SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : A New Covenant

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

by RobertW on 2010/7/4 19:16:26

I want to zoom in on a critical passage and consider some simple logic:

Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.


To suggest that the Old Covenant is still in effect is to imply that we ought to observe it. If we observe the Old Covenant, even circumcision, then we become a debtor to the whole law. If we do this then Christ profits us nothing. So it is impossible to promote men/women observing the Old Covenant without reproaching Christ.
------------------------------------------------------------
Gal. 5:2 is in reference to Gentiles being told they must become Jews via circumcision (by the concission=judaisers).

To suggest that the Old Covenant is not in effect is to imply that we ought not observe it. If we observe the Old Covenant in respect to circumcision or any aspect of the Levitical ordinances, then we become a debtor to the whole law. If we do this then Christ profits us nothing. So it is impossible to promote men/women observing the Levitical way without reproaching Christ.


Yur kotz,
g Acts 20:32

 2010/7/5 1:03









 Re:


by ADisciple on 2010/7/4 16:21:41

...And if you don't mind my saying it, can't you just use Anglicized words like the rest of us who are speaking and writing in the English language? When you use words like "Avraham," and "Yehoshua," etc. this does not make you more spiritual. In fact you come across as being bit affected. If I ever moved to Israel and learned Hebrew, certainly I'd use those spellings to communicate with others who speak Hebrew. Meanwhile, I'm going to use English with those who understand English. :)
------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, it's just me coming out of the closet STS. i have been asked by many if i were Jewish and now dealing with, as Neil put it, "a replacement theologist", it is desired to hammer home the point that the Bible is a Jewish book and basic misunderstandings are due to a lack of comprehension of Middle-Eastern Occidental thought and ways, compared to graeco-roman reasoning and culture.

I never claimed to be more spiritual as you probably are more than me. God knows and that is not the purpose. It does show i am more human though, considering at times i tend to slip the actual renditions of words by mistake...but not in this case.

Affected? Would the word crazy or extreme or radical or all three together suit you better? i don't mind at all, yet it's wondered if Gentiles such as yourself will ever understand the implicit as well as the complicit meanings of such names as YHVH, when you can't even deal with them as the are really spell? (Hebrew is not a word definition language: every letter symbolises an object and every root word (usually 3 letter/symbols) within a full word forms a smaller picture of what the complete picture of the full word means.)

The whole Bible is written by Jews, not Gentiles, as this is what God entrusted us to do. You cannot take western thought and reasoning and apply it to an occidental book, even if part of it is written in greek, or there is a rendition of the O.T. in Greek.


That's all.
g
Acts 20:32

 2010/7/5 1:26
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: hey Ron

Quote:
how you think that reads?


I think you are right on the ball! It one of the reasons I am so excited to be alive in this part of history. One part I missed out was that the 1st century had seen a great wash of mystical eastern religions which swept into the Mediterranean area. There really is a remarkable parallel between the first century and the one we are living in. Some are filled with anxiety as they see this, I must admit I am somewhat exhilarated!


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2010/7/5 5:46Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

gregg

Quote:
Rather than the word 'change', the word 'metamorphosis' or 'transformation' would have been better synonyms- (gk. 'nomou metathesis'). The need for what type of change, and why, is found in the passage of Heb. 7:11-14. The term metathesis does not say everything is abolished by any stretch of the imagination. It point to retention of form with variation in structure. It is rearrangement of elements within the object considered.


I am struggling to keep up now and I may find someone else has already answered this...

I think if we are too pedantic (something which I am often accused of) we may lose some of our readers however...

the difference between metathesis and metamorphosis is that one means to transpose and the other means to transform. If would be quite inappropriate to translate metathesis as metamorphosis and I doubt you will find any translator who has done so. Transposing means to swap things around, transforming needs no explanation.

The word metathesis is used three times in Hebrews so you can test out your theory very easily

this is the BlueLetterBible


[url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3331&t=KJV]metathesis[/url]


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2010/7/5 5:57Profile









 Re:

by ADisciple on 2010/7/4 17:34:20

"Show us on this forum just one scripture that states the Law was abolished."

2 Cor. 3.12-14
------------------------------------------------------------
If this passage actually did mean the Law was abolished, alot of the NT would have to be thrown out along with the whole Torah, which is it's basis.


3 things:

1.) The KJV mistranslates this, being Anglicanized Anti-semitism, carried over from the church they broke off from: HRCC.

A purer translation, Such as the ESV transliterates the Greek much more appropriately: II Cor. 3.12-14 ESV.

v.13: "...what was being brought to an end..." (Not was already brought to an end, but rather 'being -(as "in the process of")- brought'.

There is a world of difference between 'past tense' and '(past-)continuous present tense'. Further, abolished, as in being done away with, is completely different than being brought to 'a final conclusion' (aka: end).


2.) The issue of misunderstanding arises if this is taken as a verse saying the "whole" law is abolished, or even, "was being brought to an end."

Within context it does not say this at all.

Realizing i slipped up on a former post-- in stating 'nuos' was the word for "law", as it is 'nomos' (aka: Torah), --reading this morning...
... Anyway, that word is not even found within this passage. Context is imperative. So, this passage is not even talking about the Old Covenant is not the Law that 'was being brought to a final conclusion' because it may not even be talking about Law at all.

It is speaking about the Spirit of the Law being more able than the letter. What the letter could not do, the Spirit makes possible, through the glory revealed in us by Christ Jesus. This is why their is a veil over their hearts (those who do not depend on Jesus) is spoken of when the Law is read, compared to we who are regenerated.

3. If it were actually the word 'abolished', and referring to Torah in the original text, alot of NT books would have to be thrown out, as they contradict this one mis-translated verse. (The book of Romans is just one of these books/letters, where Paul states not that 'the Law WAS', but that 'the Law IS': Rom. 7:12.

Yur kotz 2,
g
Acts 20:32

 2010/7/5 11:58









 Re:response to Ron on Heb. 7:12

by philologos on 2010/7/5 1:57:16

I think if we are too pedantic (something which I am often accused of) we may lose some of our readers however...
------------------------------------------------------------
i'm gonna have to look that word up, but from what you say, it must have something to do with teaching by rote? or possibly detailed in explanation?
____________________________________________________________


...the difference between metathesis and metamorphosis is that one means to transpose and the other means to transform. If would be quite inappropriate to translate metathesis as metamorphosis and I doubt you will find any translator who has done so. Transposing means to swap things around, transforming needs no explanation.
------------------------------------------------------------
You are so very right. Transform then seems the most appropriate, However we may be able to use a word that may be more ameniable between the two of us: transmorgrify?
____________________________________________________________

The word metathesis is used three times in Hebrews so you can test out your theory very easily

this is the BlueLetterBible


[url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3331&t=KJV]metathesis[/url]
____________________________________________________________
g:
I too am presently pressed for time.

When i want to your site after reading up on your stance re:trinity here on SI, i began using it then, and thanks for the link as well as putting it on the front page of your website. It has proved to be an additional valued source in better learning the scriptures.

Personally, though the Bible is regarded as it's own best interpreter, comparing word usage can be flawed if context is either convoluted or disregarded in the process.

I'll look into metathesis further, per your suggestion.

When done, with the all the resources, my former Nazarene pastor will be contacted for the final word, as he is quite astute in Koine, as that is his doctoriate.
(Actually, he set me on the first steps towards learning greek and relating John Stott's writings with what he was teaching me.)

Yur' lil' kotz,
g
Acts 20:32

 2010/7/5 12:19
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4803


 Re:

Robert wrote:

Quote:
Gregg's: Show us on this forum just one scripture that states the Law was abolished.



Quote:
The Old Covenant with it's sign of Circumcision is likened in verse 1 to a YOKE of bondage that we are NOT to be entangled again with. Verse 2 says that if we do, Christ shall profit us nothing. Verse 3 says that if we come again under the bondage and Christ profits us nothing then we then are a debtor to the WHOLE Law (this presents a serious problem because it is impossible to keep the Law now because the sacrificial system is not in place).




Galatians is a book that parrallels Romans chapter 7 and 8.Paul's deep desire for the Galatians is that they return to following the Spirit as oppose to following the law given to Moses on Mount Sinai. The law is a side issue in Paul's discertation. The point of the letter is to give the Galatians a clear understanding of the choice they must each make. One cannot please the Father according to the flesh. Only through the Spirit can one put to death the deeds of the body. The law of God is Spiritual. The man who chooses not to hear the Spirit, not to obey the Spirit is left to the weakness of his flesh. The veil remains on the mind of those who do not submit to the Spirit of God. The Galatians began in the Spirit but fell away from the grace of God that is ministrated through the Holy Spirit.

Christ fulfilled the law because He did not rely on His flesh to satisfy the law. Christ through the Spirit obeyed unto death. He is the author of salvation for those who turn and walk with Him.

Gregg is laboring to bring understanding to this thread. Pray that the Lord continues to give him and us the grace necessary to understand more clearly the entire council of God.

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2010/7/5 12:55Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
..the difference between metathesis and metamorphosis is that one means to transpose and the other means to transform. If would be quite inappropriate to translate metathesis as metamorphosis and I doubt you will find any translator who has done so. Transposing means to swap things around, transforming needs no explanation.
------------------------------------------------------------
You are so very right. Transform then seems the most appropriate, However we may be able to use a word that may be more ameniable between the two of us: transmorgrify?



No Transform is not the most appropriate word. The Greek word for transform is G3339 metamorphoo. This is the word from which we have metamorphosis. This is a changing of form. If the writer to the Hebrews had wanted to refer to changing the form this is the word he would have used. However, he did not use G3339 metamorphoo but G3346 metatithemi. Now tithEmi is to put something is place and metatithEmi is to put something else in its place ie to swap or replace.

Now a word about 'replacement theologians'. I don't regard myself as a theologian of any kind and I don't refer to myself as a 'replacement' anything. If I were looking for a label I would invent one, something like 'a reconstitution believer'. In the course of this thread I will try to explain what I mean by that. My next post will refocus on Jer 31:31ff


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2010/7/5 13:26Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

“Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— Jeremiah 31:32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. Jeremiah 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." Jer 31:31–33 NKJV

I would like you folks to think a little about the words 'house of Israel' and 'house of Judah' here. What does this signify?

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel (and some others) were all active during what is known as the 'Divided Monarchy'. The covenant people of Israel had been united under the Davidic monarchy but only lasted through the reigns of David and Solomon and fell to pieces during the reign of David's grandsom Rehoboam. From that time on they were regarded as two nations. (more of this later) The northern kingdom was referred to under various names; the house of Israel, Ephraim, Joseph and Rachel's children. The predominant tribe was that of Ephraim, the son of Joseph who was the son of Rachel.

The northern kingdom, the house of Israel, went into captivity and God disowned it. (wait a while, I will explain) "The virgin of Israel has fallen; She will rise no more. She lies forsaken on her land; There is no one to raise her up." Amos 5:2 NKJV As one historian has said the 'house of Israel' passed from history into legend. Although there have been various theories about what happened to them, there is no historical evidence to support any of the theories. They were swallowed up by the nations into which they were exiled and their land was possessed by foreign nations who became the Samaritans. This was under the Assyrian empire.

The house of Judah survived for almost another 150 years but ultimately they too were taken into captivity, this time by Babylon. Later Ezekiel, living in Babylonian captivity prophesied; "and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; they shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms again." Ezek 37:22 NKJV This is apparently a promise for the uniting of the two nations but we need to take something else into account, the principle of the remnant.

Earlier Isaiah had prophesied a return but makes it very plain that he is not talking about the nation in its entirety but about a believing remnant."And it shall come to pass in that day That the remnant of Israel, And such as have escaped of the house of Jacob, Will never again depend on him who defeated them, But will depend on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. Is. 10:21 The remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, To the Mighty God. Is. 10:22 For though your people, O Israel, be as the sand of the sea, A remnant of them will return; The destruction decreed shall overflow with righteousness." Is 10:20–22 NKJV

The promises of God will now be born by the remnant and the united nation will now simply be called by the one name Israel.
“Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— Jeremiah 31:32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. Jeremiah 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." Jer 31:31–33 NKJV

Can you see above how Jeremiah has a promise for the 'house of Israel' and for the 'house of Judah' BUT in 31:33 he only refers to Israel. What has happened to the 'house of Judah'? They have been re-incorporated into the one nation in this promise. This believing remnant from both houses will become the single nation of Israel and there will be one king over them.

"I will establish one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them—My servant David. He shall feed them and be their shepherd." Ezek 34:23 NKJV

"“David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them." Ezek 37:24 NKJV

According to Ezek 37:24 when one shepherd-king reigns over the one nation they 'will walk in my judgments and observe my statues and do them'.

When the remnant of Judah returned to their land they regarded themselves as the one nation;

"So the priests and the Levites, some of the people, the singers, the gatekeepers, and the Nethinim, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities." Ezra 2:70 NKJV Even though the returnees were from the 'house of Judah' they saw themselves as 'all Israel'.

"And they offered sacrifices at the dedication of this house of God, one hundred bulls, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs, and as a sin offering for all Israel twelve male goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel." Ezra 6:17 NKJV. They conducted their temple worship as though they were a united nation.

It is to this reconstituted Israel, made up of believing remnants of both houses, that God promises the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31. But God had a secret and it begins to leak in places such as... "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd." John 10:16 NKJV Then comes Paul with a stunning revelation...

"For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— Eph. 3:2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel," Eph 3:1–6 NKJV

This reconstituted 'Israel' has a new ingredient... believing Gentiles.

...as Robert sometimes says "I'll go and get my helmit". ;-)




_________________
Ron Bailey

 2010/7/5 14:02Profile
rookie
Member



Joined: 2003/6/3
Posts: 4803


 Re:

Ron wrote:

Quote:
It is to this reconstituted Israel, made up of believing remnants of both houses, that God promises the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31.



In the book of Ezekiel we also find this when speaking of those who returned from Babylon...

Eze 44:6 "Now say to the rebellious, to the house of Israel, 'Thus says the Lord GOD: "O house of Israel, let Us have no more of all your abominations.

Eze 44:7 When you brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary to defile it--My house--and when you offered My food, the fat and the blood, then they broke My covenant because of all your abominations.

He charges the Levitical priesthood with allowing foreigners, without circumcised heart to minister in "My sanctuary."

What work of God in the OT enables men to have circumcised hearts?

In Christ
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Marshalek

 2010/7/5 15:07Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy