Kingdom Law verses Heavenly Grace

NetChaplain

Active member
Christ’s teachings can be a little difficult because He taught three dispensations simultaneously (Law, New Covenant, Millennial Kingdome). Of course the Law, since Christ’s ascension has been “taken away” (Heb 10:9; 7:19; 8:7-13; 12:27, 28). Nevertheless, there will be a New Covenant for Israel in eternity on the New Earth (Jer 31:31-34; Eze 36:24-28). It must also be understood that the millennial kingdom is only for the Jews of Israel—God’s people (i.e. the Jews that believe in God but not in the Lord Jesus - “Ye believe in God” - Jn 14:1). This was His plan for them, even through all the “motions of sins” (Rom 7:5), which resulted in disobedience. Until His ascension, the Law was still in force, thus much of His teachings involved the Law while at the same time teaching and preparing Christians for the New Covenant, which involve all the aspects of that which will be in eternity.

Most are unaware that God has no covenant with man—the OT in now nonexistent, and He has never had a covenant with Christians, but for Christians. Presently, the Christian covenant is that which is made between the Father and the Son, in that the Father agreed to raise His Son from the dead after procuring redemption for those believing in the Lord Jesus. This is the “Covenant of Redemption,” which is the “Everlasting Covenant; and Christians are not covenanters with God but are recipients of saving-grace in this Covenant. There are numerous Scripture passages which indirectly indicate this Covenant, the primary being Hebrews 13:20, 21. Israel will remain on the New Earth, while Christians will rule them with Christ from “the throne of His glory” (Mat 19:28) in the New Heaven.
NC






Kingdom Law verses Heavenly Grace


As certainly as the message of “the kingdom heaven” was consistent with Israel’s national hope, so also the rule of life presented in connection with this message by both John the Baptist and Christ was in harmony with the OT-predicted kingdom’s rule of life. The kingdom as foreseen in the OT had ever in view the righteousness of life and conduct of its subjects (Isa 11:3-5; 32:1; Jer 23:6; Dan 9:24).

“The kingdom of heaven” as announced and offered in the early part of Matthews’ Gospel is also accompanied with positive demands for personal righteousness in life and conduct. This is not the principle of grace (the law was graceful but not of the Grace which came with Christ—NC); it is rather the principle of law (works—NC). Kingdom teaching extends into finer detail of the Law of Moses and never ceases to be the very opposite of the principle of grace. Law conditions its blessings on human works, grace conditions its works on divine blessings.

Law says, “If you forgive . . . your heavenly Father will also forgive you,” and in that measure only (Mat 6:14, 15 - in Grace, God forgives all believers in His Son, without condition other than faith, and causes them to desire to “please” Him - Phl 2:13—NC). Grace says, “Forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake has forgiven you” (Eph 4:32). So, again, the law says, “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Mat 5:20). This is not present condition for entrance into heaven. Present conditions are wholly based on mercy: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us” (Tit 3:5).

So the preaching of John the Baptist, like the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, was on a law basis as indicated by its appeal, which was only for a correct and righteous life: “Then said He to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of Him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

“And the people asked him, saying, what shall we do then? He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise. Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto Him, Master, what shall we do? And He said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you. And the soldiers likewise demanded of Him, saying, and what shall we do? And He said unto them, do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages (Luk 3:7-14).

Those messages were an appeal for a righteous life and cannot be confused with the present terms of salvation without nullifying the grounds of every hope and promise under Grace. The present appeal to the unsaved is not for better conduct (morality is not godliness, but the godly will be moral—NC); it is for belief in, and acceptance of—the Savior! There are directions concerning the conduct of those who are saved by trust in the Savior, but these cannot be mixed with the law conditions of the OT, or the grace of NT, without peril to souls.

Later on, the same people said to Christ, “What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?” To this He replied, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent” (Jn 6:28, 29). John the Baptist looked forward to the blessings of grace when he said, “Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin is the world,” but his immediate demands were in conformity with pure law, as were the earlier kingdom teachings of the Lord Jesus. Thus the legal principles of conduct of the OT-predicted kingdom are carried forward into the revelations of the same kingdom as it appears in the NT.

It should be borne in mind that the legal kingdom requirements as stated in the Sermon on the Mount are meant to prepare the way for, and condition life in, the earthly Davidic millennial kingdom when it shall be set up upon the earth, and at that very time when the kingdom prayer, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven” has been answered. These kingdom emphases appear in the early ministry of the Lord Jesus, since He was at that time faithfully offering the Messianic kingdom to Israel (Christians do not need the Messianic kingdom nor the new earth—NC).

It has been objected that such stipulations as “Resist not evil,” “Whosoever shall smite on thy right cheek . . .,” “Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile . . .” and “. . . persecuted for righteousness’ sake” could not be possible in the kingdom. This challenge may be based upon a supposition that the earthly Messianic kingdom is to be as morally perfect as heaven. On the contrary, the Scriptures abundantly testify that while there will be far less occasion to sin, for the sufficient reason that Satan is then bound and in a pit and the glorious King is on His throne, there will be need of immediate execution of judgment and justice in the earth, and even the King shall rule, of necessity, with a “rod of iron” (Christ and Christians will be correcting sinners during the Millennial kingdom—NC).

It is said that “all Israel will be saved” (see notes at bottom—NC), and “They shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest” (Jer 31:34). But it is also revealed that at the end of the millennium, when Satan is loosed for a little season, he is still able to solicit the allegiance of human hearts and to draw out of the multitudes within the kingdom an army for rebellion against the government of the King (Rev 20:7-9). In that kingdom dispensation “the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed” (Isa 65:20).

These kingdom commands and principles were given to Israel only (as was the Decalogue—NC), and it is the same distinct nation that shall stand first in her predicted kingdom when it is set up on the earth (present old earth—NC). The Lord Jesus was first “a minister of the circumcision” (Rom 15:8). Consequently, is it an unnatural interpretation of Scripture to understand that He was performing this divinely appointed ministry at the very time when He was offering the kingdom to the nation and when He, with His forerunner (JTB—NC), was depicting the principles of conduct that should condition life in that kingdom (Mat 3:1, 2)? Nothing is lost by such an interpretation (the Millennial kingdom remains intact and the Christian attributes unmixed with law—NC). On the contrary, everything is gained for the riches of Grace, which alas so few apprehend (most are unfamiliar with these truths concerning Israel’s millennial kingdom—NC), are thus kept pure and free from an unscriptural admixture with the law (keeping the laws of the Millennial kingdom and eternal New Heaven teachings separate—NC).

—L S Chafer (1871-1952)





NC Notes:

John Gill (1697-1771):
“And so all Israel shall be saved,....”; Meaning not the mystical spiritual Israel of God, consisting both of Jews and Gentiles, who shall appear to be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation, when all God's elect among the latter are gathered in, which is the sense many give into; but the people of the Jews, the generality of them, the body of that nation, called "the fulness" of them, Romans 11:12, and relates to the latter day, when a nation of them shall be born again at once; when, their number being as the sand of the sea, they shall come up out of the lands where they are dispersed, and appoint them one Head, Christ, and great shall be the day of Jezreel; when they as a body, even the far greater part of them that shall be in being, shall return and seek the Lord their God, and David their King; shall acknowledge Jesus to be the true Messiah, and shall look to Him, believe on Him, and be saved by Him from wrath to come.

Albert Barnes (1798-1870):
“All Israel”; He does not mean to say that every Jew of every age would be saved; for he had proved that a large portion of them would be, in his time, rejected and lost. But the time would come when, as a people, they would be recovered; when the nation would turn to God; and when it could be said of them that, as a nation, they were restored to the divine favor.

Joseph Benson (1749-1821):
And so all Israel shall be saved Shall be brought to believe in Jesus as the true Messiah, and so shall be put into the way of obtaining salvation, being convinced of the truth by the coming in of the Gentiles.



MJS daily devotional excerpt for October 17

The true servant is finally subdued, but not stultified; prepared but not deprived of individuality. All that is rendered inoperative is the old man—and thank God for that! -MJS

“When we are finally prepared, our Lord says: ‘When I died, you died. When I went to the Cross I not only took your sins, but I took you. I not only took you as a sinner, but I took you as being all that you are by nature; your good as well as your bad; your abilities as well as your disabilities; yes, every resource of yours. I took you as a worker, a preacher, and organizer. My Cross means that not even for Me can you be or do anything out from yourself; but if there is to be anything at all it must be out from Me, and that means a life of absolute dependence and faith.’“ -T. A-S.
(more . . . http://www.abideabove.com/hungry-heart/day/2024/10/17/)
 
It must also be understood that the millennial kingdom is only for the Jews of Israel—God’s people (i.e. the Jews that believe in God but not in the Lord Jesus - “Ye believe in God” - Jn 14:1).
Would you please show me where scripture states the millennial kingdom is only for God-believing, Jesus-not-believing Jews of Israel?
 
Most are unaware that God has no covenant with man—the OT in now nonexistent, and He has never had a covenant with Christians, but for Christians.
If the OT is now nonexistent, then why did the epistle writers quote the OT so freauently and apply it to both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ?
Presently, the Christian covenant is that which is made between the Father and the Son, in that the Father agreed to raise His Son from the dead after procuring redemption for those believing in the Lord Jesus. This is the “Covenant of Redemption,” which is the “Everlasting Covenant; and Christians are not covenanters with God but are recipients of saving-grace in this Covenant. There are numerous Scripture passages which indirectly indicate this Covenant, the primary being Hebrews 13:20, 21. Israel will remain on the New Earth, while Christians will rule them with Christ from “the throne of His glory” (Mat 19:28) in the New Heaven.
NC
Wait. In the previous statement it was claimed God has no covenant with Christians, but He has one for Christians. The ensuing explanation mentions a "Christian covenant." How can there be a Christian covenant and it not include Christians?

When the words "indirectly indicate" are used do you mean "inferred based on my doctrinal beliefs," or "speculatively"?
 
Christ’s teachings can be a little difficult because He taught three dispensations simultaneously (Law, New Covenant, Millennial Kingdome). Of course the Law, since Christ’s ascension has been “taken away” (Heb 10:9; 7:19; 8:7-13; 12:27, 28). Nevertheless, there will be a New Covenant for Israel in eternity on the New Earth (Jer 31:31-34; Eze 36:24-28). It must also be understood that the millennial kingdom is only for the Jews of Israel—God’s people (i.e. the Jews that believe in God but not in the Lord Jesus - “Ye believe in God” - Jn 14:1).............
What do you see as the definition of "Israel" that scripture asserts?
 
Christ’s teachings can be a little difficult because He taught three dispensations simultaneously (Law, New Covenant, Millennial Kingdome). Of course the Law, since Christ’s ascension has been “taken away” (Heb 10:9; 7:19; 8:7-13; 12:27, 28). Nevertheless, there will be a New Covenant for Israel in eternity on the New Earth (Jer 31:31-34; Eze 36:24-28). It must also be understood that the millennial kingdom is only for the Jews of Israel—God’s people (i.e. the Jews that believe in God but not in the Lord Jesus - “Ye believe in God” - Jn 14:1). This was His plan for them, even through all the “motions of sins” (Rom 7:5), which resulted in disobedience. Until His ascension, the Law was still in force, thus much of His teachings involved the Law while at the same time teaching and preparing Christians for the New Covenant, which involve all the aspects of that which will be in eternity.

Most are unaware that God has no covenant with man—the OT in now nonexistent, and He has never had a covenant with Christians, but for Christians. Presently, the Christian covenant is that which is made between the Father and the Son, in that the Father agreed to raise His Son from the dead after procuring redemption for those believing in the Lord Jesus. This is the “Covenant of Redemption,” which is the “Everlasting Covenant; and Christians are not covenanters with God but are recipients of saving-grace in this Covenant. There are numerous Scripture passages which indirectly indicate this Covenant, the primary being Hebrews 13:20, 21. Israel will remain on the New Earth, while Christians will rule them with Christ from “the throne of His glory” (Mat 19:28) in the New Heaven.
NC
Nevertheless, there will be a New Covenant

Your statement is heretical = HERESEY against the Holy words of God = the GOSPEL

Most are unaware that God has no covenant with man—the OT in now nonexistent, and He has never had a covenant with Christians, but for Christians. Presently, the Christian covenant is that which is made between the Father and the Son, in that the Father agreed to raise His Son from the dead after procuring redemption for those believing in the Lord Jesus. This is the “Covenant of Redemption,” which is the “Everlasting Covenant; and Christians are not covenanters with God but are recipients of saving-grace in this Covenant. There are numerous Scripture passages which indirectly indicate this Covenant, the primary being Hebrews 13:20, 21. Israel will remain on the New Earth, while Christians will rule them with Christ from “the throne of His glory” (Mat 19:28) in the New Heaven.
This is 'double speak' also known as Serpent Speak from the Garden.

You told me that you reject heresies and yet here you are making heresies!!! = WHY?

Answer: "respect of persons" instead of the respect of God's words!!!

The New Covenant was Promised by God for ALL nations beginning in Genesis chapter 3.

Why are you fighting against God?
 
Would you please show me where scripture states the millennial kingdom is only for God-believing, Jesus-not-believing Jews of Israel?
There's no direct Scripture word-for-word about the Millennial being only for Israel, but it is often inferred. For example, there will be 144,000 Jews who believe in God during the millennium; Rev 7:4-8.
 
If the OT is now nonexistent, then why did the epistle writers quote the OT so freauently and apply it to both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ?
Heb 7:18,19; 8:7; 10:9

Wait. In the previous statement it was claimed God has no covenant with Christians, but He has one for Christians.
The Father's covenant is with His Son (Heb 13: 20, 21), nowhere does it show a covenant with Christians; they are just recipients of the covenant.
When the words "indirectly indicate" are used do you mean "inferred based on my doctrinal beliefs," or "speculatively"?
When there is little direct Scripture concerning a doctrine, many commentators use the method of "inference," e.g. the Covenant of Redemption was inferred when the Lord Jesus said, "For this is My Blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Mat 26:28).

I would suggest looking up the Covenant of Redemption.
 
Would you mind showing me where Jesus calls any of those a "dispensation"?
How about Paul: 1Co 9:17; Eph 1:10; 3:2; Col 1:25. A dispensation is just an order of things given for certain periods of time.
That is not an answer to the question asked. First of all, none of those verses is Jesus speaking. All three of them are from Paul's writings, not Jesus teaching. I asked for an example of Jesus calling the Law, the new covenant or the millennium kingdom a dispensation. Second, None of the verses cited labels any of the three a dispensation.

1 Corinthians 9:16-17
For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship [dispensation] entrusted to me.

That verse does NOT state the "Law," "New Covenant," [or] "Millennial Kingdom" is a dispensation. What is states is Paul had a matter of stewardship entrusted to him. Notice the older translations, the Douay-Rheims and the KJV translate the Greek, "oikonomian" as "dispensation while nearly all of other translations agree: stewardship. It's a stewardship entrsusted to Paul, not a division of scripture, or history.

Ephesians 1:9-10
He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in him with a view to an administration [dispensation] suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth.

Here, again, we find the word "oikonomia" being used, but it is not being used explicitly to teach "three dispensations simultaneously," as is asserted in the op.

Ephesians 3:1-3
For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles— if indeed you have heard of the stewardship [oikonomian] of God's grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief.

This is a particularly curious appeal because the stewardship of God's grace was given to various people throughout the entire Bible, at least from Moses (who tradition holds penned the Pentateuch) all the way through the NT writers.

Colossians 1:24-27
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions. Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship [oikonomian] from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Colossians 1:24-29 KJV
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

Here the verse cited simply states Paul was given stewardship of "this church," the body of Christ. In this particular instance the KJV does a better job of translating the Greek so I have included it, but we can still see Paul is not claiming the Law, the new covenant, and the millennial kingdom, were "three dispensations simultaneously," or that any individual one was a dispensation.



All Post #7 does is show that scripture uses the word "oikonomia." Nothing more. It does not in any way show Jesus called the Law a dispensation, that he called the new covenant a dispensation, or that he called the millennial kingdom a dispensation. I suspect you already knew that (given our many discussions of this in other threads in other forums). The carving up of scripture into dispensations is the work of John Nelson Darby and the Dispensational Premillennialists, not Jesus.


So....


Would you like to try answering my question again (I am patient and will gladly avail you of the opportunity of another attempt), or can we dispense (no pun intended) with that answer, acknowledge Dispensationalism is a theological addition to scripture and not something scripture itself does with scripture, and discuss why it is you prefer using Dispensationalism over other alternatives?

  1. Would you please show me where Jesus explicitly calls any of those (the Law, the new covenant, or the millennial kingdom) a "dispensation"?
  2. Would you please provide a brief explanation for why you prefer Dispensationalism as a means of parsing scripture over other alternatives?

You choose.
 
There's no direct Scripture word-for-word about the Millennial being only for Israel,
Then why was that claim made?
but it is often inferred.
Upon what basis is it thought scripture infers something, namely the millennial kingdom is only for Israel, it does not anywhere state?

Are you aware the nation of Israel is nowhere found mentioned in Revelation and it's not even remotely alluded to in chapter 20 of that book?
For example, there will be 144,000 Jews who believe in God during the millennium; Rev 7:4-8.
That is incorrect. The word "Jew" is not found in Revelation 7 at all. The 144,000 is said to be from among the "sons of Israel." The phrase "sons of Israel" is the phrase scripture uses prior to Israel entering the promised land. Look it up. The first time the phrase is used in in Genesis 32. The phrase is used centuries before the Hebrews left Egypt, many, many generations before they entered the promised land and many more before they became a geo-political nation-state, the "nation" of Israel (which I will take up further with you in the post identifying "Israel." This is one of the reasons asked the question. Furthermore, The Hebrews were not called Jews until well after they entered the promised land and purged it of the pagan inhabitants. Look that up if you're in doubt. Abraham was called Hebrew, not a Jew. The word "Hebrew" means "from Eber." Eber was an ancestor of Abraham's (see Gen. 10). He settled in the region that was part of Babel, later called Babylon. Ur was in Eber. Ur, a city in the Chaldean region was also in the land settled by Eber. A Hebrew is a person who came from Eber (whether he was a bloodline descendent of the man Eber, or not). A Hebrew is a Babylonian. The descendants of Abraham were Hebrews, not Jews. The term "Hebrew" is first used in Genesis 14. The term "Jew" is not employed until 2 Kings 25! Look it up if that is doubted. It was with the Hebrews, not the Jews, that God made His covenant. The Hebrews did not begin to be called Jews until after they'd divided up the land. Judah was the biggest tribe. They got a larger portion of the land, and that portion of the land shared a border with multiple other nations. Those nations began calling those from Judah, "Jews," and eventually that moniker was applied to all Hebrews living in the promised land.

Let's review: There is no verse explicitly stating the millennial kingdom is only for Israel, but you think that position is inferred because, for example, the 144,000 of Rev. 7 are said to Jews, even though that is not what the text actually states. They are from the sons of Israel (not Jews).

So, I will give you credit for attempting to answer the question directly, immediately, honestly, and forthcomingly. I say that with sincerity and appreciation because it is typically very difficult to get a Dispensationalist to do any of that. Since scripture does not explicitly state the millennial kingdom is only for Israel...... and the inference cited does not infer any such thing...... would you like to try answering the question again (I will allow a well-reasoned inference this time), or would you prefer we move on to acknowledging it is Dispensational Premillennialism that teaches that view of the kingdom and not scripture? Then we can discuss why it is you prefer Dispensationalism's inferential teachings over other alternatives.

Would you please show me where scripture necessarily infers the millennial kingdom is only for God-believing, Jesus-not-believing Jews of Israel?
Would you please provide a brief explanation why for why you prefer Dispensationalism as a means of parsing scripture over other alternatives?


You choose
 
If the OT is now nonexistent, then why did the epistle writers quote the OT so frequently and apply it to both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ?
Let's take a look at those three texts.

Hebrews 7:18-19
For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

Hebrews 8:7 KJV
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Hebrews 10:8-9 ESV
When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second.

Not a single one of those verses states the Old Testament is now nonexistent. Not a single one of them addresses the matter of the NT writers repeatedly referring to, citing, and quoting the OT. In point of fact, all three of those verses...... quote the OT and apply it to converts to Christ!!!

Would you like to give the original question another try? Or maybe amend the original claim the OT is now nonexistent?
 
The Father's covenant is with His Son (Heb 13: 20, 21), nowhere does it show a covenant with Christians; they are just recipients of the covenant.
That is incorrect. The Father's covenant was with Abraham and Jesus.

Galatians 3:16-18
Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

The gospel was preached to Abraham (Gal. 3:8) and the promises of the covenant made with Abraham were spoken to Abraham and his seed, Jesus. Jesus, not Israel, is the seed of promise. Abraham has more than one seed, but only Jesus is the seed of promise. All those in Christ are heirs according to the promise. There is, therefore, a covenant with Christians.

Galatians 3:26-29
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.

Those words "you all" is a reference to the Galatians readership, those Paul identifies as, "the churches of Galatia." (Gal. 1:2).



Shall we discuss this further, or would you like to amend the original statement, correcting it to say there is, in fact a covenant with Christians?
 
Let's take a look at those three texts.

Hebrews 7:18-19
For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

Hebrews 8:7 KJV
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Hebrews 10:8-9 ESV
When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second.

Not a single one of those verses states the Old Testament is now nonexistent. Not a single one of them addresses the matter of the NT writers repeatedly referring to, citing, and quoting the OT. In point of fact, all three of those verses...... quote the OT and apply it to converts to Christ!!!

Would you like to give the original question another try? Or maybe amend the original claim the OT is now nonexistent?
He does away with the first in order to establish the second.

The OT is directly relevant to our understanding of the New Covenant.

The OT is NOT continued in the NEW Covenant = Hebrews 10:8-9 and Mark 2:18-22


The disciples of John and of the Pharisees were fasting. Then they came and said to Him, “Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?”

And Jesus said to them, “Can the friends of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them they cannot fast.
But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days.
No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; or else the new piece pulls away from the old, and the tear is made worse.
And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine bursts the wineskins, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined.
But new wine must be put into new wineskins.”
 
Last edited:
He does away with the first in order to establish the second.

The OT is directly relevant to our understanding of the New Covenant.

The OT is NOT continued in the NEW Covenant = Hebrews 10:8-9 and Mark 2:18-22


The disciples of John and of the Pharisees were fasting. Then they came and said to Him, “Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?”

And Jesus said to them, “Can the friends of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them they cannot fast.
But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days.
No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; or else the new piece pulls away from the old, and the tear is made worse.
And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine bursts the wineskins, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined.
But new wine must be put into new wineskins.”
You're not reading all the posts, are you?

Would you please read Post #4 and answer the first question or ignore my posts Post 17 did absolutely nothing to answer the question asked.
 
Last edited:
You're not reading all the posts, are you?

Would you please read Post #4 and answer the first question or ignore my posts Post 17 did absolutely nothing to answer the question asked.
YEP - read post 4 and your question was directly answered.

Did you SEE: "The OT is directly relevant to our understanding of the New Covenant."

Which does ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING in TRUTH
 
Back
Top Bottom