Is "NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY" Valid?

Another purely theological statement from one who purports to not issue theological statements... :thumbs:

Oh, and I would classify myself as a "biblicist." I find both God's sovereignty and the moral exercise of will in man in the Scriptures. At the end of the day, God's sovereignty will trump man's will -- it has to for God to truly be Almighty God -- but that does not set aside our own culpability and responsibility before God.

I'm not at all sure what you are saying about the SBC, but in the SBC each church is as fully autonomous as would be a congregation in the IFB group. No one dictates on high what any SBC congregation must believe, do, practice, etc., other than IF any individual congregation desires to cooperate with other congregations of like faith and practice (a common terminology in Baptist life) then they should at least be "of like faith and practice." That is very broadly defined, not very narrowly defined, and any cooperating congregation can, at will, ceede from the SBC if they like. All they have to do is stop contributing. Happens all the time -- and churches join all the time, Thomas Road Baptist Church (home of Liberty University) is one prime example of a congregation that decided to unite with the SBC after long standing as an independent congregation.

 

Nope... You've already seen, if only just here, that people get entrenched in their favorite doctrines and they refuse to take a new look with fresh eyes to see if that doctrine is correct or incorrect (or perhaps incomplete) according to a study of the whole counsel of God's Word.

That some see the theological (and scriptural) black holes caused by some of the pervasive doctrines that have been handed down over the centuries and are rather crafting a more biblical expression is proof that there is change afoot. But that change will come slowly into the churches, just like it did at around the turn of the century when Christian liberalism hit the scene -- something that we fight with on a daily basis now, with few that even realize they are in that camp, and when the dispensational doctrine hit the scene and slowly became the only acceptable way, replacing the earlier covenantal system in many a congregation.

Theology is always in flux -- the Scriptures are not, but as we exegete and understand better, chasing down the morphology of the text, comparing EVERY verb in the text, looking to formulate a more uniform doctrine -- change comes, but slowly.

 

Hello Bill, I see you have apparently been offended by certain things I have said, and I wish to make it clear that this is not the intention.

My responses are direct responses to what you have stated, and those following will be as well. Whether you choose to furhter discuss these issues is of course your choice, however, I will say that if you would rather I did not respond to you statements, you will of course have to stop making them.

I will respond to this reply, as well as any statement made in the threads I am involved in (which at this point is about 3 or 4 too many), and for this, I give no apology, only the general invitation to reply to my responses.

Concerning your statement here, I will just ask: if a man does not know the Law...is he then excused of guilt if he breaks it?

Sin is sin, offense against the righteousness of God is still...sin. Irregardless of whether a man is fluent in the written letter of Law.

The law can teach man, that is true, however, it was meant to be "our Teacher" until Christ Himself came, and bestowed upon man the opportunity to be taught of God.


Galatians 3:23-26

King James Version (KJV)

23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.


This evident truth is only made more understandable as we study that which the New Testament teaches concerning the New Covenant.

Continued...

 

It is not so much the law that is in view, it is the New Covenant that is in view.

You tell me I should spend time in Romans, the implication being that I have not as of yet done so, but I can assure, Romans will validate the fact that the Law has fulfilled its usefulness as a Covenant.

In turn, I would recommend a thorough examination of Hebrews, which will help tremendously in the discussion of the New Covenant and the Law. Perhaps that may clear up what may be a discussion of two different things.

Understanding the teaching of Perfection, or completion, will help to understand that in fact, Christ did fulfill the expectation of the Law.

In other words, the Lord came to help men keep the Covenant of Law.

There are so many passages that deny this that is unclear as to how such a belief could be reasonably held. Only by failure to look at scripture as a whole, as it is, can one possibly hope to promote such a position.

For instance, with this statment in mind, what exactly are we to make of the passage previously posted, as well as this:



2 Corinthians 3

King James Version (KJV)


11For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

13And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

14But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.


Rather than a "better way to keep the First Covenant," Paul says clearly here that it is abolished.

Many are the passages that affirm that the New Covenant has fulfilled the promise of God, not just concerning Israel, but all men.


Continued...

 

Meaning we must base our theology upon one verse?

Let me just say that I have never implied that God "changes."

That there has been a progressive revelation of knowledge, though, does not mean that one believes God has changed. What has changed is the information available to man concerning redemption, which is one of the primary doctrines we find in the whole counsel of God.

Not the first time, nor will it be the last, such an accusation is made toward me. However, accusations of ignorance are easy, examining the doctrine found in scripture difficult.

Since the premise of this statement is in error, and itself a false accusation that cannot be shown in my own words, I will overlook this.

Scripture itself would deny this. While I would agree that all Covenants work toward the same end, that is, man redeemded, we cannot ignore that there are Covenants that differ in ministry at different times in scripture.

The Covenant of Law is foremost in view when the New Covenant is discussed in Hebrews, not because it is the preeminent covenant, but because God sought to clarify in the understanding of believers that Christ did that which the Covenant of Law could not.

Denying that which scripture teaches concerning the Covenants does not fortify a position, but rather shows an unwillingness, or inability, to understand what is taught.

Would God have promised a "New" Covenant if there was not one that preceeded it that was...different?

Abraham did not have...the law.

Just as we distinguish in scripture the difference between the Covenants, we see also that scripture distinguishes between the general "law" of God, which is His will for man revealed, and THE LAW, which is repeatedly shown to be...the First Covenant, which is a different Covenant than the New.

Refusing to recognize that in scripture does not remove it from the word of God.


Continued...

 

And where exactly is this "Covenant of Salvation" spoken of in scripture?

As I said, I agree that all covenants work toward the same end, however, until the Cross of Christ men did not, and could not...

1-be forgiven in completion for there sins, because until the sacrifice of Christ
there was not an available means to bring this about.

2-receive the righteousness of Christ and stand in a positional standing of perfect, because it was necessary that Christ should die for man's sin.

3-understand the Old Testament revelation apart from the indwelling Spirit of God.

4-walk in God's statutes and ordinances apart from the indwelling Spirit of God.

Then explain prophecy.

While God does not change, His ministry according to revelation very much did.

Man was told of Christ in the Old, man received Christ in the New.

Where before Christ came do we see God being "made of a woman?"

Instead of using this as a platform to direct insult and avoid discussion, why not simply address the points raised, if one is so certain that they are correct?


Continued...

 

New Testament...bull?

Was it "bull" when God said:



Jeremiah 31:31

King James Version (KJV)

31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:


The argument that "new" merely means "renovated will not holdf up wen these covenants are examined.

God Himself says this, and there is no reason to discount that He would, and did, intend to make a New Covenant with divided Israel.

And, I might add, as we look at the New Testament, we can see that Christ is the fulfillment of that which God promised to do, though National Israel has to date yet to come under this New Covenant.

Just not so. God Himself gifts men that hey might speak of Him, to teach others about Himself.

According to your posts, you yourself say you are a teacher, does this mean you teach, but do not "explain God" to those you teach?

This is something you imply concerning my position, yet, it does not reflect my beliefs nor anything I have said.

If the posts were responded to with direct quotes, misunderstanding would be held to a minimum, as well as certain implications left unsaid.

And this statement alone tells me that perhaps you are right, there is no need to further discussion.

This is a denial of the clear internal verification of the New Testament that it is from God, that it gives us knowledge that was previously unknown to man, and that we are to obey it's teaching.

Can you tell me how man could "obey the Gospel" in the Old Testament? If they in fact had an understanding of this, would Chirst have needed to die?

But the law was weak through the flesh, and God found fault with them that sought to keep the law, and we are even told that Israel did not keep the Covenant.

But, I will not turn away from a conversation because someone disagrees with me.

Continued...

 

The New Covenant, absent in the "Jewish" life, leaves man with no sacrifice for sin which can take away sin. It is the fulfillment of that which was promised to man by God.

Hebrews 8

6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Could you expand on that?



John 16:13

King James Version (KJV)

13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.


While this might at first seem irrelevant, there is clearly a point in time foretold when Christ would leave and the Comforter would come.

In examining the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of men, we can see that we have been given a more reliable teacher than the Law.

Only if it is wished to be seen in that light:

And this verse in particular, if it is believed that God will not change, strengthens the belief that National Israel will, as prophecy states, receive the blessings and promises of God, even as He has said.


What I am saying that if one truly believes that God does not change, then they will believe that which God has promised will in fact occur as He said it will.

The point is, God cannot lie, therefore He has said "I will make a New Covenant" and He has in fact done that, in my view.

I agree: to say that God changes is. I do not appreciate this being ascribed to me, but, I am not one easily offended, so, say what you will.

Just try to recognize what I have said before being so loose with this charge.


Continued...

 

I agree. What we are in disagreement in is whether God changes both the way in which He deals with men (such as the Noahic Covenant clearly shows) and the revelation that He provides to them (as the New Testament clearly shows).

Your misunderstanding...is.

I hate it when an erronous premise leads to statements that derail the topic.

But, I am guilty of this at times as well, so, I will deal with it.

Thanks for the advice.

Continued...

 

But if you are teaching that is merely a commentary on the "real scriptures," it implies, as I said, a devaluation of the New Testament.

There is no "Jewish Bible," as all scripture is for the benefit of all Christians.

And when the Old Testament is placed in importance before the New, it is like, as Hebrews teaches...clinging to a picture of a person when the person themself is in the same room.

Judaism did not have Christ, they awaited Him. While we do recognize that those under the First Covenant were in relationship with God despite their failure to keep the Covenant, we also know that to revert to Judaism si severely warned against by God in Hebrews:


Hebrews 6

1Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3And this will we do, if God permit.

While this passage is distorted to mean believers can lose their salvation, I can assure you that what is meant here is to go on unto perfection, as it states, and not to lay the foundation which is found in...Judaism.

This is exactly how Christ is crucified again...through the picture which Judaism presented.

It is a rejection of the very One which the law was meant to lead us to.

As I said, a person can come to saving faith apart from the Old Testament, and this through the revelation of the New.

This is like saying that without the Model Tee, man cannot drive to work.

You are a little clearer here concerning your beliefs, and I appreciate it. It would have been better to state this earlier, and much time could have been saved.

The above statement only serves to affirm a difference is distinguished between the "Jewish" and "Christian" bibles.

No such distinguishing difference need be made, for any purpose.

All of scripture is for believers, whether they be Jewish or Gentile, there is only One Shepherd, and one fold...not two.



Ephesians 2:15-16
King James Version (KJV)

15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:


It is a dangerous thing, in my view, to suggest that there are two ways in which man may come to God.

All that seek to know God must come to obedience to the Gospel.



Continued...

 

Look, if one were clear in their "teaching" then one would not lead one to believe something they do not.

The vague statements of the post responded to led me to believe that you prefer the Old over the New, and calling it a "commentary," rather than the word of God helped.

Don't blame me...clearly state your beliefs. Do you view the New Testament as the very word of God given to man...or not?

Even now, that is unclear.

And...fights can be avoided with a little self control.

No words were put in anyone's mouth. You said:

When someone says "the bible is 39 books long," expect those that believe it to be 66 books long to take issue with it.

Concerning the "other" 27 books, you say:

It may seem one is being complimentary in this sort of speech, but I do not see it that way. The two statements together lead to a conclusion that one differentiates between the Two Testaments.

It would be good in the future to make your beliefs clear, and this is your opportunity here.

But in your effort to promote the Old Testament and the Law, you failed to make this clear.

A Christian is a Christian based upon his acceptance of the knowledge revealed in the New Testament, and we should always be...very clear about this.


Continued...

 

You may be right, but it would be a shame.

Your choice, though. I will, as I said at the beginning of this response, be inclined to respond to your posts, though.

No sir, Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Christian Faith, and one would be hard pressed to see Christianity in the Law, though we see that it was pictured in it.

And here, you say, The Bible is the Old Testament, which implies a belief that the New Testament...is not.

So do not get angry with me when statements such as these...slip.

The Old Testament?

If it did not forgive man his sin then...why would one think that it could do so today?

You may do that, and you might find the foundation of my house collapse.

However, you will not find the foundation of my faith to collapse.


Hebrews 3

1Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

2Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.

3For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

4For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

5And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;

6But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.


The Covenant of Law was not meant to be the end of God's will in the lives of men, but was temporary.

One can live in the house which Moses served in, or one can go on unto perfection, and dwell in the House which belongs to Christ.

One can move on to...those things which were to be spoken after.

Agreed, but as we are warned to be careful of how we build upon the foundation of our faith, we are not given two options for what foundation we will build upon:



1 Corinthians 3:11

King James Version (KJV)

11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

God bless.

 

Interesting but indefensible position unless you plan to hunt me down and beat me into submission.

Silly reply but you see, I am not ¨required¨ to respond to your responses any more than you are to mine.

I don´t know if you´re serious or what with this silly quetion but since our morals come as a result of our inate knowledge of God´s Law, of course not.

 

And, please, let this be the last time I must say this. No scripture can be understood without the light of all scripture shinning on it. This being true we must look at John 1:1-3. Jesus is Emanuel, God in the flesh of a man. Jesus created everything and He is the inspiration of the Old Testament.

 

lol...hey, I'm not the one talking about wrapping someone's house with C4...lol.

No, I simply meant, if you choose not to respond, okay. If you do, then I will of course reply (unless I am in my house when the C4 goes off...lol [thanks for that, too funny]).

If I am involved in a thread, such as this one, which is extremely interesting as I believe it to be an important issue, again, I will respond, whether directed to me or not, if I feel led to.

Okay.

Why is this not a serious question? This is actually a good point to discuss.

I would look at it as despite the fact that man has an internal knowledge of right and wrong...that in itself neither makes man be "good," or righteous, nor does it allow him to attain a standard of righteousness which would allow him to bypass judgment for his sin, which he will surely commit.

You do realize this thread concerns the New Covenant...right?

Nowhere have I implied that what has said will in any way change or become moot.

However, when we see that God's means for man to approach Him have indeed changed, by His own word, then we can, because of that very word, see that a change in ministry has come about.

First, the verse posted, which I guess is taken to say that the Covenant of Law and all that entails is still in force for believers today.



Matthew 5:18

King James Version (KJV)

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


Where does this say that men will, as required by the law...offer up sacrifice, and shed the blood of bulls and goats for the remission of sin?

It doesn't. God's word is clear that this is no longer acceptable, and in fact gives dire warning for those that would fail to go on unto perfection, and return to this system of atonement for sin.

I would ask this: when Christ uttered these words...what needed to be fulfilled?

That's pretty easy, there are a number of things needing to be fulfilled, but I will mention one: His death.

Now when we consider all that the Law foretold of Messiah, we see that they have, to a letter, been fulfilled. Would we think that the prophecy concerning Christ yet remains to be fulfilled? No. Are they fulfilled? Yes. Have these prophecies become moot? No, for they are still necessary for the one that binds himself under the law, and as the law was meant to show man his sin, his need for forgiveness, and to lead him to Christ...it still does that today.

But for the one who has left the shadow for the real, has gone on unto perfection, it is viewed as what it is: prophecy which told those that awaited Messiah that He was coming. We do not tell people Christ is coming, we tell them that He has come.

Over and over in the New Testament we see this same thing repeated, that Christ fulfills the Law (the Covenant), and establishes the New.

This is why I recommend to everyone I speak with...that they take time with the book of Hebrews. Most do not, don't ask me why.

It is my position that the scriptures, with the help of the Holy Spirit, is self interpretting and what you have published here violates what Jesus said of the Law. In Matt. 5:18 He affirms the words of the prophets and the Law as applying though the end of time.
[/QUOTE]

There is nothing here I would really disagree with, if it were not for the fact of how Matthew 5:18 is used.

Do we have anything left to be fulfilled according to the law? Much, if you ask me. A few of those would be:

1-the receiving of Israel of the New Covenant relationship with God through the work of Christ.

2-The promised Kingdom for Israel.

3-Israel's judgment ended, and her restoration.

This could be a long list, really, and every jot and tittle will be fulfilled in completion.

Okay, if that is the opinion held, I don't mind. But will there be an examination of scripture to back that up? Show me where my understanding is in error.

What Christ taught applies to all believers, and He did give men a better understanding of the intent of the law, which was meant to deal with the heart of man, not the outward appearance.

But we must include all that He taught, and He specifically taught that He would die for the sins of man. John attested to this, though showed his doubt in sending disciples to inquire if Jesus was the One they awaited.

I find it odd I am found in error, yet I cannot recall any particular discussion of anything yet. Nor why I am in error. It has been expressed that I am speaking to a teacher...teach. Is that not what teachers do?

Itself?

Is He not God?

 

Can we back up a bit to:

Which is why this verse was posted to begin with?

What is implied is that believers are dependant upon something other than Christ, Who is the One Who saves.

As I said, a man can with a New Testament alone come to a saving knowledge of Christ because it is the New Testament in which we meet Christ.

While the Old Testament is foundational, it is not the foundation of faith in Christ...Christ is.

Reliance on the Old Covenant and a mistaken belief that it should, contrary to what we read specifically in the New Testament, be considered a necessary part of the believer's relationship with God, is like unto this:

A man "orders" a mail-order bride, because he saw a picture of a woman who was seeking to leave her country through marriage, and he fell in love with her because of the picture.

Due to the complication of the necessary legal work and the arrangements surrounding her trip to his own country, the man must wait for quite a while. In fact, years. He ages during the process, days having turned to months, months to years.

But, because that picture created in him a love so strong...he waited.

Finally, the day arrives, all is coming to pass, as he has for so long waited. The man takes that picture to the airport, that he might recognize her, and sure enough, he spots her, rushes to meet her, and...to his dismay, she does not look exactly like the picture. This woman is older. She is not the lovely woman of the photo, but an average looking woman. He collects her luggage, loads her in the car, all the while, that picture in his hand. He looks wistfully at the picture, disappointed, and ignoring the woman, he talks to the picture. There must be some mistake, he tells the picture, this is not the woman I waited for so long to come. She has not the beauty I desired.


That is a picture of returning to the Levitical economy.

Israel, in a sense, was disappointed when Christ arrived. They wanted a shining knight, a King they could be proud of...not a lowly carpenter, not one that had no comeliness...not one that could die.

That's not how it was supposed to be, that's not it will be, they thought...when Messiah comes.


And so like the man, Israel chose to retain the picture, because Christ did not fulfill the picure they looked for.

And that is what the Covenant of Law was, we are told without doubting.

But now that He has come, the picture, the shadow, is obsolete. He fulfilled the Law.

The picture of forgiveness through the sacrifice of bulls and goats has been given over to the one sacrifice of Christ, thereby making those that offer up another sacrifice...despising that of Christ.

The Picture of the High Priest has been given over to the True High Priset.

The Covenant of Law, has been given over to the New Covenant.

That does not mean that God has changed, nor His righteousness, nor the righteousness which the Law teaches. But, how we approach God has changed.

As an afterthought, I will post the verse offered:



Matthew 5:18

King James Version (KJV)

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


...and just for consideration:



Hebrews 1:1-2

King James Version (KJV)

1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


From John the Baptist and working back through all of the Prophets, which of them understood that Christ would die for the sins of man? Even John, though he declared, "Behold the lamb of God," was found in doubt before his death.

Christ taught that He would send the Comforter, and He said:



John 14:16-18

King James Version (KJV)

16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.


We do not make an empty promise when we tell people that we have Christ in our hearts. That they can "invite Him into their own hearts," for that is what He does.

Okay, I will probably ramble on forever, so I will be quiet.


God bless.

 

Nor was my metaphor anything more than that, to illustrate my point. Okay, but there is still no requirements to respond.

It is silly because I make you for more than a Babe in Christ and this matter is basic foundation.

 

Which is probably a good thing, seeing no scriptural presentation is forthcoming in either correcting the suggestions I have presented concerning the New Covenant (not...NCT), nor a scriptural presentation showing why there is only "one Covenant," and we might ignore that which the New Testament reveals and teaches concerning Christ and the New Covenant.

That may be, I have never claimed to be more than I am.

It is interesting how this rebuke is phrased, though, for it instantly calls to mind one of my favorite passages:


Hebrews 5

12For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.


Another strong rebuke, this one from the Lord through the writer of Hebrews to his brethren.

Stating that for the time, they should be teachers, yet they are in need of being taught themselves of "first" principles of the oracles of God.

He cannot teach them about Christ, that is, that which has been revealed in the Person of Christ, pictured in the priesthood of Melchisadec, because they are like babes concerning that which the word of God taught them before He came.

Hebrews 6

1Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,


Therefore (based upon the previous statement), he urges them to leave the "principles," that is, the picture of Christ, and go on unto "perfection," the completion which Christ brought to the picture of Messiah given to Israel.

Do not lay again the foundation...embrace the fufillment.

Then he lists foundational doctrine of...Judaism. The Law.

We cannot lay again a foundation which was meant to picture that, and Who, was coming, which is Christ.

Not at all. "Bull," I think, was the previous term.

This is why I seek to discuss this.

It cannot be denied that God promised to bless all mankind through the "seed" of Abraham.

That is Christ.

It cannot be denied that God would "change the law:"



Hebrews 7:11-12

King James Version (KJV)

11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.


The writer has urged his brethren to "go on unto perfection," leaving the "first" principles found in the law, and here we see that there was indeed a need for "another priest to arise," Who is Christ.

Because of the very fact that the picture of Christ in the law, the Levitical Priesthood, could not, as the law, make "the comers thereunto perfect," the need for another Priest was needed. This was known to God before the law was given to Israel.

Because the Levitical Priesthood was changed, this in fact, as we read here, means that the Law was changed.

Our writer, throughout the book, shows this, over and over, turning the eyes of his brethren from the law, which could not perfect, could not completely forgive and take away sins, and seeks to turn their eyes upon Jesus.

With a passion.

But only because this is what scripture teaches...that is indisputable.

We are not talking about man receiving the grace of God, rather than judgment, we are talking about the bringing in of a better hope, a better Priest, which the law could only in shadow foretell.


Acts 13

38Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

39And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

40Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;

41Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.


(note-underlining and emboldening mine, for emphasis of statement only...please do not misinterpret this as emotional on my part)


That Christ is foretold in the law goes without saying. As I have tried to express before, it is an integral part of the flow of God's redemptive work in the lives of men.

The contrast between the First Covenant and the New is not to set them at odds against each other, but that while they compliment each other as a diagram does to a completed construction project, we do not live in the diagram (the shadow of law), but in the completed dwelling, the House of Christ.

First, my beliefs demand that I view God as the One Who approaches man, not that man can approach God. He initiates our relationship with Him through use of His word, which man would not have except He give it them.

The Just have always lived by faith, but until they have Someone to express faith in, their relationship with God is limited. When the Gentiles do by nature the things found in the law, they will still be judged according to the law.

But when Christ came, God spoke to man through Christ...not the law.




Hebrews 1

King James Version (KJV)

1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:


It is God that approaches man, not the other way around. It is God that speaks to man, not the other way around.

And in these last days He has spoken unto us by His Son.

Who, by Himself, purged our sins. It was not the Law upon the tree that brings remission, but the blood of Christ...alone.

Something has changed:



Hebrews 11:39-40

King James Version (KJV)

39And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

"All of the prophets, and Moses,"...did not receive the promise.


"All of the prophets, and Moses,"...were not made perfect, as we are through the work of Christ, Who fulfilled the law, that it might be said...



Hebrews 7

King James Version (KJV)


18For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

20And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

21(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec

22By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

And that is okay.

I merely seek to discuss this issue, and would do so without animosity. It is crucial in our efforts to teach that we clearly distinguish between the ministries of God in the lives of men.

The First Covenant could not bring man to completion, as it was weak only because of those that sought to fulfill it. For this very reason God took on the flesh of man, doing that which none other could do, which is to reconcile man to God with a positional standing of completion concerning remission of sins.

God bless.