ECT Israel's New Covenant and the Body of Christ

Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
God's Truth said:
Why then does Paul say he is the minister of the New Covenant?
Click to expand...

That is not what he said. Instead, he said that he is a minister of the "New Testament," and that "testament" is the Last Will and Testament of Christ:

"Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament (diatheke); not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" (2 Cor.3:6; KJV).​

When we compare that verse which speaks of the "ministry" of the New Testament with verses which follow later about the same ministry then we can understand that Paul understood that the words "testament" and "gospel" have the same meaning or signifiance:

"Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord" (2 Cor.4:1-4).​

Paul's words "this ministry" are obviously pointing back to the "ministry" of 2 Cor.3:6 and it is evident that his words "this ministry" are in regard to the "manifestation of the truth," the preaching of "Christ Jesus the Lord"-- "the glorious gospel of Christ."

So we can understand that when Paul speaks of the ministry of the New Testament he is speaking of the ministry of the gospel.

Albert Barnes wrote the following commentary on 2 Corinthians 4:1:

"Seeing we have this ministry - The gospel ministry, so much more glorious than that of Moses 2 Corinthians 3:6; which is the ministry by which the Holy Spirit acts on the hearts of people 2 Corinthians 3:8; which is the ministry of that system by which people are justified 2 Corinthians 3:9; and which is the ministry of a system so pure and unclouded, 2 Corinthians 3:9-11, 2 Corinthians 3:18" (Barnes' Notes on the Bible; Commentary at 2 Corinthians 4:1).​

In the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary we read: "seeing we have this ministry 'The ministration of the Spirit' (2 Co 3:8, 9): the ministry of such a spiritual, liberty-giving Gospel: resuming 2 Co 3:6, 8" (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Commentary at 2 Corinthians 4:1).

Christians receive their spiritual blessings through the gospel of Christ and not through the New Covenant promised to the nation of Israel.
 
N

northwye

New member
http://biblehub.com/greek/1242.htm

"Original Word: διαθήκη, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: diathéké
Phonetic Spelling: (dee-ath-ay'-kay)
Short Definition: a covenant, will, testament
Definition: (a) a covenant between two parties, (b) (the ordinary, everyday sense [found a countless number of times in papyri]) a will, testament."

But the TOL Christian Zionists will continue the dialectic game, finding some argument against the definition above, or reverting to a non-substantive tactic of attacking their opponents.

The Tyndale New Testament, the Geneva Bible and the King James Version all have New Testament for διαθήκη. But Strong's number 1242,diatheke. is said to mean "a disposition, i.e., a contract, especially a devisory will, covenant, testament."

Again, what is being argued here by the Christian Zionists - that The New Testament does not say the New Covenant began at the Cross or the Day of Pentecost and is in effect now - is similar to what Job Rappoport called "Fake News" by the mainstream media. And the dialectic game is used to promote this doctrine by the TOL dispensatioalists.

New Testament is used six times in the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance in Matthew, Mark, Luke, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, and Hebrews. Hebrews also uses better testament. Hebrews 9: 15 talks about Christ being the mediator of the New Testament and mentions the "first testament." Hebrews 9: 15 uses the same word diatheke, which can mean testament or covenant.
 
Last edited:
God's Truth

God's Truth

New member
Right Divider said:
He is talking about the gospel of the grace of God as a new testament.

It's not connected with the new covenant in Jeremiah.

I realize that you will not understand or believe this and will propose a "new Israel" to deal with it.
Click to expand...

Paul says plainly that he is the MINISTER of the NEW COVENANT.

Paul also quotes Jesus many times speaking of the New Covenant.

lol...can't help but laugh because it is just too plain and wonderful.

Here are the scriptures where Paul quotes Jesus speaking about the New Covenant in which Paul is a minister:

Romans 11:27
For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

1 Corinthians 11:25
In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
 
God's Truth

God's Truth

New member
John 6:54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

John 6:55
For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

Luke 22:20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.


That is about the New Covenant, the Covenant of when Jesus saves a person and they come in him and he comes in them. They become one. Same for the Jews as for the Gentiles.
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
northwye said:
Short Definition: a covenant, will, testament
Definition: (a) a covenant between two parties, (b) (the ordinary, everyday sense [found a countless number of times in papyri]) a will, testament."
Click to expand...

Although there are many mentions of the word diatheke in the book of Hebrews there is only one passage which speaks of a diatheke in detail and being in force now. In that passage we can know that the word diatheke is in regard to the Lord Jesus' Last Will and Testament:

"For where a testament (diatheke) is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament (diatheke) is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth" (Heb.9:16-17).​

Dean Alford wrote that "It is quite vain to deny the testamentary sense of 'diatheke' in this verse....I believe it will be found that we must at all hazards accept the meaning of 'testament,' as being the only one which will in any way meet the plain requirement of the verse" [emphasis added] (Alford, The Greek Testament, IV:173, 174; cf. the renderings of ASV, RSV).

Elliott E. Johnson writes that "when the writer then begins to talk about the inauguration of the 'diatheke' (vv. 16,17), he describes it is functioning as a last will and testament. This is indicated because the arrangement begins to function at the death of the 'testator' (v. 16). His explanation means that a will and testament is in force when the author of the will dies. The inauguration of a will and covenant occurs on different bases. A covenant is inaugurated during the lifetime of both partners. Only a last will is inaugurated at the death of the author of the will" [emphasis added](Dispensational Understanding of the New Covenant, 172).

From this we can understand that when the Scriptures speak of any diatheke that is now operational the subject is in regard to the Last Will and Testament of Christ, the gospel of Christ.

The Christian receives his spiritual blessings through the gospel and not through the New Covenant promised to the nation of Israel.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Jerry Shugart said:
Although there are many mentions of the word diatheke in the book of Hebrews there is only one passage which speaks of a diatheke in detail and being in force now. In that passage we can know that the word diatheke is in regard to the Lord Jesus' Last Will and Testament:

"For where a testament (diatheke) is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament (diatheke) is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth" (Heb.9:16-17).​

Dean Alford wrote that "It is quite vain to deny the testamentary sense of 'diatheke' in this verse....I believe it will be found that we must at all hazards accept the meaning of 'testament,' as being the only one which will in any way meet the plain requirement of the verse" [emphasis added] (Alford, The Greek Testament, IV:173, 174; cf. the renderings of ASV, RSV).

Elliott E. Johnson writes that "when the writer then begins to talk about the inauguration of the 'diatheke' (vv. 16,17), he describes it is functioning as a last will and testament. This is indicated because the arrangement begins to function at the death of the 'testator' (v. 16). His explanation means that a will and testament is in force when the author of the will dies. The inauguration of a will and covenant occurs on different bases. A covenant is inaugurated during the lifetime of both partners. Only a last will is inaugurated at the death of the author of the will" [emphasis added](Dispensational Understanding of the New Covenant, 172).

From this we can understand that when the Scriptures speak of any diatheke that is now operational the subject is in regard to the Last Will and Testament of Christ, the gospel of Christ.

The Christian receives his spiritual blessings through the gospel and not through the New Covenant promised to the nation of Israel.
Click to expand...




Now in Christ there is no 'new covenant promised to Israel.' That's the point. The thing is redemption and justification from sins, for all mankind. D'ism's 'solution' is always the problem. There are no NT passages on the new covenant that keep it from the rest of mankind, and the official commentary of Heb 9-10 never mentions the land because of that. It is not a 2nd round for the race; the NT is way beyond that. It is for all who believe because Christ was acting on everyone's behalf, including Israel's.
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Now in Christ there is no 'new covenant promised to Israel.' That's the point. The thing is redemption and justification from sins, for all mankind. D'ism's 'solution' is always the problem. There are no NT passages on the new covenant that keep it from the rest of mankind, and the official commentary of Heb 9-10 never mentions the land because of that. It is not a 2nd round for the race; the NT is way beyond that. It is for all who believe because Christ was acting on everyone's behalf, including Israel's.
Click to expand...

Why did you quote what I said and then just ignore everything which I said?

That must mean that you have no answer to what I said.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Jerry Shugart said:
Why did you quote what I said and then just ignore everything which I said?

That must mean that you have no answer to what I said.
Click to expand...





No, it's because you are trying to sneak in 2 programs through the English word 'will' when the distinction does not matter and when you and the commentator have butchered the meaning.

btw, where are those who protest commentaries now? They don't. They just protest non-D'ist commentaries.

The NT is clear: there is no new covenant just for Israel as a race, because it has given up on race. It is for those who believe. that's as true in Rom 11 as it is here.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
The biggest D'ist charade going here is its confining the new covenant to a 2nd chance for Israel. totally against the NT meaning. The new covenant was 'executed' by the body prepared for Christ to sacrifice, in Heb 9-10. that is what it meant to say and what it refers to.

There is no worse joke going here than the blockading of the actual comments on the new covenant in those chapters by RD, STP, tam, Must, Steko.
 
Last edited:
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
The biggest D'ist charade going here is its confining the new covenant to a 2nd chance for Israel. totally against the NT meaning. The new covenant was 'executed' by the body prepared for Christ to sacrifice, in Heb 9-10. that is what it meant to say and what it refers to.

There is no worse joke going here than the blockading of the actual comments on the new covenant in those chapters by RD, STP, tam, Must, Steko.
Click to expand...

:chuckle:

huh?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
The premise that the new covenant is about the salvation of all people through the body sacrificed by Christ, in that conversation within the Trinity found in Ps 40, has 100% of NT support and specifically heb 9-10. There are no arguments against that. The idea that Israel would be restored, get a 2nd (old) chance, a 2nd round, is sketchy at best and contradicted many times. D'ism needs to purge that thought once and for all.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
The premise that the new covenant is about the salvation of all people through the body sacrificed by Christ, in that conversation within the Trinity found in Ps 40, has 100% of NT support and specifically heb 9-10. There are no arguments against that. The idea that Israel would be restored, get a 2nd (old) chance, a 2nd round, is sketchy at best and contradicted many times. D'ism needs to purge that thought once and for all.
Click to expand...

Totally made up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top