I've been following the discussion between you both, and would like some clarification.

First, what IS a Covenant? What is its purpose?

I'm not looking for specifics here. Just your individual definitions of what a Covenant is and what is its purpose?

I have always understood a Covenant as a legally-binding contract which "establishes the basis of a relationship, conditions for that relationship, promises and conditions of the relationship and consequences if those conditions were unmet."

If I'm mistaken, let me know. If you both agree with this definition and purpose, I'll ask my follow-up question.

Again, I'm not looking for a long, drawn-out answer. Just wanting to understand if you both are talking about the same thing as far as what a Covenant is and its purpose, as a baseline for this discussion.

Thank you, in advance!
Timothy,
a believer.

 

Hi Timothy, thanks for joining the discussion.

To me it means either a unilateral undertaking, typically in form of a promise with no strings attached, or a reciprocal engagement with terms and conditions, with the purpose - in our case - of the initiator - being God - solving an existing problem, namely, sin and our alienation from Him.

Greetings,

Harry

 

As a baseline, does my parsing of your responses look correct as to your individual understanding of what a Covenant is, and its purpose?

Again, never mind any exposition built on your relative positions on a Covenant. I'm just trying to get a baseline here before I ask my next question of you both.

Thank you, in advance!

--Timothy,
a believer.

 

Yes, that seems a sufficient enough representation of my view on what constitutes a covenant in biblical context.

 

Thank you.

My second question is this--

Are you both in agreement that Moses was the mediator of the Mosaic Covenant, with its Torah as the terms and conditions of the Covenant between the sons and daughters of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- and Jehovah, Who brought them out of Egypt?

Are you both in agreement that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant, which replaced the terms and conditions of the former (Mosaic) Covenant that allowed God's chosen people to have a relationship with Jehovah, a privilege extended to no other people under the sun across the planet. And that apart from being in a Covenant relationship with Jehovah, there is no access to Jehovah. The sons and daughters of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were an exclusive people, exclusive in their access to Jehovah.

If, as @Joshuastone7, suggests in his earlier post, the new Covenant has not yet arrived, then the believer continues to be bound to the Mosaic Covenant, with its animal sacrifices, religious holidays and observances, Sabbaths, etc.

If this is true, then by default, the believer remains under the old Covenant. There is no workaround here. And that includes the animal sacrifices, moral, social, economical, and religious laws embodied within the Torah.

If we are not under the old Covenant, then, again, by default, believers are under the new Covenant. There is no workaround here, because there must be a Covenant for Jehovah to have a relationship with His People so everyone understands everyone's responsibilities.

My next question to you both is:

Which Covenant do you each believe Christians are living under today? There is no in-between non-Covenantal period where Jehovah's exclusive People are concerned.

Submitted for perusal and consideration,
Timothy,
a believer.

 

Hi Timothy, you ask ;

. . . yes, I agree if you were to insert 'some' in 'the Covenant between some of the sons and daughters of Abraham . . . and Jehovah.'

yes, I agree.

'Replacing' seems to be not accurate to me, because it sounds a bit like a renegotiation, whereas the law covenant was actually terminated by means of fulfillment by one party.

Their status as 'chosen' - in the sense of being chosen as heirs of God's unconditional promise to Abraham - was conditional upon keeping the Law.

Hence, I would rephrase your line as: 'the Mosaic covenant allowed a subset of Abraham's physical descendants to have a relationship with Jehovah,' - and 'subset,' because Abraham's firstborn son, as traditional heir, was not part of the Mosaic covenant, and yet Jehovah cared for and looked after him as well, to quote Jehovah: "And as for the son of the slave girl, I shall also constitute him a nation, because he is your offspring.” Ge 21:13

Yes, for: "You people only have I known out of all the families of the ground;' - however, 'He made . . . every nation of men . . . for them to seek God . . . and really find Him . . . although, in fact, He is not far off from each one of us . . . for we are also His progeny.' Am 3:2; Acts 17:26-28

So in that sense I agree.

I would say that the Law covenant was a 'special, formalized access relationship' with Jehovah, because people like Able, Enoch, Job, Melchizedek and others we don't know of were also in a relationship with Him, even if that was not in a formal covenant - but, yes, I agree generally with your statement.

Yes. However - as a side point, though not without relevance in the greater scheme of things - I also see them as a typical representation - a sample, if you will - of mankind at large - as in, 'there is a Jew in each and every one of us,' - for better or worse - as someone once put it - for would ancient history have been any different if Jehovah had chosen the forefather of, lets say, the Eskimos, Saxons or any other tribe or national group instead of Abraham, a Hebrew? I think not.

I agree, and would only add that, apart from Jews being still under the Law covenant today, Christianity would simply not exist at all, for its very foundation rests on fulfillment of the first installment of God's promise to Abraham, namely, the first coming of Christ and commencement of the promised new covenant with the spiritual heirs of God's promise to Abraham.

This very promise itself also comes in two stages of fulfillment: first, in that people of the nations could become part of the corporate seed of Abraham in 36 CE - 'by means of your seed all the nations will be blessed' - and part two, which is yet to come, when the choosing and perfecting of the seed of Abraham is completed at the return of Christ, as the glorified Seed, both Head and Body, will be caught away into Heaven itself to start the 1000 year reign of blessing all the nations here on earth that have survived the hour of test.

The new covenant; because God's promise to Abraham - in its first phase fulfillment - brought about God's spiritual people - starting with Pentecost 33 CE - as 'those who belong to Christ,' and they needed to be under a 'better covenant established upon better promises,' which is the new covenant, to wit: "‘For this is the covenant that I shall covenant with the house of Israel after those days,’ says Jehovah. ‘I will put my laws in their mind, and in their hearts I shall write them. And I will become their God, and they themselves will become my people; and they will by no means teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: “Know Jehovah!” For they will all know me, from the least one to the greatest one of them; for I shall be merciful to their unrighteous deeds, and I shall by no means call their sins to mind anymore.’ ” Heb 8: 6-12

 

If it is yet to be confirmed, then which Covenant am I under currently, and expected to uphold my part of the terms/conditions?

Then until it does (as you believe), which Covenant am I under currently, and expected to uphold my part of the terms/conditions?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I presently understand that the Mosaic Covenant was confirmed/put in force/held in place when the people said "We will" to Jehovah to serving him faithfully and exclusively for the duration of the Covenant. And as long as they abided by the terms and conditions, they enjoyed the blessings of the marriage with Jehovah God. When they became the adulterous wife, things didn't go so well for them.

After they had set out from Rephidim, they entered the Wilderness of Sinai, and Israel camped there in front of the mountain. Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, “This is what you are to tell the house of Jacob and explain to the sons of Israel: ‘You have seen for yourselves what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. Now if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, you will be My treasured possession out of all the nations—for the whole earth is Mine. And unto Me you shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you are to speak to the Israelites.” So Moses went back and summoned the elders of the people and set before them all these words that the LORD had commanded him. And all the people answered together, “We will do everything that the LORD has spoken.” So Moses brought their words back to the LORD. — Exodus 19:2-8 Berean Standard Version

[Exodus 20 - 23 Terms & Conditions]
​

When Moses came and told the people all the words and ordinances of the LORD, they all responded with one voice: “All the words that the LORD has spoken, we will do.” And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD.. . Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people, who replied, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” So Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.” — Exodus 24:3-4a, 7-8 Berean Standard Bible

Which goes back to my earlier question: which Covenant am I in, as a believer? That former one they agreed to, or a new Covenant, with Jesus as Mediator instead of Moses?

Submitted for perusal and consideration,
Timothy,
a believer.

 

You are correct, of course, about "replacing" not being accurate. I do not personally subscribe to "replacement theology," either. Thank you for catching that!

Well, they think they are under the Law of Moses. Doesn't make it so, anymore than the number of believers convinced they'll be raptured off the planet, or the believers persuaded to believing doctrines of the Trinity or 1914.

As to the Jews, here's what scripture imparts:

And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again... I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in... Just as you who formerly disobeyed God have now received mercy through their disobedience, so they too have now disobeyed, in order that they too may now receive mercy through the mercy shown to you. For God has consigned everyone to disobedience so that He may have mercy on everyone. — Romans 11:23, 25, 30-32 Berean Standard Bible

Other than these two points, I am pretty much of a similar understanding as you (RE: the Covenantal arrangement) at this time, based on your response. Sure, I could haggle over a couple points, but meh. I was only trying to get a baseline in the ongoing discussion between you and JoshuaStone on the subject of God's people/ House of God, to help me discern if you both are talking about the same thing RE: Covenant.

--Timothy,
a believer.

 

Right, because just like apples cannot said to be replacing oranges as a citrus fruit, so that which was meant as a calling from God cannot be brought about 'from a fleshly will or from man's will' - it being a different category of being - although appropriation of God's promises by means of faith is the same operating factor for both those born in the flesh and those born from above. Joh 1:12,13

Yes, it looks like under Judaism 2.0 - operating since the destruction of the second temple - more accurately called Talmudism - its devotees, following the Rambam, seemed to have modified the terms of the covenant as regards atonement for sin through animal sacrifices to be replaced with the concept of balancing out transgressions with the performance of mitzvot, or meritorious works, while the Law simply demands: Thou shalt not sin, which is a plain impossibility for those conceived in it.

As a side note to the present subject, 'rapture' is actually derived from Latin 'rapio,' the equivalent of the Greek 'harpazo,' which is the "be[ing] caught away [of the chosen ones] in clouds to meet the Lord in the air," at the "descent from Heaven" of Jesus at His coming for His parousia, according to Paul's word in 1 Thes 4:17, and is therefore a proper Biblical teaching - but that's for another discussion.

'Come in' to what? Judaism? - just a side point, not that you implied this, but a lot of Christian Zionists believe that Christians have to be grafted into 'Jewish roots' of whatever description.

Feel free to haggle away; that is how Biblical understanding advances in Holy Spirit.


Harry

 

God promised David that one of his descendants would sit on his throne and rule over Israel, right?

Jesus will sit on the throne of David and rule over Israel - and all other nations - during the coming 1000 year kingdom reign, right?

So how was the 'promised Davidic Covenant confirmed from 29 CE to 36 CE?'

Did Jesus rule over Israel from 29 to 36 CE?

I can't see any connection.

Remember, I am slow to pick up on your interpretational quantum leaps, lol.


Harry

 

If I enter into a marriage covenant, you are right that I expect to immediately gain the promises offered in the covenant of marriage... not live with those promises unfulfilled, act as though they are, until someday the promises of the marriage covenant are fulfilled.

Under the Mosaic Covenant, they did indeed become a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation," as evidenced through the Levitical priesthood and the remaining tribes constituting the holy nation. They immediately became Jehovah's "treasured possession" "out of all the nations." There is no indication that they were awaiting this to take place a long time into their future and that they were just abiding by the terms & conditions of the Covenant in the meantime.

—Timothy,
a believer.

 

Should've included this one, as well.

 

So, I just watched the first clip, and according to his definition I am in between the two camps, not believing that God only has one people throughout history, nor that there are two, with one being physical Israel and one spiritual Israel, because Paul expressly defines for us the two peoples of God in Gal 4:29 as those born in the flesh and those born in the spirit, clear and simple.

For the past 2000 years these two people are the Christian congregation, also called the Body of Christ, the 'invisible Church,' and the 'nominal Church,' comprised of all others professing belief in Christ, both those who are sincere and those who are not, all of whom to be judged according to their profession and faith demonstrated in life.

That is the best I can do to reconcile what I read in Scripture with what I observe around me, and throughout history.


Harry