anukulapo:

Don't you think the mix multitude that left egypt was a SIGN that it was applicable to not just the Israelites

are we using sign language now? if it was applicable to 'all men' i believe it will be stated some where. abi? that's what i want the man to clarify.

obadiah777: QUESTION 1 - THE NEW COVENANT WILL BE ESTABLISHED IN HEAVEN. YES. HEAVEN ON EARTH
2- WHAT DID JESUS ACHIEVE ? UNIFIED THE WHOLE WORLD BOTH JEW AND GENTILES UNDER THE OLD COVENANT, WHICH THE GENTILES WERE NOT A PART OF BEFORE, AND HENCE SETTING THE GROUND FOR THE SECOND FRUIT TO BE HARVESTED FROM THE WHOLE WORLD, THIS SECOND FRUIT AS WELL AS THE FIRST FRUIT WILL MOVE INTO THE NEW COVENANT IN HEAVEN. SO WHILE THE FIRST FRUIT WAS HARVESTED FROM ONLY ISRAEL, THE SECOND FRUIT WILL BE HARVESTED FROM THE WHOLE WORLD. CHRIST MADE THAT HAPPEN BY GIVING GRACE TO THE FIRST FRUIT AND SEALING THEM SO THAT THEY CAN WRITE THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT UNITES THE GENTILES WITH THE JEWS UNDER THE OLD COVENANT.

3 KEEPING THE NEW COVENANT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAPPEN NATURALLY BECAUSE YOU WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO SIN. THE NEW COVENANT IS 'NOT BEING ABLE TO SIN'. SO YOU DONT GET REWARDS FOR KEEPING THE NEW COVENANT, YOUR REWARD IS THE NEW COVENANT. AS WELL AS THE GOOD LIFE OF COURSE LOL. YOU GET TO OWN THE WHOLE WORLD AND BE IN CHARGE OF THE REPROBATES WHO DIDNT MAKE IT INTO THE NEW COVENANT WHO ARE STILL STUCK IN THE OLD COVENANT. YOU WILL BE THEIR NEW LORDS AND YOU CAN BEAT THEM TO SMITHEREEN BECAUSE THAT WILL BE PART OF YOUR REWARD FOR INHERITING THE NEW COVENANT. YOU GET TO BE A RULER OF REPROBATES
REVELATION 2 VS 26-27 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

PSALMS 2 VS 8-9 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. << THOSE OF US WHO MAKE IT SHALL GET TO LORD OVER REPROBATES LIKE BABANGIDA AND OYEDEPO. WE SHALL BEAT THE LIVING CRAP OUT OF THEM

Blessed of the most high God.

Ain soph Aur!

All the answers we seek are in the Bible(everlasting word).i have always believed that the old and new cannot be merged -jst like d parable of putting old wine in2 new wine skin,and u cannot pick one part and abandon d other.however d old cannot be relegated 2d background as it contains God's purposes for man.for me,whats obtainable is that there is a Christ and He left us with a Counsellor.let the spirit lead us all. Amen
@op nice thread,highly commendable!

Ihedinobi:
I quoted your words exactly, debosky. I made absolutely no editing except to change the uppercase "T" in the first word to a lowercase one to flow with the rules of grammar. Check your post again.

Ok - my apologies. My thoughts were not clearly expressed - that I've now clarified in my previous post.

And this intent that you have stated here contradicts the Scriptures that you provided, at least, in one case.

According to the first one, the purpose of the Old Covenant was to show our sin and keep us until Messiah came. According to the second one, the law was, in fact, our guardian until Messiah came. It wasn't merely supposed to provide us with a guardian, it was our guardian and it was established for exactly the purpose of being one until Messiah came.

There is no contradiction - both Scriptures are included in the same narrative/passage and the latter verses simply give a better description of that which was said earlier.

The intent behind the law is clear - to provide a guardian (or to keep us - that is what a guardian does) till the promise was delivered. In playing this role of guardian, the law showed man his sin. The latter is contained in the role of the guardian.

As for intents behind and such, the Scriptures seem pretty clear as to what the intents are - the Scriptures you gave no less.

We are in agreement - I'm not sure why you asked the question when you knew scriptures were pretty clear though.

Oh I forgot - the questioneering discussion style.

debosky:

Ok - my thought was not clearly expressed - that I've now clarified.



There is no contradiction - both Scriptures are included in the same narrative/passage and the latter verses simply give a better description of that which was said earlier.

The intent behind the law is clear - to provide a guardian (or to keep us - that is what a guardian does) till the promise was delivered. In playing this role of guardian, the law showed man his sin. The latter is contained in the role of the guardian.



So then there is no debate on the intent of the law.

Ok then, so, according to you,

debosky: the Second fulfills the intent of the First, or better phrased, the intent behind the First.

If the New fulfills the intent behind the Old, it would be keeping us or guarding us until another (?) Messiah comes? And showing us that we are weak to do God's Will? Is this what you are saying?

MostHigh:

Blessed of the most high God.

Ain soph Aur!

BROTHER MOSTHIGH THIS IS WHAT WE ARE PATIENTLY WAITING FOR. YOU KNOW HOW RIGHT NOW IT IS THE WHITE MANS WORLD AND WE ARE ALL JUST LIVING IN IT ? ( THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN CHARGE. THE FOURTH BEAST ), IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IT SHALL BE OUR WORLD ( THOSE OF US WHO MAKE IT INTO THE NEW COVENANT ) AND EVERYTHING IN IT BELONGS TO US INCLUDING THE REPROBATES WHO ARE STUCK IN THE FIRST COVENANT. IMAGINE BEING IN CONTROL OF ALL THESE DEMONIC COVETOUS IDIOTS IN THE WORLD TODAY ? AND BEING IN CONTROL OF THEM FOREVER ? IMAGINE THAT ? ALL THE THIEVING NAIJA LEADERS, AND LORD LUGARD, GEORGE BUSH, AND HITLER, AND ALL THE THIEVING PASTORS, THOSE WHO COLONIZED US AND ENSLAVED US, AND THE LIST IS ENDLESS. AND WE HAVE PERMISSION TO BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF THEM WHEN THEY OFFEND ? THIS IS WHAT I AM PATIENTLY WAITING FOR. AND IT SOON COME BROTHER. IN OUR LIFETIME. ALL THE PRECIOUS JEWELS AND GOLD OF THE WHOLE WORLD THAT THEY STOLE THEY WOULD RETURN ALL OF IT TO THOSE OF US WHO MAKE IT AND WE SHALL SHARE IT EQUALLY AMONGST OURSELVES ( ZECHARIAH 14 VS 1 ) ( JOB 20 VS 15 ) (JOB 27 VS 16-17). WE SHALL RETURN TO BEING THE KINGS OF THE EARTH THAT WE WERE. SPLENDID

ZECHARIAH 14 VS 1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee

JOB 27 VS 16-17 Though he heap up silver as the dust, and prepare raiment as the clay;He may prepare it, but the just shall put it on, and the innocent shall divide the silver.

JOB 20 VS 15 He hath swallowed down riches, and he shall vomit them up again: God shall cast them out of his belly
<<< THE ROMAN EMPIRE AKA CAUCASIANS HE TALKING ABOUT

Ihedinobi:

If the New fulfills the intent behind the Old, it would be keeping us or guarding us until another (?) Messiah comes? And showing us that we are weak to do God's Will? Is this what you are saying?

No - what I am saying was stated in my penultimate post.

debosky:
The intent was to provide a guardian - this is fully met in Jesus Christ.

Is this unclear to you?

Ihedinobi:
I am not close to a study tool that I use occasionally and I don't think I'll be for awhile or else I'd have confirmed a part of Scripture where the Lord, I think, states that if a foreigner or Gentile wanted to become part of the commonwealth of Israel and serve Israel's God, he was to be accepted upon circumcision. In many other places, particularly in the Prophets, you'll find the Lord using or speaking of Israel as His platform for reaching the rest of the world. There's a particular prophecy that betrays God's eternal intent which says that the law would go forth from Zion.

you used the word "if" here. that is foreigner can be serve Israel's God by choice. meaning the agreement reached with God (by the Israelite) applies to the Israelite and those (foreigners) that chose to subject themselves to living by the mosaic law and the covenant does not 'apply' to those that chose not to live by the requirement of the covenant. This is my understanding.

Ihedinobi:
Also, I mentioned Deuteronomy 23 which implicitly says that God expected what He was doing with Israel to spread to other lands. There He listed the peoples He excepted and explained why. In fact, the Egyptians that Zikkyy named were specifically mentioned there with the Lord expressing willingness to include them in His Covenant with Israel from a specific generation. That was partly why I asked him if he read my posts at all.

I did read Deuteronomy 23, and it did not say "all men".

Ihedinobi:

Like cool breezes and refreshing springs to a weary worker, you have encouraged my soul, sister. Thank you.

Amen and thank you.
I went throught your exposition again and could fully and totally relate a few things for proper understanding of the readers.

Ihedinobi: But per the controversy that has been raging for years about the Law and Grace, God's Demands have never changed. What He wants of man has not wavered from the first Covenant to the Second. His Principles are eternal.

From what you said:

The law is the demand

The Convenant is the contract

In the Old convenant, the contract was man must do, and God will do. Man couldn't fulfil the contract because, well, because He was man. Man always had a way of circumventing God's demand to what he can bear. Unfortunately God's demands even superceeded the letter of the demand. That demand could only be met with the right heart from the start, which man did not have again.

In the new convenant, the contract is 'For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.' And this is for those who ACCEPT Jesus and ALLOW (as I strongly believe the choice is there) Him.

Under the Old, penalty for breaching the contract was blood and bulls, while in the new convent, it is the blood of Jesus Christ once and for all:

Hebrews 9:13-15
Under the old system, the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow could cleanse people’s bodies from ceremonial impurity. 14 Just think how much more the blood of Christ will purify our consciences from sinful deeds so that we can worship the living God. For by the power of the eternal Spirit, Christ offered himself to God as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. 15 That is why he is the one who mediates a new covenant between God and people, so that all who are called can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant.
This is awesome! Weldone Ihenidobi, the word is indeed new everyday.

I also noted that even the 10 commandments was initially given by God direct to the people of Israel from mount Sinai, verbally without even the Moses. It was because the people could not bear it that He had to use Moses to pass it across. Read Exodus 19-20; Deut. 4-5.

debosky:

No - what I am saying was stated in my penultimate post.



Is this unclear to you?

Are you implying that there is no difference between a guardian who keeps us until the Messiah comes to take over, as it were, and providing a guardian?

Furthermore, was the Messiah coming to be a guardian?

Ihedinobi:
Are you implying that there is no difference between a guardian who keeps us until the Messiah comes to take over, as it were, and providing a guardian?

I am implying the intent behind the law being a guardian and Jesus The Guardian is the same. The need for a guardian is fulfilled fully in Jesus.

Furthermore, was the Messiah coming to be a guardian?

Yes, but more aptly, the Guardian.

1 Peter 2:25 Once you were like sheep who wandered away. But now you have turned to your Shepherd the Guardian of your souls.

Zikkyy:

you used the word "if" here. that is foreigner can be serve Israel's God by choice. meaning the agreement reached with God (by the Israelite) applies to the Israelite and those (foreigners) that chose to subject themselves to living by the mosaic law and the covenant does not 'apply' to those that chose not to live by the requirement of the covenant. This is my understanding.

Are you saying that theIsraelite had no choice in the matter?

I did read Deuteronomy 23, and it did not say "all men".

Not that I said that it did, but what in fact did it say?

Ihedinobi: @Zikkyy
Read this post again: https://www.nairaland.com/1290444/law-given-moses-grace-truth#15724890

and this one: https://www.nairaland.com/1290444/law-given-moses-grace-truth#15725205 particularly the first one ignorance of which may be the reason you're confused.

Your answer about the Covenant and the Law is there.

Okay, i see that you are defining/explaining a covenant vs law. No wahala. but i don't think you can really separate it from the law (not in terms of definition), cos the agreement was that the Israelite shall comply with the written law. That was the basis for the covenant.

To say it applies to all men would mean all men are bound to comply with the written law based on the agreement reached by God with Israelite, and in the event they do not comply they will be seen to have breached the agreement reached on their behalf by the Israelite. am yet to find the portion of the bible where this is written, maybe you can help. even the Deuteronomy 23 reference is not saying that. any foreigner that chose to subject himself to the law on which the covenant was drawn will not be doing that based on the agreement between God and the Israelite.

Ihedinobi:
Also, I do not need your endorsement of my ability or work, Zikkyy.

There is no attempt to give you a bad name. This is a forum, and it's a place to share idea, opinion/views e.t.c if i see things differently i will simply state it. i can wrong, you can wrong, we can both be wrong or right.

Ihedinobi:
I will not refuse to answrr any questions

Thank you. i don't ask questions expecting a response. if it comes good, it's not a right.

Ihedinobi:
but I have no responsibility or ability to make my answersacceptable to anyone.

I agree.

Ihedinobi:

Per the first sentence, I did indeed. And I stand by it. I don't understand what you mean by the rest even after reading your quote of my post.

You standing by the sentence is not the issue, all I am saying is that the statement is wrong.

Ihedinobi: I cannot help you here. As far as I am concerned, all of Scripture is not only relevant but vital to every believer, Jew and Gentile, since we are all of one race and family now.

When you separate completely the nation of Israel even in the New Testament from the Church, the Body of Christ then all the contradictions disappear. All of the major questions disappear. And every thing becomes so sensible. Mixing all of the bible as one book raise question and brings confusion.
examples of these are-
1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

James 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

These letters are different from letters written specifically to the church like-
Ephesians 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus

mixing all these letters together for application or doctrine can only bring contradictions.

Ihedinobi:
Are you saying that theIsraelite had no choice in the matter?

This is not about the choice of the Isrealite. They signed the agreement, so they must live by it or.....

The question is if other tribes breach (not living according to the requirement of the law) the agreement, will it result in a cancellation (or other measures dealing with non-compliance) of the agreement? even when the Israelite are complying in full? My understanding of the bible was that this agreement functioned without taking into consideration, the activities of other tribes. How can we then say the agreement applies to all? i hope you understand my confusion here.

Ihedinobi:
Not that I said that it did, but what in fact did it say?

It says other some other tribes by choice can be allowed into the community of Gods people. probably mean they can subject themselves to the requirement of the agreement.

Ihedinobi:
Not that I said that it did, but what in fact did it say?

so you agree it's not 'all men'

Alwaystrue:
Amen and thank you.
I went throught your exposition again and could fully and totally relate a few things for proper understanding of the readers.




From what you said:

The law is the demand

The Convenant is the contract

In the Old convenant, the contract was man must do, and God will do. Man couldn't fulfil the contract because, well, because He was man. Man always had a way of circumventing God's demand to what he can bear. Unfortunately God's demands even superceeded the letter of the demand. That demand could only be met with the right heart from the start, which man did not have again.

In the new convenant, the contract is 'For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.' And this is for those who ACCEPT Jesus and ALLOW (as I strongly believe the choice is there) Him.

Under the Old, penalty for breaching the contract was blood and bulls, while in the new convent, it is the blood of Jesus Christ once and for all:

Hebrews 9:13-15
Under the old system, the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow could cleanse people’s bodies from ceremonial impurity. 14 Just think how much more the blood of Christ will purify our consciences from sinful deeds so that we can worship the living God. For by the power of the eternal Spirit, Christ offered himself to God as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. 15 That is why he is the one who mediates a new covenant between God and people, so that all who are called can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant.
This is awesome! Weldone Ihenidobi, the word is indeed new everyday.

I also noted that even the 10 commandments was initially given by God direct to the people of Israel from mount Sinai, verbally without even the Moses. It was because the people could not bear it that He had to use Moses to pass it across. Read Exodus 19-20; Deut. 4-5.

Thank you so much, sis. You are a grand help.

My point exactly was that the cancelling of a contract did not necessarily eliminate the demand and the need that it secured. God's Demands were not satisfied by that Covenant nor was man's need. In fact, the whole purpose of the Covenant was to expose to man his need which it did. Man's need was the ability to please God which is the high point of his existence.

Once that Covenant had exposed that need there was no further need for it but the Demand remained and now man knew he had a need. The next Covenant would have to provide for God's Demand and man's now-recognized need.

Enter the Christ, the new Mediator of the New Covenant - the meeting point of both sides. Being both God and Man, He not only impartially represented the interests of both sides He fully satisfied each side's needs: He gave God the Man He demanded and He gave man the ability to be the Man He was made to be.

Ihedinobi:

Thank you so much, sis. You are a grand help.

My point exactly was that the cancelling of a contract did not necessarily eliminate the demand and the need that it secured. God's Demands were not satisfied by that Covenant nor was man's need. In fact, the whole purpose of the Covenant was to expose to man his need which it did. Man's need was the ability to please God which is the high point of his existence.

Once that Covenant had exposed that need there was no further need for it but the Demand remained and now man knew he had a need. The next Covenant would have to provide for God's Demand and man's now-recognized need.

Enter the Christ, the new Mediator of the New Covenant - the meeting point of both sides. Being both God and Man, He not only impartially represented the interests of both sides He fully satisfied each side's needs: He gave God the Man He demanded and He gave man the ability to be the Man He was made to be.

Bravo!

obadiah777: BROTHER MOSTHIGH THIS IS WHAT WE ARE PATIENTLY WAITING FOR. YOU KNOW HOW RIGHT NOW IT IS THE WHITE MANS WORLD AND WE ARE ALL JUST LIVING IN IT ? ( THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN CHARGE. THE FOURTH BEAST ), IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IT SHALL BE OUR WORLD ( THOSE OF US WHO MAKE IT INTO THE NEW COVENANT ) AND EVERYTHING IN IT BELONGS TO US INCLUDING THE REPROBATES WHO ARE STUCK IN THE FIRST COVENANT. IMAGINE BEING IN CONTROL OF ALL THESE DEMONIC COVETOUS IDIOTS IN THE WORLD TODAY ? AND BEING IN CONTROL OF THEM FOREVER ? IMAGINE THAT ? ALL THE THIEVING NAIJA LEADERS, AND LORD LUGARD, GEORGE BUSH, AND HITLER, AND ALL THE THIEVING PASTORS, THOSE WHO COLONIZED US AND ENSLAVED US, AND THE LIST IS ENDLESS. AND WE HAVE PERMISSION TO BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF THEM WHEN THEY OFFEND ? THIS IS WHAT I AM PATIENTLY WAITING FOR. AND IT SOON COME BROTHER. IN OUR LIFETIME. ALL THE PRECIOUS JEWELS AND GOLD OF THE WHOLE WORLD THAT THEY STOLE THEY WOULD RETURN ALL OF IT TO THOSE OF US WHO MAKE IT AND WE SHALL SHARE IT EQUALLY AMONGST OURSELVES ( ZECHARIAH 14 VS 1 ) ( JOB 20 VS 15 ) (JOB 27 VS 16-17). WE SHALL RETURN TO BEING THE KINGS OF THE EARTH THAT WE WERE. SPLENDID

ZECHARIAH 14 VS 1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee

JOB 27 VS 16-17 Though he heap up silver as the dust, and prepare raiment as the clay;He may prepare it, but the just shall put it on, and the innocent shall divide the silver.

JOB 20 VS 15 He hath swallowed down riches, and he shall vomit them up again: God shall cast them out of his belly
<<< THE ROMAN EMPIRE AKA CAUCASIANS HE TALKING ABOUT

Brother patiently we wait and We know we are closer with all the vibrations we feel around us today

My prayer everyday like the psalter is to see it with my own eyes

We are not praying for diamonds and gold no, Esau will return with shiploads of jewels only to obtain food and fresh water

The prayer is health and strength and length of days.

Only with our eyes will we look and see the lord reward the wicked man

Blessed are those of the first resurrection for unto these the second death hath no power.

Ain Soph Aur!!

debosky:

I am implying the intent behind the law being a guardian and Jesus The Guardian is the same. The need for a guardian is fulfilled fully in Jesus.



Yes, but more aptly, the Guardian.

1 Peter 2:25 Once you were like sheep who wandered away. But now you have turned to your Shepherd the Guardian of your souls.

Actually, debosky, we are only wasting time. Since you posted the passage from Galatians, this discussion ended. The Old Covenant was given to reveal sin. Romans is another witness to that as is Hebrews.

It fulfilled its task and made way for a new covenant which promptly took its place. The New Covenant came because the Old was not able to to make man holy nor was it tasked to.

The New Covenant mediated by our Lord Jesus and activated by His Death picked things up from where the Old stopped and finished the work. It has made man holy forever.

I have nothing more to say to you on the matter. However, in the mouths of two or three witnesses every word shall be established, so I will give you two more passages that witness to what Galatians said:

Romans 5:20
Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound.

Hebrews 9:15
...hw 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.

And a third:

Hebrews 10:1
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

Thess latter two say, in the first, that the New Testament was brought in to address the sins/transgressions found under the Old or uncovered by the Old and, in the second, that the Old was not equipped to deal with the sin discovered. It is because of this that it was described as "weak", "fading away", "obsolete" etc. There is no suggestion whatsoever that there was more to God's intent for the first covenant beyond uncovering man's failure and making it known to him unless you think that God did not know that the Old Covenant could not make man holy.

From Eden, the Lord had always spoken of One Who would come and restore all things that were lost in the Fall. When the First Covenant was made, its very mediator still pointed forward to this Someone Who was still to come then establishing that that covenant was not the final answer.

So, there is no basis on which to say that the Second Covenant came in to fulfill the purpose of the First. Both had their jobs to do and the temporal and the carnal did its bit and gave way to the Eternal.

Zikkyy:

Okay, i see that you are defining/explaining a covenant vs law. No wahala. but i don't think you can really separate it from the law (not in terms of definition), cos the agreement was that the Israelite shall comply with the written law. That was the basis for the covenant.

To say it applies to all men would mean all men are bound to comply with the written law based on the agreement reached by God with Israelite, and in the event they do not comply they will be seen to have breached the agreement reached on their behalf by the Israelite. am yet to find the portion of the bible where this is written, maybe you can help. even the Deuteronomy 23 reference is not saying that. any foreigner that chose to subject himself to the law on which the covenant was drawn will not be doing that based on the agreement between God and the Israelite.



There is no attempt to give you a bad name. This is a forum, and it's a place to share idea, opinion/views e.t.c if i see things differently i will simply state it. i can wrong, you can wrong, we can both be wrong or right.



Thank you. i don't ask questions expecting a response. if it comes good, it's not a right.



I agree.

Zikkyy, what you think is your prerogative, I do not deign to control your thoughts. I have explained how a contract is separate from the demands and needs that it attempts to satisfy. If you disagree, you can detail why. But I'm done with discussing the issue with you. I hope you won't mind too much.

As for "applying" to all men, I hear you and I agree. However, I used "apply" (if I did, don't remember right now and I can't check at the moment) to mean "meant" (which is the word I feel more confident that I have been using). God's Covenants have always been meant for all the world. That's why He starts from one and builds up toward all saying things like, "through you all nations of the earth shall be blessed".

Did you consider that even the Gospel came first to the Jews and per Jesus's instructions was to circulate among the Jews and the Samaritans first before going out to the rest of the world? That one nation was picked first and the covenant given to it has not ever meant that God was restricting Himself to them alone, rather it has always been because He uses them as a springboard to reach everybody else.

shdemidemi:

You standing by the sentence is not the issue, all I am saying is that the statement is wrong.

As I have already said, I'm ok with your maintaining your own position. I have no problems with it.

When you separate completely the nation of Israel even in the New Testament from the Church, the Body of Christ then all the contradictions disappear. All of the major questions disappear. And every thing becomes so sensible. Mixing all of the bible as one book raise question and brings confusion.
examples of these are-
1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

James 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

These letters are different from letters written specifically to the church like-
Ephesians 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus

mixing all these letters together for application or doctrine can only bring contradictions.

Like I said, I can't help you here.

Zikkyy:

This is not about the choice of the Isrealite. They signed the agreement, so they must live by it or.....

The question is if other tribes breach (not living according to the requirement of the law) the agreement, will it result in a cancellation (or other measures dealing with non-compliance) of the agreement? even when the Israelite are complying in full? My understanding of the bible was that this agreement functioned without taking into consideration, the activities of other tribes. How can we then say the agreement applies to all? i hope you understand my confusion here.



It says other some other tribes by choice can be allowed into the community of Gods people. probably mean they can subject themselves to the requirement of the agreement.



so you agree it's not 'all men'

Do I, Zikkyy?

Regarding the issue of other tribes and nations defaulting, they'd have to sign up first to default and Israel had the responsibility of extending God's invitation to them, pretty much like we Christians do too. But they did have His invitation to become part of His Covenant with Israel.

So long, Zikkyy.

Ihedinobi:
Actually, debosky, we are only wasting time. Since you posted the passage from Galatians, this discussion ended. The Old Covenant was given to reveal sin. Romans is another witness to that as is Hebrews.

Yes - and that was not its only function - its overall function was to serve as guardian of the promise, till the time for the fulfilment of the promise arrived.

Or are you denying that the law was not given as a guardian?

For emphasis - Gal 3: 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

It fulfilled its task and made way for a new covenant which promptly took its place. The New Covenant came because the Old was not able to to make man holy nor was it tasked to.

If its task was merely to reveal sin, then it fulfilled its task the moment the law was written - it didn't need to stand for thousands of years before sin was revealed. It's function was to bridge the period between the promise (given to Abraham) and the fulfilment of the promise. I have in no guise stated it was intended to make holy - in that characteristic, it could only serve as a temporary guardian - temporarily covering sin, but unable to wash them away.

I have nothing more to say to you on the matter. However, in the mouths of two or three witnesses every word shall be established, so I will give you two more passages that witness to what Galatians said:

Romans 5:20
Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound.

Hebrews 9:15
...hw 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.

And a third:

Hebrews 10:1
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

A shadow of good things to come - a guardian before The Guardian. This last reference further reinforces what I have said.

Thess latter two say, in the first, that the New Testament was brought in to address the sins/transgressions found under the Old or uncovered by the Old and, in the second, that the Old was not equipped to deal with the sin discovered. It is because of this that it was described as "weak", "fading away", "obsolete" etc. There is no suggestion whatsoever that there was more to God's intent for the first covenant beyond uncovering man's failure and making it known to him unless you think that God did not know that the Old Covenant could not make man holy.

But there is - it was to be a guardian - to foreshadow The Guardian, as stated in Galatians 2:24. By pointing to what would be required of the Guardian - the shedding of blood that washes away sin.

From Eden, the Lord had always spoken of One Who would come and restore all things that were lost in the Fall. When the First Covenant was made, its very mediator still pointed forward to this Someone Who was still to come then establishing that that covenant was not the final answer.

Yes - but till the One arrived, there needed to be a guardian, a placeholder, a shadow of things to come.

So, there is no basis on which to say that the Second Covenant came in to fulfill the purpose of the First. Both had their jobs to do and the temporal and the carnal did its bit and gave way to the Eternal.

Didn't you say the following?

The New Covenant mediated by our Lord Jesus and activated by His Death picked things up from where the Old stopped and finished the work. It has made man holy forever.

You're contradicting yourself - how can the second 'finish' what the first started if they didn't have the same intent behind them?

Finally Jesus could not have come to 'fulfil' the law if the intent behind them was different.

Don't feel a need to reply - the scripture speak for themselves.

Ihedinobi:

Per the first sentence, I did indeed. And I stand by it. I don't understand what you mean by the rest even after reading your quote of my post.



I cannot help you here. As far as I am concerned, all of Scripture is not only relevant but vital to every believer, Jew and Gentile, since we are all of one race and family now.

You seem to pride in yourself my friend, I have called your attention to an error you made but you have refused to admit the error nor correct it. The first error we can wave away for now,but, please don't wave the other error.

You have to rightly divide this word of truth if you desire to teach. We must take note that there were two gospels after the ressurection of Christ- one to the jews which was entrusted to Peter and the other to Paul which is to the heathens/uncircumcised/gentiles. Mixing Peter or any other apostle's ministry or legalism to the gospel of Apostle Paul is an error.

Please and please ponder on this.

shdemidemi:

You seem to pride in yourself my friend, I have called your attention to an error you made but you have refused to admit the error nor correct it. The first error we can wave away for now,but, please don't wave the other error.

You have to rightly divide this word of truth if you desire to teach. We must take note that there were two gospels after the ressurection of Christ- one to the jews which was entrusted to Peter and the other to Paul which is to the heathens/uncircumcised/gentiles. Mixing Peter or any other apostle's ministry or legalism to the gospel of Apostle Paul is an error.

Please and please ponder on this.

Disciple of Paul.

Ihedinobi: I cannot help you here. As far as I am concerned, all of Scripture is not only relevant but vital to every believer, Jew and Gentile, since we are all of one race and family now.

I cannot but agree with this - scripture explicitly tells us so.

John's gospel and Hebrews were not books addressed to a gentile believer (though we can learn and get basic facts from these books). T[b]hey are totally inapplicable to us(gentile) if we rightly divide the word.[/b] The gospel of Christ focuses more on our perception and intuition which is much different from the gospel preached to the Jewish nation.

The above is a dangerous teaching to say the least, as it seeks to create a distinction - not between Jews/Old Testament adherents and Christians, but between Christians.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Since the scripture tells us there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek in Christ, we cannot make distinctions between what messages are applicable to either group - we are one in Christ Jesus.

Ihedinobi:

Thank you so much, sis. You are a grand help.

My point exactly was that the cancelling of a contract did not necessarily eliminate the demand and the need that it secured. God's Demands were not satisfied by that Covenant nor was man's need. In fact, the whole purpose of the Covenant was to expose to man his need which it did. Man's need was the ability to please God which is the high point of his existence.

Once that Covenant had exposed that need there was no further need for it but the Demand remained and now man knew he had a need. The next Covenant would have to provide for God's Demand and man's now-recognized need.

Enter the Christ, the new Mediator of the New Covenant - the meeting point of both sides. Being both God and Man, He not only impartially represented the interests of both sides He fully satisfied each side's needs: He gave God the Man He demanded and He gave man the ability to be the Man He was made to be.

God never expected man to fulfill the law he gave man through Moses, rather, God gave man the law to make all man guilty before Him.
ROMANS 3:19
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Looking at sin from the eye of the law is like calling God a liar, by saying you can be righteous by your deeds and works.

debosky:

I cannot but agree with this - scripture explicitly tells us so.

I agree the scripture says everything written is vital to us, but we must understand what are correctional books,practical books, and books that educate us about the characteristics of God. Thus, we must know who is writing , to whom and why they are writing the way they are at any particular time.



The above is a dangerous teaching to say the least, as it seeks to create a distinction - not between Jews/Old Testament adherents and Christians, but between Christians.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Since the scripture tells us there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek in Christ, we cannot make distinctions between what messages are applicable to either group - we are one in Christ Jesus.[/quote]

You have just quoted the words of Apostle Paul, He wrote all these because the Jews felt God was still favoring them. They could not phantom what Paul was preaching. In the book of Galatians after much dispute, they agreed-

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

debosky:

I cannot but agree with this - scripture explicitly tells us so.

I agree the scripture says everything written is vital to us, but we must understand what are correctional books,practical books, and books that educate us about the characteristics of God. Thus, we must know who is writing , to whom and why they are writing the way they are at any particular time.

debosky: The above is a dangerous teaching to say the least, as it seeks to create a distinction - not between Jews/Old Testament adherents and Christians, but between Christians.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Romans 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

Since the scripture tells us there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek in Christ, we cannot make distinctions between what messages are applicable to either group - we are one in Christ Jesus.

You have just quoted the words of Apostle Paul, He wrote all these because the Jews felt God was still favoring them. They could not phantom what Paul was preaching. In the book of Galatians after much dispute, they agreed-

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

shdemidemi: I agree the scripture says everything written is vital to us, but we must understand what are correctional books,practical books, and books that educate us about the characteristics of God. Thus, we must know who is writing , to whom and why they are writing the way they are at any particular time.

What you've described above is understanding context. While understanding context is important, context does not necessarily determine applicability.

In this particular instance - any writing to Christians is wholly applicable to ALL Christians.

You have just quoted the words of Apostle Paul, He wrote all these because the Jews felt God was still favoring them. They could not phantom what Paul was preaching. In the book of Galatians after much dispute, they agreed-
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

The 'division of labour' between Paul and Peter was not a division of the Message - it is the same Gospel. Therefore epistles teaching about the gospel (written to Jews or Greeks) are applicable to ALL Christians.

debosky:

What you've described above is understanding context. While understanding context is important, context does not necessarily determine applicability.

In this particular instance - any writing to Christians is wholly applicable to ALL Christians.

The 'division of labour' between Paul and Peter was not a division of the Message - it is the same Gospel. Therefore epistles teaching about the gospel (written to Jews or Greeks) are applicable to ALL Christians.

Sure the gospel is different and the apostle made it clear every time -

Romans 2:16

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

1Tim1:11
1 Timothy 1:11

11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

Notice how he did not say our gospel nor our trust. I am sure you know there are other gospels, He said we would be judged by HIS gospel. We must therefore be careful in practicing other gospels.

shdemidemi:
Sure the gospel is different and the apostle made it clear every time -

Romans 2:16

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

1Tim1:11
1 Timothy 1:11

11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

Notice how he did not say our gospel nor our trust. I am sure you know there are other gospels, He said we would be judged by HIS gospel. We must therefore be careful in practicing other gospels.

You have misinterpreted what he said - there is only one gospel - that is THE glorious gospel of the blessed God.

Any other gospel is false - there is only one gospel for Christians.