The Covenant Context of Salvation

Not necessarily, my friend. That covenant was specific to my son. I may have another covenant to offer that stranger. My son required to learn to do the dishes and I required the dishes to be done. The stranger may require a different thing and I may require from the stranger a different thing.

Certainly, I get your point that God offers, in essence, the same thing for mankind (forgiveness, a fresh start) and demands from mankind the same things (repentance, obedience). God would not reject a broken, contrite heart of any person at any time in history, from any religion, race or culture.
What I mean is that the specific terms of the covenant can vary according to God's plans, which include the ability for men to understand, at least to some extent, the terms He proposes.
As I have said, I don't always agree with your Philosophy, but I enjoy the discussions. My reply was based on the Holy scriptures that I posted in which God defines for me who His Law was for.

Perhaps I was mistaken to use the analogy of your home, and your son, and your kingdom. Of course, you are free to make your own rules and apply them to whom you will in your own home.

I stand corrected.

The Ninevites, for example, were not required to keep the Sabbath.

You have no evidence to support this assertion, in my view, will all respect. They were told to repent of their sins, and they did, according to Scriptures. But there is no definition of Sin given by God to us until the Exodus. Amalek feared the wrath of God for the Sin of Adultery. But there is nothing in scriptures which define adultery as a Sin until the Exodus. Noah knew the difference between clean and unclean animals, and yet there is no defining the difference between them until the Exodus.

Abraham was included by God in His plans Because "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him."

Isaac was told that he was blessed "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

And yet there is no enumeration of God's definition of justice or His Judgments, or of the "Way of the Lord" that Abraham would command his children to keep, nor of God's Statutes, Commandments and Laws that Abraham obeyed, until the Exodus.

So for me, it seems presumptuous to assume God's Laws, Judgments, definition of Justice, Commandments and Statutes didn't exist before the Exodus, just because God didn't enumerate them before the Exodus, given the evidence against such presumption.

Does God's Sabbath Commandment, or Adultery Commandment matter? Perhaps not. But to say it doesn't matter "because" God didn't enumerate His Laws until the Exodus is a poor argument, in my view, given what is actually written.

That was a requirement for the children of Israel.

And for the Stranger that would sojourn among them.

"the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."


And for "the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people".

Should a man not also believe these Words?

The covenant that God presented to the Ninevites should have been as simple as this: "If you turn away from your evil ways, I will save you"
They did their part, and God did His.

Well my friend, "Sabbath" is mentioned 116 times in the Holy scriptures. Unclean is mentioned 158 times. Adultery is mentioned 33 times. Steal is mentioned 21 times.

I guess this goes back to one of our disagreements. The Centurian who watched as a righteous man was murdered. Would he not seek more about this man? Would he not seek the God of Abraham that this man promoted? Or do you think he would leave and seek out more Roman gods, or travel to a foreign country and adopt their religion which promoted a different Christ?

I can tell you, I don't know what God has in store for those who reject or question HIS definition of Holy, Clean, Just and Good, other than what HE says in the holy Scriptures. I only know how His Words apply to me. My argument on this forum is mostly tied to misrepresenting, omitting or ignoring what is written to justify a certain religious philosophy.

I don't believe God Laws were just given to Israel, because the Bible doesn't teach this. Jesus didn't teach this, and Paul didn't teach this, Moses didn't teach this, and Isaiah didn't teach this.

As for God's sabbaths, for me I have strived to honor God in them for almost 30 years now. I understand why they are made for man, by reason of use. Much in the same way I suppose, that a man can't truly understand what it is like to perform surgery on another human, unless they actually engage in the practice.

Anyway, such discussions are good to have among men seeking God's Truth.

I do respect and enjoy much of your perspectives. Thanks for sharing with me.
 
Your friend @Studyman is not impressed-apparently, I need to start recruiting people for what I'm selling from the internet. So don't buy what I'm "selling" brother.

J.
Dears Johann and @GodsGrace

I suppose I would need to dig a bit deeper into the Hebrew text to understand better how the word covenant is used, or even whether “covenant” is a correct translation in all instances. I have always understood that a covenant was a pact, contract or agreement between two or more parties.

What I should bear in mind, in the end of the day, is that the concept of “covenant” is a teaching tool, an analogy for God to explain in easy terms some aspects of his relationship to men.
Literally speaking, God and men cannot have real covenants, just as we cannot have real covenants with ants.
For one, we could not hold God accountable before any third-party tribunal. Nobody could enforce God to fulfill his part.
Besides, A salvific covenant, (literally speaking) would be incompatible with grace. God’s salvation is an undeserved gift. So we could never say that, by saving us, God just met his contractual obligations.
 
Last edited:
You have no evidence to support this assertion, in my view, will all respect.
I think we can accumulate enough evidence through the joint consideration of these three facts

  1. Historical records have no evidence that any other civilization was required by any priest, prophet or sacred text to keep the seventh day as Sabbath. In contrast, we have plenty of evidence of religions and moral systems that prohibited murder or theft.
  2. Second, Jews were never sent as missionaries to call other nations or civilizations to practice circumcision, abstain from pork, keep the sabbath or build tabernacles and priesthood for ritualistic sacrifices as Moses ordered.
  3. Jewish theology, up to these days, sustain that the Law of Moses (and corresponding covenant) was not given to Gentiles. For Gentiles, general laws of morality are expected. Perhaps the most developed theory around this is the laws of Noah, applicable to all mankind.
 
Well, Johann and @GodsGrace

I suppose I would need to dig a bit deeper into the Hebrew text to understand better how the word covenant is used, or even whether “covenant” is a correct translation in all instances. I have always understood that a covenant was a pact, contract or agreement between two or more parties.

What I should bear in mind, in the end of the day, is that the concept of “covenant” is a teaching tool, an analogy for God to explain in easy terms some aspects of his relationship to men.
Literally speaking, God and men cannot have real covenants, just as we cannot have real covenants with ants.
For one, we could not hold God accountable before any third-party tribunal. Nobody could enforce God to fulfill his part.
Besides, A salvific covenant, (literally speaking) would be incompatible with grace. God’s salvation is an undeserved gift. So we could never say that, by saving us, God just met his contractual obligations.
This is what I do, but I’ll probably get “called out” by Studyman again. I think @GodsGrace can answer your question sufficiently.

J.
 
Dears Johann and @GodsGrace

I suppose I would need to dig a bit deeper into the Hebrew text to understand better how the word covenant is used, or even whether “covenant” is a correct translation in all instances. I have always understood that a covenant was a pact, contract or agreement between two or more parties.

What I should bear in mind, in the end of the day, is that the concept of “covenant” is a teaching tool, an analogy for God to explain in easy terms some aspects of his relationship to men.
Literally speaking, God and men cannot have real covenants, just as we cannot have real covenants with ants.
For one, we could not hold God accountable before any third-party tribunal. Nobody could enforce God to fulfill his part.
Besides, A salvific covenant, (literally speaking) would be incompatible with grace. God’s salvation is an undeserved gift. So we could never say that, by saving us, God just met his contractual obligations.
Sorry Pancho
You don't understand what a Covenant is.
And my teaching days are over.

You won't be finding this information in the bible.
 
This is what I do, but I’ll probably get “called out” by Studyman again. I think @GodsGrace can answer your question sufficiently.

J.
I sure can Johann.
But it takes a lot of time and energy and it doesn't seem like anyone is really interested.
We just all want to be right.
I had to study 7 or 8 Covenants so I could teach them to others.
If someone calls a Covenant an agreement....I immediately know they don't know.

What I've posted till now is correct.
It could be taken or it could be left...
it's not a salvific issue.
We had to use written stuff years ago.
Now we have the internet...so it's pretty easy, I think.
 
I sure can Johann.
But it takes a lot of time and energy and it doesn't seem like anyone is really interested.
We just all want to be right.
I had to study 7 or 8 Covenants so I could teach them to others.
If someone calls a Covenant an agreement....I immediately know they don't know.

What I've posted till now is correct.
It could be taken or it could be left...
it's not a salvific issue.
We had to use written stuff years ago.
Now we have the internet...so it's pretty easy, I think.
Yep, pretty easy, I would agree.

Shalom.

J.
 
I asked AI model GPT4o the following question “What is the Hebrew term for “covenant” used in the Tanakh?
This is the answer I got:

The Hebrew term for “covenant” used in the Tanakh is בְּרִית (berit, also transliterated as beriyth or brit). It signifies a formal agreement, treaty, or pact between two parties, often ratified through rituals such as the cutting of animals, symbolizing its binding nature (Genesis 15:18; Jeremiah 34:18-19). The root of the word implies “cutting,” reflecting ancient practices of covenant-making


Therefore, I consider appropriate to understand a covenant as an agreement… and an agreement means that parties must agree.

Now, to the question: How is the Hebrew word “Beryth” used in different contexts in the Tanakh? I got this answer:

The Hebrew word **"beriyth"** (בְּרִית), meaning "covenant," is used in a variety of contexts in the Tanakh, reflecting its depth and versatility:

1. **Divine Covenants**:
- **With Noah**: God's promise to never again destroy the earth by flood (Genesis 9:9-17)[2].
- **With Abraham**: A covenant promising descendants, land, and blessings, symbolized by passing between pieces of flesh (Genesis 15:18)[5].
- **With Moses**: The covenant at Sinai, involving laws and commandments (Exodus 24:8)[3].
- **With David**: God's promise of an eternal dynasty (2 Samuel 7:12-16)[2].

2. **Human Agreements**:
- Treaties between individuals or groups, such as Abraham and Abimelech (Genesis 21:27) or Jacob and Laban (Genesis 31:44)[2].

3. **Marriage**:
- Represents a sacred bond, as seen in Proverbs 2:17 and Malachi 2:14, where marriage is described as a "covenant"[1][2].

4. **Rituals and Symbolism**:
- Often involves blood rituals, symbolizing the binding nature of the covenant, such as in Exodus 24:8[3][7].
- The phrase "karath beriyth" (כָּרַת בְּרִית), meaning "to cut a covenant," reflects the ancient practice of cutting animals during covenant ceremonies[4].

5. **Etymology and Additional Meanings**:
- The root may imply "cutting," "binding," or even "sharing," emphasizing commitment and fellowship[1][8].



Sources
[1] Beriyt Marriage Mishpacha - Great Hebrew Awakening https://www.greathebrewawakening.or...ies-forms/ministries/beriyt-marriage-ministry
[2] Covenant - Beriyth (Hebrew Word Study) - Precept Austin https://www.preceptaustin.org/covenant_definition
[3] An Exegetical Review of Hebrews 8:13 - Skip Moen https://skipmoen.com/2010/12/an-exegetical-review-of-hebrews-813/
[4] Pt 4-Covenant: Solemn and Binding | Precept Austin https://www.preceptaustin.org/covenant_solemn_and_binding
[5] The Abrahamic Covenant: Part 2 http://tcog.ca/Abrahamic Covenant Part 2 Transcript.htm
[6] Differences between a Covenant and Testament ? | The Puritan Board https://puritanboard.com/threads/differences-between-a-covenant-and-testament.93904/
[7] Blood Brothers | Hebrew Word Study - Skip Moen https://skipmoen.com/2011/01/blood-brothers/
[8] Old Testament - World History Encyclopedia https://www.worldhistory.org/Old_Testament/
 
I asked AI model GPT4o the following question “What is the Hebrew term for “covenant” used in the Tanakh?
This is the answer I got:

The Hebrew term for “covenant” used in the Tanakh is בְּרִית (berit, also transliterated as beriyth or brit). It signifies a formal agreement, treaty, or pact between two parties, often ratified through rituals such as the cutting of animals, symbolizing its binding nature (Genesis 15:18; Jeremiah 34:18-19). The root of the word implies “cutting,” reflecting ancient practices of covenant-making


Therefore, I consider appropriate to understand a covenant as an agreement… and an agreement means that parties must agree.
Go ask a theologian if a Covenant is the same as an agreement.

I don't expect you to believe me...a poster on a thead.

And I sure do hope you know how chatGPT works.
 
I asked AI model GPT4o the following question “What is the Hebrew term for “covenant” used in the Tanakh?
This is the answer I got:

The Hebrew term for “covenant” used in the Tanakh is בְּרִית (berit, also transliterated as beriyth or brit). It signifies a formal agreement, treaty, or pact between two parties, often ratified through rituals such as the cutting of animals, symbolizing its binding nature (Genesis 15:18; Jeremiah 34:18-19). The root of the word implies “cutting,” reflecting ancient practices of covenant-making


Therefore, I consider appropriate to understand a covenant as an agreement… and an agreement means that parties must agree.
So you think that in every Covenant man had to agree with God?

That's pretty funny Pancho.
I'm not even replying to it.
You can believe what you will.

And with that:
Good night
Buona Notte
Buenas Noches
 
I asked AI model GPT4o the following question “What is the Hebrew term for “covenant” used in the Tanakh?
This is the answer I got:

The Hebrew term for “covenant” used in the Tanakh is בְּרִית (berit, also transliterated as beriyth or brit). It signifies a formal agreement, treaty, or pact between two parties, often ratified through rituals such as the cutting of animals, symbolizing its binding nature (Genesis 15:18; Jeremiah 34:18-19). The root of the word implies “cutting,” reflecting ancient practices of covenant-making


Therefore, I consider appropriate to understand a covenant as an agreement… and an agreement means that parties must agree.

Now, to the question: How is the Hebrew word “Beryth” used in different contexts in the Tanakh? I got this answer:

The Hebrew word **"beriyth"** (בְּרִית), meaning "covenant," is used in a variety of contexts in the Tanakh, reflecting its depth and versatility:

1. **Divine Covenants**:
- **With Noah**: God's promise to never again destroy the earth by flood (Genesis 9:9-17)[2].
- **With Abraham**: A covenant promising descendants, land, and blessings, symbolized by passing between pieces of flesh (Genesis 15:18)[5].
- **With Moses**: The covenant at Sinai, involving laws and commandments (Exodus 24:8)[3].
- **With David**: God's promise of an eternal dynasty (2 Samuel 7:12-16)[2].

2. **Human Agreements**:
- Treaties between individuals or groups, such as Abraham and Abimelech (Genesis 21:27) or Jacob and Laban (Genesis 31:44)[2].

3. **Marriage**:
- Represents a sacred bond, as seen in Proverbs 2:17 and Malachi 2:14, where marriage is described as a "covenant"[1][2].

4. **Rituals and Symbolism**:
- Often involves blood rituals, symbolizing the binding nature of the covenant, such as in Exodus 24:8[3][7].
- The phrase "karath beriyth" (כָּרַת בְּרִית), meaning "to cut a covenant," reflects the ancient practice of cutting animals during covenant ceremonies[4].

5. **Etymology and Additional Meanings**:
- The root may imply "cutting," "binding," or even "sharing," emphasizing commitment and fellowship[1][8].



Sources
[1] Beriyt Marriage Mishpacha - Great Hebrew Awakening https://www.greathebrewawakening.or...ies-forms/ministries/beriyt-marriage-ministry
[2] Covenant - Beriyth (Hebrew Word Study) - Precept Austin https://www.preceptaustin.org/covenant_definition
[3] An Exegetical Review of Hebrews 8:13 - Skip Moen https://skipmoen.com/2010/12/an-exegetical-review-of-hebrews-813/
[4] Pt 4-Covenant: Solemn and Binding | Precept Austin https://www.preceptaustin.org/covenant_solemn_and_binding
[5] The Abrahamic Covenant: Part 2 http://tcog.ca/Abrahamic Covenant Part 2 Transcript.htm
[6] Differences between a Covenant and Testament ? | The Puritan Board https://puritanboard.com/threads/differences-between-a-covenant-and-testament.93904/
[7] Blood Brothers | Hebrew Word Study - Skip Moen https://skipmoen.com/2011/01/blood-brothers/
[8] Old Testament - World History Encyclopedia https://www.worldhistory.org/Old_Testament/

The Hebrew term for “covenant” used in the Tanakh is בְּרִית (berit, also transliterated as beriyth or brit). It signifies a formal agreement, treaty, or pact between two parties, often ratified through rituals such as the cutting of animals, symbolizing its binding nature (Genesis 15:18; Jeremiah 34:18-19). The root of the word implies “cutting,” reflecting ancient practices of covenant-making
One problem.

A covenant, especially in biblical contexts, is far more than a mere agreement or contract between two parties. While an agreement implies mutual terms and conditions that both sides can negotiate, a covenant in the biblical sense is often portrayed as a binding, solemn relationship initiated by God, which typically includes promises, responsibilities, and obligations that are not contingent on human negotiation or equality. It’s a divine commitment, one that is not based on equal terms but on God’s will and grace.

The Hebrew word for covenant, berith, signifies a binding commitment that often involves a ceremonial act, such as the shedding of blood, and it establishes a relationship that God forms with His people. This covenantal relationship is not simply about the parties agreeing to something; it’s about God's faithful promise to His people, regardless of their ability to fulfill their part. The covenant comes with blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience, but the foundation is God’s faithfulness.

In contrast, a mere "agreement" suggests a more transactional nature, with the parties involved having equal bargaining power, which is not the case in biblical covenants. The covenant between God and Israel, for instance, is based on God’s choice and promise, not on the ability of Israel to negotiate terms or fulfill requirements.

The difference between an "agreement" and a "covenant" also relates to the depth of relationship implied. A covenant often signifies a deep, ongoing relationship, one in which God’s sovereignty and grace are central. It's a divine act of commitment, not just a legal or contractual stipulation. So, when someone calls a covenant just an agreement, they miss the theological significance and divine initiative behind it.

J.
 
One problem.

A covenant, especially in biblical contexts, is far more than a mere agreement or contract between two parties. While an agreement implies mutual terms and conditions that both sides can negotiate, a covenant in the biblical sense is often portrayed as a binding, solemn relationship initiated by God, which typically includes promises, responsibilities, and obligations that are not contingent on human negotiation or equality. It’s a divine commitment, one that is not based on equal terms but on God’s will and grace.

The Hebrew word for covenant, berith, signifies a binding commitment that often involves a ceremonial act, such as the shedding of blood, and it establishes a relationship that God forms with His people. This covenantal relationship is not simply about the parties agreeing to something; it’s about God's faithful promise to His people, regardless of their ability to fulfill their part. The covenant comes with blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience, but the foundation is God’s faithfulness.

In contrast, a mere "agreement" suggests a more transactional nature, with the parties involved having equal bargaining power, which is not the case in biblical covenants. The covenant between God and Israel, for instance, is based on God’s choice and promise, not on the ability of Israel to negotiate terms or fulfill requirements.

The difference between an "agreement" and a "covenant" also relates to the depth of relationship implied. A covenant often signifies a deep, ongoing relationship, one in which God’s sovereignty and grace are central. It's a divine act of commitment, not just a legal or contractual stipulation. So, when someone calls a covenant just an agreement, they miss the theological significance and divine initiative behind it.

J.
Thank you, Johann.
I am not saying that a covenant is “just” an agreement. What I wanted to emphasize from post 136 onwards is that the parties are expected to agree.
A Marriage and a purchase at Walmart share in common that they imply agreement.
But the scale, scope, solemnity, formality and purpose of marriage is light years deeper and more complex than the purchase I do at Walmart.
A marriage is a covenant. A purchase at Walmart is not.
 
I sure can Johann.
But it takes a lot of time and energy and it doesn't seem like anyone is really interested.
We just all want to be right.
I had to study 7 or 8 Covenants so I could teach them to others.
If someone calls a Covenant an agreement....I immediately know they don't know.

What I've posted till now is correct.
It could be taken or it could be left...
it's not a salvific issue.
We had to use written stuff years ago.
Now we have the internet...so it's pretty easy, I think.
1242. diathéké
Strong's Lexicon
diathéké: Covenant, Testament
Original Word: διαθήκη
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: diathéké
Pronunciation: dee-ath-ay'-kay
Phonetic Spelling: (dee-ath-ay'-kay)
Definition: Covenant, Testament
Meaning: (a) a covenant between two parties, (b) (the ordinary, everyday sense [found a countless number of times in papyri]) a will, testament.
Word Origin: From the Greek verb διατίθημι (diatithēmi), meaning "to arrange" or "to dispose."
Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: - H1285 - בְּרִית (berith): Often translated as "covenant," this Hebrew term is used extensively in the Old Testament to describe agreements between God and His people, such as the covenants with Noah, Abraham, and Moses.
Usage: The term "diathéké" primarily refers to a covenant or agreement, often with a legal or formal connotation. In the New Testament, it is used to describe the solemn and binding agreements between God and humanity. It is most commonly translated as "covenant" in the context of God's promises and "testament" when referring to the division of the Bible into Old and New Testaments.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek culture, a "diathéké" was akin to a will or testament, a legal document outlining the distribution of one's estate after death. In the Hebrew context, a covenant was a sacred agreement, often sealed with a ritual or sacrifice, signifying a deep, binding relationship. The concept of covenant is central to the biblical narrative, illustrating God's commitment to His people and their responsibilities in return.
HELPS Word-studies
1242
diathḗkē (from 1223 /diá, "thoroughly," intensifying 5087 /títhēmi, "place, set") – properly, a set-agreement having complete terms determined by the initiating party, which also are fully affirmed by the one entering the agreement.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 1242: διαθήκη

διαθήκη, διαθήκης, ἡ (διατίθημι);
1. a disposition, arrangement, of any sort, which one wishes to be valid (German Verordnung, Willensverfugung): Galatians 3:15, where under the name of a man's disposition is meant specifically a testament, so far forth as it is a specimen and example of that disposition (cf. Meyer or Lightfoot at the passage); especially the last disposal which one makes of his earthly possessions after his death, a testament or will (so in Greek writings from (Aristophanes), Plato, legg. 11, p. 922 c. following down): Hebrews 9:16f

2. a compact, covenant (Aristophanes av. 440), very often in the Scriptures for בְּרִית(Vulg.testamentum). For the word covenant is used to denote the close relationship which God entered into, first with Noah (Genesis 6:18; Genesis 9:9ff (cf. Sir. 44:18)), then with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their posterity (Leviticus 26:42 (cf. 2 Macc. 1:2)), but especially with Abraham (Genesis 15 and Genesis 17), and afterward through Moses with the people of Israel (Exodus 24; Deuteronomy 5:2; Deuteronomy 28:69 ()). By this last covenant the Israelites are bound to obey God's will as expressed and solemnly promulged in the Mosaic law; and he promises them his almighty protection and blessings of every kind in this world, but threatens transgressors with the severest punishments. Hence, in the N. T. we find mention of αἱ πλάκες τῆς διαθήκης (הַבְּרִיתלוּחות, Deuteronomy 9:9, 15), the tables of the law, on which the duties of the covenant were inscribed (Exodus 20); of ἡκιβωτός τῆς διαθήκης (הַבְּרִית אֲרון, Deuteronomy 10:8; Deuteronomy 31:9; Joshua 3:6, etc.), the ark of the covenantor law, in which those tables were deposited, Hebrews 9:4; Revelation 11:19; of ἡ διαθήκη περιτομῆς, the covenant of circumcision, made with Abraham, whose sign and seal was circumcision (Genesis 17:10ff), Acts 7:8; of τό αἷμα τῆςδιαθήκης, the blood of the victims, by the shedding and sprinkling of which the Mosaic covenant was ratified, Hebrews 9:20 from Exodus 24:8; of αἱ διαθῆκαι, the covenants, one made with Abraham, the other through Moses with the Israelites, Romans 9:4 (L text Tr marginal reading ἡ διαθήκη) (Sap). 18:22; Sir. 44:11; 2 Macc. 8:15; Epistle of Barnabas 9 [ET]; (cf. Winer's Grammar, 177 (166))); of αἱ διαθῆκαι τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, the covenants to which the promise of salvation through the Messiah was annexed, Ephesians 2:12 (συνθηκαιἀγαθῶν ὑποσχέσεων, Wis. 12:21); for Christian salvation is the fulfillment of the divine promises annexed to those covenants, especially to that made with Abraham: Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25; Romans 11:27; Galatians 3:17 (where διαθήκη is God's arrangement, i. e. the promisemade to Abraham). As the new and far more excellent bond of friendship which God in the Messiah's time would enter into with the people of Israel is called, חֲדָשָׁהבְּרִית, καινή διαθήκη (Jeremiah 38:31 ()) — which divine promise Christ has made good (Hebrews 8:8-10; Hebrews 10:16) — we find in the N. T. two distinct covenants spoken of, δύο διαθῆκαι (Galatians 4:24), viz. the Mosaic and the Christian, with the former of which (τῇ πρώτη διαθήκη, Hebrews 9:15, 18, cf. 8:9) the latter is contrasted, as καινή διαθήκη, Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24 (in both passages in RG L (in Matthew in Tr also)); Luke 22:20(WH reject the passage); 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:8; κρείττων διαθήκη, Hebrews 7:22; αἰώνιοςδιαθήκη, Hebrews 13:20; and Christ is called κρείττονος or καινῆς or νέαςδιαθήκης μεσίτης: Hebrews 8:6; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 12:24. This new covenant binds men to exercise faith in Christ, and God promises them grace and salvation eternal. This covenant Christ set up and ratified by undergoing death; hence, the phrases τό αἷμα τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης, τόαἷμα τῆς διαθήκης (see αἷμα sub at the end) (Hebrews 10:29); τό αἷμα μου τῆςδιαθήκης, my blood by the shedding of which the covenant is established, Matthew 26:28 T WH and Mark 14:24 T TrWH (on two genitives after one noun cf. Matthiae, § 380, Anm. 1; Kühner, ii., p. 288f; (Jelf, § 543, 1, cf § 466; Winers Grammar, § 30, 3 Note 3; Buttmann, 155 (136))). By metonymy of the contained for the container ἡ παλαιά διαθήκη is used in 2 Corinthians 3:14 of the sacred books of the O. T. because in them the conditions and principles of the older covenant were recorded. Finally must be noted the amphiboly or twofold use (cf. Philo de mut. nom. § 6) by which the writer to the Hebrews, in Hebrews 9:16f, substitutes for the meaning covenant which διαθήκηbears elsewhere in the Epistle that of testament (see 1 above), and likens Christ to a testator — not only because the author regards eternal blessedness as an inheritance bequeathed by Christ, but also because he is endeavoring to show, both that the attainment of eternal salvation is made possible for the disciples of Christ by his death (Hebrews 9:15), and that even the Mosaic covenant had been consecrated by blood (Hebrews 9:18ff). This, apparently, led the Latin Vulg. to render διαθήκη wherever it occurs in the Bible (i. e. in the New Testament, not always in the Old Testament; see B. D.under the word , and B. D. American edition under the word ) by the wordtestamentum.​
 
The difference between an "agreement" and a "covenant" also relates to the depth of relationship implied.
This is exactly what I think.
Man cannot negotiate terms with God. Man can only accept or reject the terms put by God. That’s still a choice, and a big one.
In Exodus 19, the children of Israel were not negotiating. Their contractual choice was either to accept or reject God’s terms. They accepted.
Moses considered their acceptance so relevant, that He took their words back to God.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, Johann.
I am not saying that a covenant is “just” an agreement. What I wanted to emphasize from post 136 onwards is that the parties are expected to agree.
A Marriage and a purchase at Walmart share in common that they imply agreement.
But the scale, scope, solemnity, formality and purpose of marriage is light years deeper and more complex than the purchase I do at Walmart.
A marriage is a covenant. A purchase at Walmart is not.
Something to chew the cud-a Jewish way of saying.


J.
 
1242. diathéké



Strong's Lexicon
diathéké: Covenant, Testament

Original Word:
διαθήκη
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: diathéké
Pronunciation: dee-ath-ay'-kay
Phonetic Spelling: (dee-ath-ay'-kay)
Definition: Covenant, Testament
Meaning: (a) a covenant between two parties, (b) (the ordinary, everyday sense [found a countless number of times in papyri]) a will, testament.
Word Origin: From the Greek verb διατίθημι (diatithēmi), meaning "to arrange" or "to dispose."
Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: - H1285 - בְּרִית (berith): Often translated as "covenant," this Hebrew term is used extensively in the Old Testament to describe agreements between God and His people, such as the covenants with Noah, Abraham, and Moses.
Usage: The term "diathéké" primarily refers to a covenant or agreement, often with a legal or formal connotation. In the New Testament, it is used to describe the solemn and binding agreements between God and humanity. It is most commonly translated as "covenant" in the context of God's promises and "testament" when referring to the division of the Bible into Old and New Testaments.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek culture, a "diathéké" was akin to a will or testament, a legal document outlining the distribution of one's estate after death. In the Hebrew context, a covenant was a sacred agreement, often sealed with a ritual or sacrifice, signifying a deep, binding relationship. The concept of covenant is central to the biblical narrative, illustrating God's commitment to His people and their responsibilities in return.
HELPS Word-studies
1242
diathḗkē (from 1223 /diá, "thoroughly," intensifying 5087 /títhēmi, "place, set") – properly, a set-agreement having complete terms determined by the initiating party, which also are fully affirmed by the one entering the agreement.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 1242: διαθήκη

διαθήκη, διαθήκης, ἡ (διατίθημι);
1. a disposition, arrangement, of any sort, which one wishes to be valid (German Verordnung, Willensverfugung): Galatians 3:15, where under the name of a man's disposition is meant specifically a testament, so far forth as it is a specimen and example of that disposition (cf. Meyer or Lightfoot at the passage); especially the last disposal which one makes of his earthly possessions after his death, a testament or will (so in Greek writings from (Aristophanes), Plato, legg. 11, p. 922 c. following down): Hebrews 9:16f

2. a compact, covenant (Aristophanes av. 440), very often in the Scriptures for בְּרִית(Vulg.testamentum). For the word covenant is used to denote the close relationship which God entered into, first with Noah (Genesis 6:18; Genesis 9:9ff (cf. Sir. 44:18)), then with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their posterity (Leviticus 26:42 (cf. 2 Macc. 1:2)), but especially with Abraham (Genesis 15 and Genesis 17), and afterward through Moses with the people of Israel (Exodus 24; Deuteronomy 5:2; Deuteronomy 28:69 ()). By this last covenant the Israelites are bound to obey God's will as expressed and solemnly promulged in the Mosaic law; and he promises them his almighty protection and blessings of every kind in this world, but threatens transgressors with the severest punishments. Hence, in the N. T. we find mention of αἱ πλάκες τῆς διαθήκης (הַבְּרִיתלוּחות, Deuteronomy 9:9, 15), the tables of the law, on which the duties of the covenant were inscribed (Exodus 20); of ἡκιβωτός τῆς διαθήκης (הַבְּרִית אֲרון, Deuteronomy 10:8; Deuteronomy 31:9; Joshua 3:6, etc.), the ark of the covenantor law, in which those tables were deposited, Hebrews 9:4; Revelation 11:19; of ἡ διαθήκη περιτομῆς, the covenant of circumcision, made with Abraham, whose sign and seal was circumcision (Genesis 17:10ff), Acts 7:8; of τό αἷμα τῆςδιαθήκης, the blood of the victims, by the shedding and sprinkling of which the Mosaic covenant was ratified, Hebrews 9:20 from Exodus 24:8; of αἱ διαθῆκαι, the covenants, one made with Abraham, the other through Moses with the Israelites, Romans 9:4 (L text Tr marginal reading ἡ διαθήκη) (Sap). 18:22; Sir. 44:11; 2 Macc. 8:15; Epistle of Barnabas 9 [ET]; (cf. Winer's Grammar, 177 (166))); of αἱ διαθῆκαι τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, the covenants to which the promise of salvation through the Messiah was annexed, Ephesians 2:12 (συνθηκαιἀγαθῶν ὑποσχέσεων, Wis. 12:21); for Christian salvation is the fulfillment of the divine promises annexed to those covenants, especially to that made with Abraham: Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25; Romans 11:27; Galatians 3:17 (where διαθήκη is God's arrangement, i. e. the promisemade to Abraham). As the new and far more excellent bond of friendship which God in the Messiah's time would enter into with the people of Israel is called, חֲדָשָׁהבְּרִית, καινή διαθήκη (Jeremiah 38:31 ()) — which divine promise Christ has made good (Hebrews 8:8-10; Hebrews 10:16) — we find in the N. T. two distinct covenants spoken of, δύο διαθῆκαι (Galatians 4:24), viz. the Mosaic and the Christian, with the former of which (τῇ πρώτη διαθήκη, Hebrews 9:15, 18, cf. 8:9) the latter is contrasted, as καινή διαθήκη, Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24 (in both passages in RG L (in Matthew in Tr also)); Luke 22:20(WH reject the passage); 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:8; κρείττων διαθήκη, Hebrews 7:22; αἰώνιοςδιαθήκη, Hebrews 13:20; and Christ is called κρείττονος or καινῆς or νέαςδιαθήκης μεσίτης: Hebrews 8:6; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 12:24. This new covenant binds men to exercise faith in Christ, and God promises them grace and salvation eternal. This covenant Christ set up and ratified by undergoing death; hence, the phrases τό αἷμα τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης, τόαἷμα τῆς διαθήκης (see αἷμα sub at the end) (Hebrews 10:29); τό αἷμα μου τῆςδιαθήκης, my blood by the shedding of which the covenant is established, Matthew 26:28 T WH and Mark 14:24 T TrWH (on two genitives after one noun cf. Matthiae, § 380, Anm. 1; Kühner, ii., p. 288f; (Jelf, § 543, 1, cf § 466; Winers Grammar, § 30, 3 Note 3; Buttmann, 155 (136))). By metonymy of the contained for the container ἡ παλαιά διαθήκη is used in 2 Corinthians 3:14 of the sacred books of the O. T. because in them the conditions and principles of the older covenant were recorded. Finally must be noted the amphiboly or twofold use (cf. Philo de mut. nom. § 6) by which the writer to the Hebrews, in Hebrews 9:16f, substitutes for the meaning covenant which διαθήκηbears elsewhere in the Epistle that of testament (see 1 above), and likens Christ to a testator — not only because the author regards eternal blessedness as an inheritance bequeathed by Christ, but also because he is endeavoring to show, both that the attainment of eternal salvation is made possible for the disciples of Christ by his death (Hebrews 9:15), and that even the Mosaic covenant had been consecrated by blood (Hebrews 9:18ff). This, apparently, led the Latin Vulg. to render διαθήκη wherever it occurs in the Bible (i. e. in the New Testament, not always in the Old Testament; see B. D.under the word , and B. D. American edition under the word ) by the wordtestamentum.​


I believe Jewish sites would explain "covenant" more thoroughly brother, just a matter of where to look.

J.
 
1242. diathéké



Strong's Lexicon
diathéké: Covenant, Testament

Original Word:
διαθήκη
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: diathéké
Pronunciation: dee-ath-ay'-kay
Phonetic Spelling: (dee-ath-ay'-kay)
Definition: Covenant, Testament
Meaning: (a) a covenant between two parties, (b) (the ordinary, everyday sense [found a countless number of times in papyri]) a will, testament.
Word Origin: From the Greek verb διατίθημι (diatithēmi), meaning "to arrange" or "to dispose."
Corresponding Greek / Hebrew Entries: - H1285 - בְּרִית (berith): Often translated as "covenant," this Hebrew term is used extensively in the Old Testament to describe agreements between God and His people, such as the covenants with Noah, Abraham, and Moses.
Usage: The term "diathéké" primarily refers to a covenant or agreement, often with a legal or formal connotation. In the New Testament, it is used to describe the solemn and binding agreements between God and humanity. It is most commonly translated as "covenant" in the context of God's promises and "testament" when referring to the division of the Bible into Old and New Testaments.
Cultural and Historical Background: In ancient Greek culture, a "diathéké" was akin to a will or testament, a legal document outlining the distribution of one's estate after death. In the Hebrew context, a covenant was a sacred agreement, often sealed with a ritual or sacrifice, signifying a deep, binding relationship. The concept of covenant is central to the biblical narrative, illustrating God's commitment to His people and their responsibilities in return.
HELPS Word-studies
1242
diathḗkē (from 1223 /diá, "thoroughly," intensifying 5087 /títhēmi, "place, set") – properly, a set-agreement having complete terms determined by the initiating party, which also are fully affirmed by the one entering the agreement.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 1242: διαθήκη

διαθήκη, διαθήκης, ἡ (διατίθημι);
1. a disposition, arrangement, of any sort, which one wishes to be valid (German Verordnung, Willensverfugung): Galatians 3:15, where under the name of a man's disposition is meant specifically a testament, so far forth as it is a specimen and example of that disposition (cf. Meyer or Lightfoot at the passage); especially the last disposal which one makes of his earthly possessions after his death, a testament or will (so in Greek writings from (Aristophanes), Plato, legg. 11, p. 922 c. following down): Hebrews 9:16f

2. a compact, covenant (Aristophanes av. 440), very often in the Scriptures for בְּרִית(Vulg.testamentum). For the word covenant is used to denote the close relationship which God entered into, first with Noah (Genesis 6:18; Genesis 9:9ff (cf. Sir. 44:18)), then with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their posterity (Leviticus 26:42 (cf. 2 Macc. 1:2)), but especially with Abraham (Genesis 15 and Genesis 17), and afterward through Moses with the people of Israel (Exodus 24; Deuteronomy 5:2; Deuteronomy 28:69 ()). By this last covenant the Israelites are bound to obey God's will as expressed and solemnly promulged in the Mosaic law; and he promises them his almighty protection and blessings of every kind in this world, but threatens transgressors with the severest punishments. Hence, in the N. T. we find mention of αἱ πλάκες τῆς διαθήκης (הַבְּרִיתלוּחות, Deuteronomy 9:9, 15), the tables of the law, on which the duties of the covenant were inscribed (Exodus 20); of ἡκιβωτός τῆς διαθήκης (הַבְּרִית אֲרון, Deuteronomy 10:8; Deuteronomy 31:9; Joshua 3:6, etc.), the ark of the covenantor law, in which those tables were deposited, Hebrews 9:4; Revelation 11:19; of ἡ διαθήκη περιτομῆς, the covenant of circumcision, made with Abraham, whose sign and seal was circumcision (Genesis 17:10ff), Acts 7:8; of τό αἷμα τῆςδιαθήκης, the blood of the victims, by the shedding and sprinkling of which the Mosaic covenant was ratified, Hebrews 9:20 from Exodus 24:8; of αἱ διαθῆκαι, the covenants, one made with Abraham, the other through Moses with the Israelites, Romans 9:4 (L text Tr marginal reading ἡ διαθήκη) (Sap). 18:22; Sir. 44:11; 2 Macc. 8:15; Epistle of Barnabas 9 [ET]; (cf. Winer's Grammar, 177 (166))); of αἱ διαθῆκαι τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, the covenants to which the promise of salvation through the Messiah was annexed, Ephesians 2:12 (συνθηκαιἀγαθῶν ὑποσχέσεων, Wis. 12:21); for Christian salvation is the fulfillment of the divine promises annexed to those covenants, especially to that made with Abraham: Luke 1:72; Acts 3:25; Romans 11:27; Galatians 3:17 (where διαθήκη is God's arrangement, i. e. the promisemade to Abraham). As the new and far more excellent bond of friendship which God in the Messiah's time would enter into with the people of Israel is called, חֲדָשָׁהבְּרִית, καινή διαθήκη (Jeremiah 38:31 ()) — which divine promise Christ has made good (Hebrews 8:8-10; Hebrews 10:16) — we find in the N. T. two distinct covenants spoken of, δύο διαθῆκαι (Galatians 4:24), viz. the Mosaic and the Christian, with the former of which (τῇ πρώτη διαθήκη, Hebrews 9:15, 18, cf. 8:9) the latter is contrasted, as καινή διαθήκη, Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24 (in both passages in RG L (in Matthew in Tr also)); Luke 22:20(WH reject the passage); 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:8; κρείττων διαθήκη, Hebrews 7:22; αἰώνιοςδιαθήκη, Hebrews 13:20; and Christ is called κρείττονος or καινῆς or νέαςδιαθήκης μεσίτης: Hebrews 8:6; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 12:24. This new covenant binds men to exercise faith in Christ, and God promises them grace and salvation eternal. This covenant Christ set up and ratified by undergoing death; hence, the phrases τό αἷμα τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης, τόαἷμα τῆς διαθήκης (see αἷμα sub at the end) (Hebrews 10:29); τό αἷμα μου τῆςδιαθήκης, my blood by the shedding of which the covenant is established, Matthew 26:28 T WH and Mark 14:24 T TrWH (on two genitives after one noun cf. Matthiae, § 380, Anm. 1; Kühner, ii., p. 288f; (Jelf, § 543, 1, cf § 466; Winers Grammar, § 30, 3 Note 3; Buttmann, 155 (136))). By metonymy of the contained for the container ἡ παλαιά διαθήκη is used in 2 Corinthians 3:14 of the sacred books of the O. T. because in them the conditions and principles of the older covenant were recorded. Finally must be noted the amphiboly or twofold use (cf. Philo de mut. nom. § 6) by which the writer to the Hebrews, in Hebrews 9:16f, substitutes for the meaning covenant which διαθήκηbears elsewhere in the Epistle that of testament (see 1 above), and likens Christ to a testator — not only because the author regards eternal blessedness as an inheritance bequeathed by Christ, but also because he is endeavoring to show, both that the attainment of eternal salvation is made possible for the disciples of Christ by his death (Hebrews 9:15), and that even the Mosaic covenant had been consecrated by blood (Hebrews 9:18ff). This, apparently, led the Latin Vulg. to render διαθήκη wherever it occurs in the Bible (i. e. in the New Testament, not always in the Old Testament; see B. D.under the word , and B. D. American edition under the word ) by the wordtestamentum.​


I can say that I doubt it would be possible for a person to just casually read the bible and come up with the different Covenants, what type of Covenant it is, what are its sign and its seal.
This would take a great deal of work...if even possible.
Theologians have sorted this out and it's available for anyone to study.

I'd like to add the the reformed call these Covenants of Grace...
or maybe by C of G they mean the NT...I don't know.

What I DO know is that, just like everything else, they teach differently than
every other denomination - which DOES agree with the Covenantal terms, types, signs and seals.
 
I can say that I doubt it would be possible for a person to just casually read the bible and come up with the different Covenants, what type of Covenant it is, what are its sign and its seal.
This would take a great deal of work...if even possible.
Theologians have sorted this out and it's available for anyone to study.

I'd like to add the the reformed call these Covenants of Grace...
or maybe by C of G they mean the NT...I don't know.

What I DO know is that, just like everything else, they teach differently than
every other denomination - which DOES agree with the Covenantal terms, types, signs and seals.
For an exhaustive exploration of biblical covenants, several scholarly resources provide in-depth analyses:

"The Biblical Covenants" by Paul R. Williamson
This essay, hosted by The Gospel Coalition, offers a comprehensive overview of the covenants as a unifying thread in Scripture, detailing their theological significance and historical context.
THEGOSPELCOALITION.ORG

"Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants" by Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum
This scholarly work presents a detailed examination of the biblical covenants, discussing their progression and fulfillment in Christ. The book includes extensive expositions of each covenant and their theological implications.
CROSSWAY.ORG

"The Covenants" by Kevin J. Conner and Ken Malmin
This textbook provides a systematic presentation of the nine divine covenants found in Scripture, offering valuable insights for both students and ministers.
KEVINCONNER.ORG

These resources collectively offer a thorough understanding of the biblical covenants, their development, and their significance in the overarching narrative of Scripture.

To anyone that are interested.

J.
 
Thank you for your reflection. I appreciate your desire to emphasize the role of mercy and atonement within the Old Covenant. However, I believe it’s crucial to address the specific theological points made in your message, particularly regarding the purpose of the Law and the relationship between the Old and New Covenants.

Leviticus 26:46 — The Old Covenant with Israel:
In Leviticus 26:46, the covenant God established with Israel through Moses is indeed rooted in law and works.

The New Covenant has the same Laws, only how God's people receive them has changed. You can read this for yourself where God actually defines for you His New covenant. And only the manner in which forgiveness for transgressing God's Laws has changed. And the Command to "Live by" these Words of God still remains the same, according to the Jesus "of the bible". And the purpose of the Laws, to teach men to learn obedience, is also the same, as Paul teaches.

2 Tim. 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God "may be perfect", throughly furnished unto all good works.

This is the Prize Paul taught to press towards. The High Calling of God which is in Christ Jesus. This remained the same for us, as it was for Abraham.

Gen. 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

As it was for Caleb.

Lev. 11: 45 For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

And the Jesus "of the Bible" commanded the same goal.

Matt. 5: 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

This is not taught by this world's religious system, made up of hundreds of different religious sects and businesses all competing with each other for contributing members. But as you can see if you want to, the requirement to "Yield ourselves" to God, remains today just as it did for Abraham and Caleb and Paul. It was the Ministry that changed.

The blessings and curses of Leviticus 26 show the conditional nature of this covenant, based on Israel's obedience to God's commands. While this covenant could not fully reconcile humanity with God (due to the imperfection of human obedience and the temporary nature of the sacrifices), it was not devoid of God’s mercy. As you rightly pointed out, the sacrificial system, the Mercy Seat, and the Levitical priesthood were all provisions for atonement and reconciliation in light of sin.

Yes Johann, "the Levitical priesthood were all provisions for atonement and reconciliation in light of sin". The goal is still sinless perfection as the Jesus "of the Bible" and Paul teaches us. Because God knows we will fall from time to time as we learn obedience, HE created this Priesthood with its sacrificial "works of the Law" for remission of sins, "Til the Seed should come". Who would usher in a "better ministry", based on better promises. I pointed this out to you in reply to your stated philosophy "The people of Israel must obey God's commandments for their relationship to remain intact". The goal is sinless perfection. Paul labored so that he might be accepted by God. Peter taught to be diligent we may be found of Him without Spot and Blameless. According to what is actually written in scriptures, this is the Goal, in fact, according to the Inspired Words of God, "it is the whole duty of man". (Ecc. 12:13)

Please hear the first and greatest Commandment Jesus and His Father told you about.

Duet 6: 5. And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

The Jesus "of the Bible" confirms this commandment is still in force.

Matt. 22: 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Men are told by God, and His Son, and the Apostles God chose and gave to Him, to "Strive against sin", to "Go and sin no more", to "Turn away from sin", to "Not let sin reign in our mortal bodies", to repent and turn to God. And to do these things "with all our might". Just as HE stressed in the examples HE had written for our admonition, like the 300 men against the 10,000. Or the choice between obeying God or get thrown in the fiery furnace. Or fighting a Goliath with a slingshot. At each story, and they are many, men were placed in impossible situations, and told to give it "our" best, trusting in God to secure the victory in our weakness.

Of course, this is Spiritually talking about the Sin that so easily besets us. The battles we fight in our mind against the religious philosophies and traditions of this world that surround us, just as they surrounded Caleb and Joshua and Jeremiah and Paul.

And a Priesthood existed for Abraham, and another was ADDED to Israel, "After the Order of Aaron", as an advocate between God and man on this journey towards the prize of this high calling of God. All pointing to the Prophesied Messiah, God's High Priest after a different order.

The only thing that changed, according to God's Definition of His Own New covenant, was the Priesthood.

The deceiver will mock, "Oh, God needs your help in securing your Salvation" or "You are trying to save yourself without Jesus" or "You are trying to earn your Salvation". This is of course a deceitful wickedness mocking God and comes from the spirit of the prince of this world. God could make me perfect/sinless with a single Word, just as HE could have for Adam and Eve. But HE Chose to Glorify men who "Seek to worship Him in Spirit and Truth", as Jesus my Lord instructs. Those who by patience continuance in well doing, "SEEK FOR" Glory, Honor and Immortality, as Paul teaches, but this world's religions do not. Those "who are diligent that they may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless", as Peter teaches, but this world's religious system teaches against.

This describes Abel, Noah, Abraham, Caleb, Shadrack, Zacharias, Simeon, and all the Faithful examples of men in the Bible, all of whom "press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus".

The only difference between any of these men, is the Priest God chose to be an advocate between them and Him. We didn't have to be subject to carnal men and a temporary Priesthood. As it is written: "God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect".



The sacrificial system, particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16), was designed to cover the sins of the people, pointing forward to the ultimate atonement through Christ.

The Feasts of the Lord, and the sacrifices and offering for sin, are two completely different topics. We no longer bring our offering to the Levite Priest for our sins, but we continue to Honor God in His Feasts, as they are shadows of things Yet to come. This is why several years after Jesus ascended to His Father, Paul no longer brought offerings to the Levite Priest, but he still taught to "Keep the Feast". Feasts that are rejected and forgotten by this world's religious system, replaced by manmade high days which bring untold wealth and power to the merchants of this world.

Atonement is a Holy day foreshadowing a future event when the sins of the world will be placed on the head of the author of all sin, where it belongs. (Lev. 16) Jesus bore the guilt, and is still bearing the guilt of the sins of this world. Feast of Atonement speaks of the time when sin is placed back on the head of satan where it belongs, and he is driven into the uninhabited wilderness. All part of God's plan of Salvation, rejected and forgotten by this world's religious system.

However, the Mosaic Covenant was conditional, and this is something that the New Testament emphasizes. In the New Covenant, Christ’s atoning work on the cross changes the nature of the relationship between God and humanity.

The only "change" according to the Words of God who created the promise of the New covenant in the first place, is the manner in which God's Laws are received, and the manner in which transgression of God's Laws are forgiven. You can read it for yourself. There is nothing in the entire Law and Prophets where God's Laws are prophesied to be abolished at the appearance of the Messiah. NOT ONE WORD. Only the Priesthood "works of the Law" for remission of sins were to change. As it is written:

1 Sam. 15: 22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Samuel-15-24/
But there are dozens of warnings about men who "speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the LORD", who "say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you", "profess to know God but are disobedient", who "Call Jesus Lord, Lord, but live in iniquity" who "Come in Christ's Name" to deceive, who "Transform themselves" into Apostles of Christ.

So because there is no new thing under the sun, and God's Doesn't change, there is no "change in the nature of the relationship between God and humanity". The goal, the end result of living Faith, is a New Man "Which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Like Abraham, and Caleb, and Daniel, and Zacharias, and Simeon and Paul.

This world's religious system that you have adopted teaches otherwise, I know this, the Holy Scriptures warn of this.

I simply advocate that a man listen to "Every Word" of God, and not the religious sects and businesses of this world that you are promoting.

As Hebrews 9:15 explains, Christ’s sacrifice ratified a better covenant (cf. Heb. 8:6) because it was unconditional in the sense that Christ’s blood covers all sin, past, present, and future, for all who believe in Him. This leads to the fulfillment of the law and the establishment of the New Covenant where grace and mercy are freely given.

This is your philosophy, not Jesus'.

John 6: 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Matt. 4: 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Luke 13: 3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Matt. 7: 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

So for sure the Prophesied Ministry "after the Order of Melchizedek" is a better covenant, based on better promises. And Jesus did Fulfill the Law concerning the change in the Priesthood. But there are many important events that have Yet to be fulfilled. Like the return of the Lord's Christ, which if HE doesn't return, our faith is in vain. So to preach that "ALL" has been fulfilled that is written in scriptures about God's Salvation, is an insidious falsehood designed to deceive. And since "ALL" has clearly not been fulfilled, and there are Feasts of the Lord that still point to events, "Yet to be fulfilled", or as it is written, "Shadows of things yet to come", then according to the Jesus "of the bible" own Words, the man you call Lord, Lord, "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law".

I simply advocate that men "turn to God" as both Paul and Jesus instruct and turn away from this world's religious system with it's hundreds of different religious businesses and philosophies, and traditions, and their own high days, and their own judgments, and their own image of God in the likeness of man. Yes, they are seductive, and yes, they are the broad path. I just think we should trust in the Words of the Jesus "of the bible" enough bto become doers of His Words, and no hearers only.
 
The only "change" according to the Words of God who created the promise of the New covenant in the first place, is the manner in which God's Laws are received, and the manner in which transgression of God's Laws are forgiven. You can read it for yourself. There is nothing in the entire Law and Prophets where God's Laws are prophesied to be abolished at the appearance of the Messiah. NOT ONE WORD. Only the Priesthood "works of the Law" for remission of sins were to change.
This needs some clarification and your post is too long to respond as well as your choice of isolated verses, here and there-here a little, there a little--

The New Covenant and the Law: The New Covenant does not abolish God’s moral law but transforms how it is received and applied. As Jeremiah 31:31-34 (quoted in Hebrews 8:6-13) states, under the New Covenant, God's laws are written on the hearts of believers rather than externally on tablets of stone. This means that obedience to God is now an internal transformation through the Spirit rather than mere external adherence to regulations (cf. Ezekiel 36:26-27).

The Change in Remission of Sins- The Levitical priesthood and sacrificial system were shadows pointing to Christ (Colossians 2:16-17; Hebrews 10:1-4). The "works of the Law" (ἔργα νόμου, erga nomou)—meaning the ceremonial sacrifices, rituals, and temple ordinances-were indeed changed because Christ's once-for-all sacrifice fulfilled their purpose (Hebrews 9:12-14, 10:10-14).

However, the moral principles of God's law are still upheld but fulfilled in Christ (Matthew 5:17-18; Romans 8:3-4).

Was the Law Abolished? No, but its role in justification was set aside. Paul explicitly states that believers are not under the law but under grace (Romans 6:14; Galatians 3:24-25). The law was not abolished but fulfilled in Christ, meaning its righteous demands are met in believers through faith (Romans 3:31; 8:4).

As to the Priesthood -your statement correctly notes that the Levitical priesthood was replaced with the priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:11-12, 24-25). Since Christ is now the eternal High Priest, the Old Covenant sacrificial system is obsolete (Hebrews 8:13; 10:9).


Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

In that he saith (en tōi legein). Locative case of the articular present active infinitive of legō, “in the saying as to him.”
He hath made the first old (pepalaiōken tēn prōtēn). Perfect active indicative of palaioō, old verb from palaios (in contrast with kainos, fresh, new), to treat as old and out of date. The conclusion is to the point.
That which is becoming old and waxeth aged (to palaioumenon kai gēraskon). Gēraskō is old verb from gēras (age) like gerōn (old man) and refers to the decay of old age so that both ideas appear here in opposition to kainos (palaios) and neos (geraios).
Is nigh unto vanishing away (eggus aphanismou). Genitive case with eggus and late word for disappearance (from aphanizō, Mat_6:19), here only in the N.T. The author writes as if the Old Testament legal and ceremonial system were about to vanish before the new covenant of grace. If he wrote after A.D. 70, would he not have written “has vanished away”?


Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

The moral law (righteousness, holiness) is still relevant but is now written on the heart through the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:4).
The ceremonial law (sacrifices, temple rituals) was fulfilled and no longer applies under the New Covenant (Colossians 2:14-17).
The priesthood was changed because Christ’s perfect sacrifice ended the need for Levitical mediation (Hebrews 7:23-27).
Salvation is not through the Law but by faith in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 2:16).
Thus, while the law was not abolished, it was fulfilled and transformed in Christ, meaning believers live by the Spirit, not by external legal observance (Galatians 5:18; Romans 7:6).


The Old Testament (Law) Was Given for Our Learning (Romans 15:4)
Romans 15:4 affirms that the Old Testament Scriptures were written for instruction, encouragement, and hope. However, Paul does not say that believers are still under the Law of Moses for justification, but that the Scriptures provide wisdom and teaching (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:11).

2. The Law Was Changed (Hebrews 7:12; 8:7-8, 13; 10:9; Ephesians 2:13-15; Colossians 2:14)

Hebrews 7:12 states that "the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." This does not mean that God's moral righteousness changed, but rather that the Levitical system (sacrifices, priesthood, temple rituals) was replaced by Christ’s eternal priesthood after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:11-28).

Ephesians 2:13-15 speaks of Christ abolishing the "law of commandments contained in ordinances," referring to the ceremonial law, not God's moral standards.

Colossians 2:14 describes how Christ canceled the "handwriting of ordinances" (δόγμασιν, dogmasin), which refers to the legal requirements of the Mosaic Covenant that were set aside in Christ.

3. The Law Ended at the Death of Christ (Hebrews 9:15-17; Galatians 3:19, 16, 24-25; Galatians 5:4, 18)

The Mosaic Covenant ceased to be binding with Christ’s death (Hebrews 9:15-17), but this does not mean all aspects of God’s law were abolished.

Galatians 3:19-25 explains that the Law was a temporary "guardian" (παιδαγωγός, paidagōgos) to lead people to Christ, but after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor (v. 25).

Galatians 5:4, 18-If one seeks justification by the Law, they are "severed from Christ." However, this does not mean moral principles like holiness and righteousness (which reflect God's character) are irrelevant.

4. The Sabbath Was Given to the Jews (Deuteronomy 5:2-3, 15)
Deuteronomy 5:2-3 makes clear that the Mosaic Covenant (including the Sabbath) was given specifically to Israel at Sinai, not to the patriarchs.

Nehemiah 9:13-14 confirms that the Sabbath command was made known at Sinai, meaning it was not universally binding before that.



The Old Testament Law provides wisdom but is not the basis for Christian justification (Romans 15:4; Galatians 3:24-25).
The Levitical system and ceremonial ordinances were fulfilled and replaced by Christ's priesthood (Hebrews 7:12; Colossians 2:14).
The Sabbath was uniquely given to Israel and was part of the Mosaic Covenant (Deuteronomy 5:2-3).

I know you are going to balk at the Sabbath-


The moral law of God was not abolished (Matthew 5:17-18; Romans 8:4), though Christians are not under the Law of Moses for salvation (Galatians 3:25).

The Law ended in terms of authority over believers for justification (Romans 6:14), but God’s righteous standards remain (Romans 8:3-4).
Thus, while Christ fulfilled the Law, and believers are under grace, the principles of holiness, righteousness, and obedience still matter, but they are now lived out through the Spirit, not by the letter of the Law (Romans 7:6; Galatians 5:16-18).

And I don't hold to sinless perfection @Studyman since perfect means "mature" IN Christ Jesus.

Thanks.

J.
 
Back
Top Bottom