The Remnant Has Returned

[Musicman1228]

Very good point John317. Jeremiah 31 seals it in stone that the term "New Covenant" was used. It only makes sense for Jesus to have used that phrase if He wanted to be in harmony with the Old Testament.

In Matthew 18:16, Jesus said "in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."

Matthew said Jesus used the term "New Covenant" in Matthew 26:28

Mark said Jesus used the term "New Covenant" in Mark 14:24

Luke said Jesus used the term "New Covenant" in Luke 22:20

That's Three Witnesses that Musicman is denying.

I know that when I say this that John is going to take exception and educate me in the correct use of the Hebrew, but if you look at the word in Strong's for 'new' in Jer. 31:31 you will see that the word means 'renew' or 'rebuild' and does not mean brand new as in completely different.

2318 chadash khaw-dash' a primitive root; to be new; causatively, to rebuild:--renew, repair.

And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you,   (28) for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matt. 26:27-28. ESV

And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Mark 14:24. ESV

Of course, since Luke was writing for Paul he must include the word 'new' in front of 'covenant' because this supports Paul's gospel.

In Jeremiah God was speaking of the same Covenant that He gave Israel at Sinai that would be 'renewed' in their hearts and not on stone. This places a whole new texture to the idea of a brand new never been seen before covenant; God never said this, Paul did and was wrong in doing so.

[Lysimachus]

Musicman,

I have always believed that the New Covenant is a renewal of the "the covenant".

In a nutshell, the Old Covenant was the Everlasting Covenant broken by the poor promises of Israel. The New Covenant was the Everlasting covenant recaptured and restored by the blood of Christ.

There is only ONE covenant. The Old Covenant did not become "old" until it was broken in disobedience to God's commandments the rejecting the Messiah. It was just "The Covenant".

This has been a traditional view in Adventism.

[phkrause]

Musicman,

I have always believed that the New Covenant is a renewal of the "the covenant".

In a nutshell, the Old Covenant was the Everlasting Covenant broken, by the poor promises of Israel. The New Covenant was the Everlasting covenant recaptured and restored by the blood of Christ.

There is only ONE covenant. The Old Covenant did not become "old" until it was broken, and rejection of the Messiah. It was just "The Covenant".

This has been a traditional view in Adventism.

I definitely agree with you Lysimachus. The only reason it was always called "New" is because it kept being broken. God will always keep his end, its us who continue to fail.

[John317]

And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, Drink of it, all of you,   (28) for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matt. 26:27-28. ESV

The English Standard Version is based on the Critical Text, which explains why it omits the word "new" in Matt. 26: 28. (I often use the ESV and the Critical Greek Text. One of my favorite Study Bibles is the ESV Study Bible. It is really great, so I am not at all putting down the ESV or the Critical Text. I am simply showing why there are differences.)

The manuscript evidence supporting "new covenant" in Matt. 26: 28 is the Majority of Greek manuscripts plus codices Alexandrinus and C.

The Critical Text accepts the readings of Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus when those two agree, and ignores thousands of other manuscripts. So in the case of Matt. 26: 28, the ESV is following the testimony of Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiaticus, and p 37. These manuscripts were from Alexandria, whereas the Majority reading is based on manuscripts from Antioch and Jerusalem. Alexandria was a center of gnosticism and where Origen taught. Interestingly, however, in this case, two manuscripts from Alexandria agree with the Majority Text.

Quote:

And he said to them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Mark 14:24. ESV

Again, the ESV is based on the Critical Text, which follows the Coptic manuscripts, Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

The Majority Text has "new covenant," a reading based on virtually all Greek manuscripts except for Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The Majority Text is in agreement with old Latin and Syriac translations, as well as Codex Alexandrinus.

It would be a mistake to assume that the omission of "new" in a few manuscripts of Matt. 26: 28 and Mark 14: 24 signifies that Christ didn't say "new covenant." Bible commentaries using the ESV and the NASB also refer to "the new covenant." Virtually all Bible scholars recognize that Jesus was talking about "the new covenant" at the Last Supper.

[John317]

....if you look at the word in Strong's for 'new' in Jer. 31:31 you will see that the word means 'renew' or 'rebuild' and does not mean brand new as in completely different.

2318 chadash khaw-dash' a primitive root; to be new; causatively, to rebuild:--renew, repair.

You gotta know the difference between a verb and an adjective. Makes a huge difference, MM. We're talking about an adjective here, right?

The word used in Jeremiah 31: 31 is Strongs #2319 and means "new" as in "new things" (Isaiah 42: 9).

It NEVER means "renew."

(NOTE: the word we're discussing is not #2318, but #2319.)

In the case of Jeremiah 31: 31, the word is an adjective and is translated, "new covenant."

It is used in Deut. 20: 5 of a "new house," not a renewed house. It is a completely brand new house.

"New wine" is not renewed wine. It is completely new wine. Joshua 9: 13.

[John317]

But Musicman is talking about a noun, whereas Jeremiah 31: 31 is using an adjective.

The Hebrew adjective, Strongs #2319, is not referring to anything that was "renewed." The new covenant that Christ ratified at the cross was a completely new agreement, not the Old Covenant done over again.

However, the legal basis of both covenants was the same: the Ten Commandments. The difference was that under the Old Covenant, the Ten Commandments were a set of rules exterior to the people, which the people promised to obey; whereas under the New Covenant, the Ten Commandments are principles based on agape/love, which Christ obeyed perfectly, and God has promised to write them on people's hearts and minds by the Holy Spirit.

[Lysimachus]

I would agree with you John317 that it was a completely new covenant. What I meant, however, was that the New Covenant is the same Everlasting Covenant restored. But in order to restore it, it had to be completely new. We're told that Christ's shed blood was the blood of the New Covenant (Matt 26:28). Yet we're also told that this was the blood of the "Everlasting Covenant" (Heb 13:20), which is mentioned as far back as Gen. 9:16.

The only thing that made the Old Covenant "Old" was through the faults of Israel. Paul also makes it very clear that had the first covenant been faultless, then there would have been no place to seek the second (Heb 8:7). So definitely the purpose of the New Covenant was to restore what had been broken by the poor promises of Israel who "sought the law of righteousness" not by faith, "but as it were by the works of the law" (Romans 9:31,32)

[John317]

Yes, the Old Covenant-- the one made at Sinai-- didn't contradict the Everlasting Covenant. It was intended to lead the people to the New Covenant. God simply allowed the people to see for themselves that they couldn't obey the law of God on their own, "in the flesh," to use Paul's language.

[Lysimachus]

I just added more for clarity. :)

[phkrause]

John even in the Messianic Bible its translated as "New"

28 For this is my blood, which ratifies the New Covenant, my blood shed on behalf of many, so that they may have their sins forgiven.

[Lysimachus]

Yes, the Old Covenant-- the one made at Sinai-- didn't contradict the Everlasting Covenant. It was intended to lead the people to the New Covenant. God simply allowed the people to see for themselves that they couldn't obey the law of God on their own, "in the flesh," to use Paul's language.

I think we're on the same page practically. Studying the Covenants can be so deep, and so much meaning to them--I doubt there is one "clear cut" description of the purpose for the New Covenant. There are so many beautiful ways to describe the purpose and beauty of the New Covenant, and how it is intrinsically tied to the Everlasting Covenant. :)

[John317]

David Stern's a very intelligent man. lol

Good scholar, too. I like his translation.

[Lysimachus]

Who is David Stern John317?

[John317]

Yeah, it's wonderful topic. Sometime I'd like to devote an entire discussion to the covenants.

[John317]

Stern translated "The Compete Jewish Bible," a wonderful translation. He's a Jew who accepts Christ as the Messiah. Maybe you've seen his translation at the Bible stores.

[Lysimachus]

I see John, thanks! I just learned something new. :)

[John317]

I'm sure you'd like his translation.

It contains a lot of interesting things. For instance, at 1 Cor. 16, Stern shows that Paul told the Corinthians to wait until after the sun set on Sabbath evening to go over their business and decide what they could lay aide at home. It wasn't something they did at church on Sunday.

[ClubV12]

...John is our resident scholar after all, keeps me coming back. :)

[Lysimachus]

To John317 and pkrause:

1. How come BibleGateway.com doesn't have the "The Compete Jewish Bible" for free on their site?

2. Where/how did you read that translation? Software on your computer? E-Sword? Did you have to install the Bible separately into E-Sword?

3. Is there any website online that has it free?

[John317]

I read it the old fashioned way-- as a book. LOL

Maybe pk can help you out with the availability elsewhere. I'm not sure where else it can be found.

It got it when it was only in the NT, but then it came out in the complete Bible several yeas ago.

[John317]

:-)

[Lysimachus]

Found it online!

http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/

[phkrause]

I bought the Bible from Nobles book store, but there online book store, it was cheaper than at there store.

[John317]

Outstanding.

[ClubV12]

Hmmmm, still looking for the audio version...

Actually, I've found that audio version's of the bible are interesting for "light listening" but generally it's far to deep to listen to, you need to read it. I listend to Galations, a few times, that didn't work, had to get out the "book". Romans was the same way, just to deep.

Audio works really well for the Conflict Series. Currently I'm listening to Steps to Christ, again, after having read it. Wonderful, you can beat going back to basics, in what ever occupation you find yourself.