IS THE NEW TESTAMENT THE SAME AS THE NEW COVENANT?

[douge]

Can it be said that the new testament is just another way to say the new covenant?

Is this not just another error in translation?

In regard to God, a covenant is a stated obligation from God to perform a promise; this can be seen in God's promise not to flood the earth again in Genesis 9:9-11.

The new covenant is made only with the houses of Israel. The new covenant is yet future. The new covenant will bring Israel into the promised land, forgive their iniquity, and enable Israel to walk in the law (Jeremiah 31:31-34 Ezekiel 36:24-28 Deuteronomy 30:5-8).

A covenant is an agreement between two parties, as pertaining to men, as seen in Genesis 21:32.

Israel and God made a covenant, in which Israel would keep all the words of the law, as seen in Exodus 19:5-8.

The blood of the covenant in Exodus 24:8 was the provision to reconcile the transgressions Israel committed in breaking the law under the first covenant (Hebrews 9:7). The blood of the covenant is the sacrificial blood of animals of the first testament.

Hebrews 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

Hebrews 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

A testament is not the same as a covenant, because a testament sets forth the stated will of the testator.

A testament is only carried out upon the death of the testator.

Hebrews 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Is this verse wrong? Shouldn't it say, "Whereupon neither the first COVENANT was dedicated without blood."

I say no, this verse should indeed say the "first testament", and below is why.

Hebrews 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

Hebrews 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

The translators would correctly use the word testament, rather than covenant, in these verses. All the sacrificial blood of animals under the first testament was a shadow of the shed blood of Christ.

Christ shed his blood for the new testament as seen in Matthew 26:28.

The first testament was the provision of animal death and blood for remission of sins, for reconciliation; the new testament was the death and blood of Christ himself. The first testament, as the first covenant, was replaced with the better new testament (Hebrews 7:22 Hebrews 8:6).

Hebrews 9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

The law given within the covenant, demanded the shedding of blood for remission.

Hebrews 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

The earthly patterns were purified by the blood of calves and goats under the first testament, but the heavenly things, by the blood of Christ under the new.

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

In conclusion, this verse, as others, is correctly translated testament, and not covenant. Christ, by his death and shed blood for the new testament, redeemed the transgressions under the first testament sacrificial offerings.

The first testament was the will of God, that the death and shed blood of animals would be accepted by reflecting the death and shed blood of Christ. The death and shed blood of Christ for the new testament would be the propitiation, the appeasement, that would make reconciliation and provide forgiveness. The death of Christ, and his shed blood, put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (Hebrews 9:26 Hebrews 10:12), and took away the first testament (Hebrews 10:9).

In the new covenant, God will no longer remember the sin and iniquities of Israel, because they have been taken away by the sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 10:17-18).

[Eddy Crocker]

On 4/15/2020 at 10:10 AM, douge said:

Can it be said that the new testament is just another way to say the new covenant?

Is this not just another error in translation?

In regard to God, a covenant is a stated obligation from God to perform a promise; this can be seen in God's promise not to flood the earth again in Genesis 9:9-11.

The new covenant is made only with the houses of Israel. The new covenant is yet future. The new covenant will bring Israel into the promised land, forgive their iniquity, and enable Israel to walk in the law (Jeremiah 31:31-34 Ezekiel 36:24-28 Deuteronomy 30:5-8).

A covenant is an agreement between two parties, as pertaining to men, as seen in Genesis 21:32.

Israel and God made a covenant, in which Israel would keep all the words of the law, as seen in Exodus 19:5-8.

The blood of the covenant in Exodus 24:8 was the provision to reconcile the transgressions Israel committed in breaking the law under the first covenant (Hebrews 9:7). The blood of the covenant is the sacrificial blood of animals of the first testament.

Hebrews 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

Hebrews 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

A testament is not the same as a covenant, because a testament sets forth the stated will of the testator.

A testament is only carried out upon the death of the testator.

Hebrews 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Is this verse wrong? Shouldn't it say, "Whereupon neither the first COVENANT was dedicated without blood."

I say no, this verse should indeed say the "first testament", and below is why.

Hebrews 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

Hebrews 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

The translators would correctly use the word testament, rather than covenant, in these verses. All the sacrificial blood of animals under the first testament was a shadow of the shed blood of Christ.

Christ shed his blood for the new testament as seen in Matthew 26:28.

The first testament was the provision of animal death and blood for remission of sins, for reconciliation; the new testament was the death and blood of Christ himself. The first testament, as the first covenant, was replaced with the better new testament (Hebrews 7:22 Hebrews 8:6).

Hebrews 9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

The law given within the covenant, demanded the shedding of blood for remission.

Hebrews 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

The earthly patterns were purified by the blood of calves and goats under the first testament, but the heavenly things, by the blood of Christ under the new.

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

In conclusion, this verse, as others, is correctly translated testament, and not covenant. Christ, by his death and shed blood for the new testament, redeemed the transgressions under the first testament sacrificial offerings.

The first testament was the will of God, that the death and shed blood of animals would be accepted by reflecting the death and shed blood of Christ. The death and shed blood of Christ for the new testament would be the propitiation, the appeasement, that would make reconciliation and provide forgiveness. The death of Christ, and his shed blood, put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (Hebrews 9:26 Hebrews 10:12), and took away the first testament (Hebrews 10:9).

In the new covenant, God will no longer remember the sin and iniquities of Israel, because they have been taken away by the sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 10:17-18).

That’s the whole reason why the New Testament or New Covenant doesn’t start until Jesus’s death, burial and resurrection and then when the Holy Spirit is poured out on the Day of Pentecost.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not the New Testament because Jesus is still fulfilling. What is he fulfilling? He’s fulfilling the Old Testament. The New Testament starts on the Day of Pentecost.

That fly leaf or division between the old and so called New Testament is false.This is the mistake people make because people think Jesus is instituting a Christian example which is false. He’s fulfilling the Old Testament not to do away with the law but to fulfill it and bring it to a higher and more spiritual level.

we see Jesus showing likenesses in the physical realm to direct our eyes to a more deeper walk with him.

[douge]

15 hours ago, Eddy Crocker said:

That’s the whole reason why the New Testament or New Covenant doesn’t start until Jesus’s death, burial and resurrection and then when the Holy Spirit is poured out on the Day of Pentecost.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not the New Testament because Jesus is still fulfilling. What is he fulfilling? He’s fulfilling the Old Testament. The New Testament starts on the Day of Pentecost.

That fly leaf or division between the old and so called New Testament is false.This is the mistake people make because people think Jesus is instituting a Christian example which is false. He’s fulfilling the Old Testament not to do away with the law but to fulfill it and bring it to a higher and more spiritual level.

we see Jesus showing likenesses in the physical realm to direct our eyes to a more deeper walk with him.

Yes

The four gospels were Jesus teaching the disciples about the kingdom of God on earth, promised the believing remnant of Israel, they are old testament, Jesus taught the fulfilling of the law.

The Holy Ghost was given at Pentecost to give the disciples power to witness in the tribulation.

Edited April 30, 2020 by douge

[BeyondET]

8 hours ago, douge said:

Yes

The four gospels were Jesus teaching the disciples about the kingdom of God on earth, promised the believing remnant of Israel, they are old testament, Jesus taught the fulfilling of the law.

The Holy Ghost was given at Pentecost to give the disciples power to witness in the tribulation.

 

I’ve always assume 11 disciples received the Holy Spirit while Jesus was around for 40 days after the resurrection and the 12th and the others at Pentecost.

 

john 20:22

 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

[Leonardo Von]

Quote

IS THE NEW TESTAMENT THE SAME AS THE NEW COVENANT?

The New Covenant is firmed on a New Testament.