout it so much to the rest of us as a worthy centerpiece of our faith that I had hoped that they had a good working definition and could back that up scripture.

Maybe we won’t be hearing about it so much in the future seeing as how it’s not worth talking about.

 

[Quartus]

I think I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. How would you define the “new covenant”?

My definition: The New Covenant IS the Abrahamic Covenant.

The proof of this is Gal 3:15-17. If there is a covenant at all, and scripture explains it by saying that the Abrahamic covenant cannot be annulled or added to, then the Covenant that is described as "new" must be the Abrahamic Covenant. How could it be anything else?

“New” because it was impossible for the Abrahamic covenant to come into effect before Christ died.
Luk 22:20 "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

The Abrahamic Covenant is all inclusive:
Gen 18:17 And the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing,
Gen 18:18 since Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
Gen 18:19 For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him."

All nations and for that matter all the tribes equally. All are one in Christ Jesus. Nobody need be left out or gets disadvantaged by who they are or aren't descended from.

Gal 3:25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[AmericanIsraelite]

When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. 15Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”
17Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
20Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. 21But behold, the hand of My betrayer is with Me on the table. 22And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”

If after @rockfox quoted this passage above you all still deny being in a new covenant, or insist that the covenant of Jeremiah 31:31 is still future, even the most perfect argument will not be persuasive enough.
Paul in sharing the good news of a new King, the mediator of that new covenant could not convince everyone.

Acts 18:6 But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."

That was excellent @rockfox and @Quartus great posts!