A Look Into Covenant Theology

[Alive]

My wife has the old movie ‘Rudy’ on and as I went into the house I heard the priest say, “ in my 35 years of religious study, I have known only two incontravertible facts…there is a God, and I am not Him”.

I had to chuckle…my wife said, amen.

[Marathoner]

The apostle Paul explains the matter to us. He refers to the "natural branches," which are Israelites after the flesh; and then the "wild branches," which are Gentiles (ref. Romans 11). Both receive life from the same Vine: our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the Vine.

In a number of passages from the book of Isaiah, it's evident that the Lord intends to unite Israelites and Gentiles in Zion. So, this is not a matter of "replacement" theology, though I'm aware of some who preach and teach such a thing. It's not an issue of replacement at all. 

In accordance with the ever-increasing revelation of the covenants --- and in keeping with the teaching of New Testament scripture --- what was veiled in days of old is revealed in these last days. We remember that in Jesus Christ, there is no Jew or Greek. What does this mean?

The distinctions of old pass away in the New Covenant. People from all nations are called by the Lord to come to Him:

To the Jew who is under the Law (the Lord went to the Israelites first). Joining Him in death, they pass away from the dominion of the Law. God frees our Hebrew brethren from the letter that kills. 

Then to us, Gentiles who were never given nor burdened with the Law, receiving the adoption of sons and daughters by the power of the Lord Himself. 

In Jesus Christ, we are not Jews or Gentiles... we are one in Him. According to my understanding, Israel is the Church and the Church is Israel: one and the same. Both Jews and Gentiles are added to the same Body, yes?

What's known as "replacement theology" is vastly different. Very antisemitic, to say the least. I'm in agreement with @Arial in these matters. 

[Arial]

15 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

This statement "the Law saved no one" I do not suppose it is scripturally sound...I disagree with that statement whole heartedly and not because I am argumentative but because is not according to what the proposed of the Law was.

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified

The law had to be kept perfectly in order for it to save any unto eternal life. Only Jesus has ever done that.

We are saved through the law (that is, the instructions in righteousness and trust given in the law)but not by the Law. And we are saved through the Law becasue our Savior kept it, then substituted His righteousness to take the penalty for our sins.

[Your closest friendnt]

4 hours ago, Arial said:

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified

The law had to be kept perfectly in order for it to save any unto eternal life. Only Jesus has ever done that.

We are saved through the law (that is, the instructions in righteousness and trust given in the law)but not by the Law. And we are saved through the Law becasue our Savior kept it, then substituted His righteousness to take the penalty for our sins.

Blessings to you Arial, I read your post with interest. I am not happy to introduce my self this way but it was nessery to be so.

** I will humbly encourage you to read my post again and without prejudice. 

I post after someone posted "that the Law saved no one".

And that's before the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

I said the resurrection because a lot of things happened from the death of Jesus till the time of his resurrection...

The issue is not whether the Law saved anyone after the resurrection of Jesus Christ but before when the Sinai Covenant was still in effect.  

This is why the statement the Law saved no one is not in armonious relationship with the scriptures...

Before the Law was given no one of the chosen Circumcised seed of Abraham was lost...every one was saved...through the Covenant of Cirumcision. 

No one was lost till the Law was given and in the Law it said: one of the examples that if anyone offends the Sabath day he will be cut off from God and the community of the people of God. 

And the community had to put that person to death by stoning..

The fact that the Sinai Covenant had clauses to let the congregation know when someone will be cut off from God and the community of the congregation and if they had to put him to death or not...it's giving us the information that the people were alive to God...hope that you are in the knowledge that the Abraham and Issac are Jacob and beginning with Jacob all his household were alive to God...and the people in the Covenant of Sinai were alive to God...this is of course until the Covenant was still in effect..till the new Covenant started when Jesus died on the Cross...

**The violators..example..of the Sabath became cut off from God, or dead to God, which is telling the story that they were alive to God "SAVED" and the one who offended the Sabath from being alive to God because of this kind of offense because there was not forgiveness for this sin he became Dead to God..LOST.

JUST LIKE THE GENTILES he became lost...and to be correct to a T this is was a conditional lost..not for ever..like the other children of Abraham and the other son of Jacob Esau and their descendants were only conditionally excluded from being alive to God..

Just like the violator of the Sabath Day they had to wait for Jesus Christ to have the forgiveness of their sins...

Edited April 24, 2023 by Your closest friendnt

[Arial]

@Your closest friendnt

You say a lot of things here as you did in your original post, that I disagree with because scripture does. You give no scriptural evidence for any of what you say, therefore it comes across to me as mere theroyizing. I will go through it bit by bit.

10 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

I said the resurrection because a lot of things happened from the death of Jesus till the time of his resurrection...

What things? What are you referring to?

10 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

The issue is not whether the Law saved anyone after the resurrection of Jesus Christ but before when the Sinai Covenant was still in effect.  

This is why the statement the Law saved no one is not in armonious relationship with the scriptures...

The issue is whether the Law saved anyone ever, as I am the one that said it saved no one, and I said it because Paul said it, on more than one occasion and in different ways. Why is what Paul says about the law saving no one not harmonious with the scriptures? His writings are a part of the scriptures. What scriptures do you say show that the Law saved anyone?

 

10 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

Before the Law was given no one of the chosen Circumcised seed of Abraham was lost...every one was saved...through the Covenant of Cirumcision. 

Where do you find scriptural support for this? Gen 17 tells us that circumcision was a sigh of the covenant God made with Abraham and his descendants to inherit the land of Canaan and for God to be their God. It had nothing to do with eternal life. It was a sign of the land grant covenant that came to reality with Moses and the exodus from Egypt and the giving of that covenant Law. Just as for the believer, baptism does not grant eternal life itself, but is a sign of the persons union with Christ in His death and resurrection. Entrance into the new covenant which does give eternal life.

 

10 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

The fact that the Sinai Covenant had clauses to let the congregation know when someone will be cut off from God and the community of the congregation and if they had to put him to death or not...it's giving us the information that the people were alive to God.

No it isn't. It is telling us that disobedience to the Law given as stipulations for covenant keeping, disqualifies them as covenant members under the protection of God. And for more serious offenses of disobedience, the penalty of the Law was death. Physical death. Physical death is what occurred. Everyone of those covenant people eventually died. It is simply telling us what we very well know, all living people will die. The covenant penalties and blessings of law breaking or law keeping do not pertain to eternal life, but to keeping the land and having God as their God.

 

10 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

hope that you are in the knowledge that the Abraham and Issac are Jacob and beginning with Jacob all his household were alive to God...and the people in the Covenant of Sinai were alive to God...this is of course until the Covenant was still in effect..till the new Covenant started when Jesus died on the Cross...

The Sinai covenant was not a covenant of eternal life. It is the other covenant made with Abraham concerning his faith being counted as righteousness (perfect righteousness being the only means of eternal life). And there were people saved unto eternal life in the Sinai covenant, but it was not by Law keeping, it was by faith---that is, trusting in and believing everything that God said. Jesus is the fulfillment of that covenant, as well as the Sinai covenant of Law, by being perfectly righteous and then substituting Himself as our propitiation, taking our just punishment for rebellion against our Creator and imputing His righteousness to us. It is trust in this that God has declared, that brings about our union with Christ.

 

10 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

The violators..example..of the Sabath became cut off from God, or dead to God, which is telling the story that they were alive to God "SAVED" and the one who offended the Sabath from being alive to God because of this kind of offense because there was not forgiveness for this sin he became Dead to God..LOST.

They were cut off from the covenant community. Scripture does not say that they became dead to God or that they were alive in the sense of having eternal life because they were in the covenant community. If they had eternal life by means of being in the circumcised community, they would not be able to be cut off. Eternal life would then meet death and that is silly.

 

10 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

JUST LIKE THE GENTILES he became lost...and to be correct to a T this is was a conditional lost..not for ever..like the other children of Abraham and the other son of Jacob Esau and their descendants were only conditionally excluded from being alive to God..

Scriptural support? And a person cannot go in and out of and back in to eternal life. Either the life is eternal or it is not.

 

10 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

Just like the violator of the Sabath Day they had to wait for Jesus Christ to have the forgiveness of their sins...

Sin isn't forgiven after a person dies. "For it is appointed once for a man to die and then the judgment."

[Your closest friendnt]

@Arial, It is not clear why the words "eternal life" is mentioned in the Covenant of Cirumcision and in the Covenant of Sinai within the meaning of "Eternal Life" within the New Covenant. 

Eternal Life in the New Covenant is to believe in Jesus Christ (please make it simple and without arguments at the moment and in due time we will look into that). The only one who has the Eternal Life in himself is only Jesus Christ.

He was born with the Life of God in him. ( to be thorough through out with the readers we should elaborate on this at the right time) Like the first man Adam who was created with the Life of God in him, Jesus was also the first man with the Life of God in him. 

Adam in his time in the Garden of God the Garden of Eden and Jesus in the Garden of God the Garden of the Covenant of Sinai...to be better understood the Garden of the Inheritance of the people of God the Land promised to the twelve tribes. Jesus was born and raised up amongst the people of God in the Nation of God...versus the Gentile Nations.

Jesus did not go around visiting the Gentile Nations of the world before his death and resurrection but only after he had cleansed the world from the acrobistia and had the people of all the world clean through his death on the Cross. 

Adam in his own environment and Jesus in his own environment both had the burden to mantain their right standing with God...

They had to obey God in what he asked them. 

Abraham was also warned that the promises of God to him were conditional to a clause in his Covenant with God that he had to obey what ever God will asked him...

Genesis 17:1-2 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty[a]; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. 2 Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.”

Adam was under the same condition to walk blameless before to obey God in what he will asked him.

Jesus also was under the same Condition to walk blameless before God and obey him in what he asks him to do.

Jesus obeyed God when his Heavenly Father asked him to do something against the Law which was punishable by death to disobeyed the Sabath which Jesus did, he was obedient to God and healed the sick on the Sabath and asked the man whom he healed to "pick up his bed and go home "...Jesus did not hide the fact that he healed the sick man on the Sabath and he obeyed God when he said to him "pick up your bed and go home". So everyones will get to know that Jesus was teaching the people to disobeyed the Sabath...God wanted him to do that..to disobey the Covenant of Sinai by asking him to obey him...Jesus was put on the Cross road to either obey God or to obey the Covenant of Sinai...and Jesus passed the test God put infront of him ...he obeyed God and he remained righteous before God...and it was a similar situation in a more spectacular way and this time Jesus did something that towards the Law is disobeing the Sabath by making mud with his spit...(with his spit is adding salt to the wound, so to speak in their culture) and taking the mud and putting it in the man's eyes and then asking the man to disobeyed the Sabath by asking him to wash his eyes in the pool of Siloam on the same day...the Sabath day. 

The first time Jesus obeyed God and did what God was asking him to heal the man with the withered hand in the Synagogue, and he got away with it because he said I only asked the man to strech forth his hand. It is not a sin to ask someone to strech forth his hand on a Sabath and it was his own decision to do that...I did not compelled him...he did that because he wanted to be healed he believed that Jesus can heal him and he wanted to have a full arm and hand just as everyone else and he wanted that so much that he did not want to wait for the next day and God gave him what he wanted...

Jesus said I just spoke the word and God did the healing. 

Then the next time Jesus healed someone on the Sabath day escalated even further, Jesus asked the man to do something that was forbidden on the Sabath day to pick up his bed and go home...and every one got to know eventually that was Jesus who told him to pick up his bed and go home an act consider as canceling someone to disobey the Sanctity of the Lord's Sabath day...to polute the Sabath Day the Holy Day of the Lord.

Then it escalated even further the next time Jesus healed someone on the Sabath. Jesus did something strictly forbidden by the Law to do on the Sabath Day he made mud with his spit ( at that very moment Jesus would be considered as violating the Sabath Day and according to the Law he was cut-off from God and the community of people of God who were obedient to the Law...Jesus stand in the Condemnation of the Law in the Judgement of the Law he had polluted the Holy Day of the Lord...but in this standing according to the Law (but in the right standing according to God, because Jesus did what God was asking him to do, Jesus obeyed God.) 

One more time God was asking Jesus to do something contrary to the Law..

This last time not only Jesus did something considered diceecretion of the Holy Day but Jesus in addition to that he ask the blind man to go and wash the mud from his eyes in the water of the pool of Siloam on the same day on the Sabath Day...on the healing waters on the pool of Siloam when no one was healed on the Sabath Day because the Angel never trouble the waters of the pool on the Sabath because the Lord was resting on the Sabath Day and won't heal anyone on the Sabath day this is why the Angel never trouble the water of the pool or the waters of the pool never turned to healing waters on the Sabath day. 

And yet this man was asked from someone who had just disobeyed the Sabath and had asked the blind man who knew it was the Sabath day the Holy Day, the rest Day of the Lord...was asked from Jesus who had Just disobeyed the Sabath for him to also disobeyed the Sabath and go and wash the mud from his eyes on the Sabath Day in the pool of Siloam as if the healing Angel who has never troubled the water on the Sabath because that would have been in violation of the Law....As if the healing Angel was waiting for him to rich down to the waters of the pool and just at that time the Angel will trouble the waters to turned them to healing waters...(the Angel also in disobedience to the Sabath)

And to heal the blind man...to make it more dramatic people who were born blind were not waiting at the pool to be healed perhaps because they were born that way (blemished) considered punish by God for the sins of their Father's.

And this was a creative miracle....for the man to be able to see God had to create something new that was missing from his eyes...

Was this also a sign that Jesus wanted to communicate to People who he was before he was in the past...before he was found in the likeness of man born from a woman..in Bethleem. 

Did Jesus did this miracle to let the people know that he is the one who created Adam in the Garden of Eden from mud and he had given him Life from his Life...

That he was the Creator...of the world and man...the God Almighty. 

 

[Arial]

1 hour ago, Your closest friendnt said:

@Arial, It is not clear why the words "eternal life" is mentioned in the Covenant of Cirumcision and in the Covenant of Sinai within the meaning of "Eternal Life" within the New Covenant. 

Eternal Life in the New Covenant is to believe in Jesus Christ (please make it simple and without arguments at the moment and in due time we will look into that). The only one who has the Eternal Life in himself is only Jesus Christ.

He was born with the Life of God in him. ( to be thorough through out with the readers we should elaborate on this at the right time) Like the first man Adam who was created with the Life of God in him, Jesus was also the first man with the Life of God in him. 

Adam in his time in the Garden of God the Garden of Eden and Jesus in the Garden of God the Garden of the Covenant of Sinai...to be better understood the Garden of the Inheritance of the people of God the Land promised to the twelve tribes. Jesus was born and raised up amongst the people of God in the Nation of God...versus the Gentile Nations.

Jesus did not go around visiting the Gentile Nations of the world before his death and resurrection but only after he had cleansed the world from the acrobistia and had the people of all the world clean through his death on the Cross. 

Adam in his own environment and Jesus in his own environment both had the burden to mantain their right standing with God...

They had to obey God in what he asked them. 

Abraham was also warned that the promises of God to him were conditional to a clause in his Covenant with God that he had to obey what ever God will asked him...

Genesis 17:1-2 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty[a]; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. 2 Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.”

Adam was under the same condition to walk blameless before to obey God in what he will asked him.

Jesus also was under the same Condition to walk blameless before God and obey him in what he asks him to do.

Jesus obeyed God when his Heavenly Father asked him to do something against the Law which was punishable by death to disobeyed the Sabath which Jesus did, he was obedient to God and healed the sick on the Sabath and asked the man whom he healed to "pick up his bed and go home "...Jesus did not hide the fact that he healed the sick man on the Sabath and he obeyed God when he said to him "pick up your bed and go home". So everyones will get to know that Jesus was teaching the people to disobeyed the Sabath...God wanted him to do that..to disobey the Covenant of Sinai by asking him to obey him...Jesus was put on the Cross road to either obey God or to obey the Covenant of Sinai...and Jesus passed the test God put infront of him ...he obeyed God and he remained righteous before God...and it was a similar situation in a more spectacular way and this time Jesus did something that towards the Law is disobeing the Sabath by making mud with his spit...(with his spit is adding salt to the wound, so to speak in their culture) and taking the mud and putting it in the man's eyes and then asking the man to disobeyed the Sabath by asking him to wash his eyes in the pool of Siloam on the same day...the Sabath day. 

The first time Jesus obeyed God and did what God was asking him to heal the man with the withered hand in the Synagogue, and he got away with it because he said I only asked the man to strech forth his hand. It is not a sin to ask someone to strech forth his hand on a Sabath and it was his own decision to do that...I did not compelled him...he did that because he wanted to be healed he believed that Jesus can heal him and he wanted to have a full arm and hand just as everyone else and he wanted that so much that he did not want to wait for the next day and God gave him what he wanted...

Jesus said I just spoke the word and God did the healing. 

Then the next time Jesus healed someone on the Sabath day escalated even further, Jesus asked the man to do something that was forbidden on the Sabath day to pick up his bed and go home...and every one got to know eventually that was Jesus who told him to pick up his bed and go home an act consider as canceling someone to disobey the Sanctity of the Lord's Sabath day...to polute the Sabath Day the Holy Day of the Lord.

Then it escalated even further the next time Jesus healed someone on the Sabath. Jesus did something strictly forbidden by the Law to do on the Sabath Day he made mud with his spit ( at that very moment Jesus would be considered as violating the Sabath Day and according to the Law he was cut-off from God and the community of people of God who were obedient to the Law...Jesus stand in the Condemnation of the Law in the Judgement of the Law he had polluted the Holy Day of the Lord...but in this standing according to the Law (but in the right standing according to God, because Jesus did what God was asking him to do, Jesus obeyed God.) 

One more time God was asking Jesus to do something contrary to the Law..

This last time not only Jesus did something considered diceecretion of the Holy Day but Jesus in addition to that he ask the blind man to go and wash the mud from his eyes in the water of the pool of Siloam on the same day on the Sabath Day...on the healing waters on the pool of Siloam when no one was healed on the Sabath Day because the Angel never trouble the waters of the pool on the Sabath because the Lord was resting on the Sabath Day and won't heal anyone on the Sabath day this is why the Angel never trouble the water of the pool or the waters of the pool never turned to healing waters on the Sabath day. 

And yet this man was asked from someone who had just disobeyed the Sabath and had asked the blind man who knew it was the Sabath day the Holy Day, the rest Day of the Lord...was asked from Jesus who had Just disobeyed the Sabath for him to also disobeyed the Sabath and go and wash the mud from his eyes on the Sabath Day in the pool of Siloam as if the healing Angel who has never troubled the water on the Sabath because that would have been in violation of the Law....As if the healing Angel was waiting for him to rich down to the waters of the pool and just at that time the Angel will trouble the waters to turned them to healing waters...(the Angel also in disobedience to the Sabath)

And to heal the blind man...to make it more dramatic people who were born blind were not waiting at the pool to be healed perhaps because they were born that way (blemished) considered punish by God for the sins of their Father's.

And this was a creative miracle....for the man to be able to see God had to create something new that was missing from his eyes...

Was this also a sign that Jesus wanted to communicate to People who he was before he was in the past...before he was found in the likeness of man born from a woman..in Bethleem. 

Did Jesus did this miracle to let the people know that he is the one who created Adam in the Garden of Eden from mud and he had given him Life from his Life...

That he was the Creator...of the world and man...the God Almighty. 

 

You pretty much went off down a whole other trail and I heartily disagree with most of what you say. A good place to not go any farther as I believe we will only go in circles. It has already begun.

Be blessed.