Thread: Hebrews 10 and Abolishing the First Covenant
Admin
Hebrews 10 and Abolishing the First Covenant
Posted : 22 Jun, 2011 03:12 AM
Hebrews 10 and The Abolishing of the First Covenant
Hebrews 10: 1, and 9 say:
"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...Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second..."
He, Jesus Christ, takes away the first covenant, the Old Covenant, that he may establish the second covenant, the New Covenant.
In Hebrews 8: 6-7 it says "But 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. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second."
In the first covenant entry into the covenant was physical, by the DNA of Abraham, circumcision, which did not save, but was a mark of being in the covenant, was on the physical body of male Hebrews, and the temple was a physical building. But in the second covenant, entry was by faith, and those in Christ became the spiritual seed of Abraham (Galatians 3: 29), circumcision was done away with, and the temple building was replaced by the believers who became the temple of God (I Corinthians 3: 16-17, I Corinthians 6: 19).
But now the most popular false doctrine in the churches says that the old order of physical Israel, of that Paul in Romans 9: 8 says "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God" - the Old Covenant - was not completely done away with, but that the Jews still stand as God's chosen people. In order words, dispensationalists say that the old was not completely taken away as Hebrews 10: 9 says, but it remains for the Jews, while somehow the "church" is under the second covenant. But the Jews, in their first covenant, for dispensationalists, remain God's chosen people, or somehow the Jews were in their first covenant, but now are not, but will be again in the tribulation, or something like that, and they may accept Christ in mass in the end times. But the Jews who do convert are more likely to join the Messianic Judaism movement which mixes the Old and New Covenants.
This two-house theology of dispensationalism in its insistence that physical Israel remains as God's people mixes the first and second covenants and this hinges upon the interpretation of Romans 11: 26 that "Israel" there refers to the Jews, since dispenationalism says Israel in scripture must always be the Jews. Since the Jews rejected Christ as a group - though a Remnant did accept him - the idea that Jews remain a people of God in their rejection of Christ is of the spirit of anti-christ.
In taking over so many Christian denominations the dispensationalist "church" has come to represent broad way salvation. Matthew 7: 13-14 says "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat. Because straight is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
Its like dispensationalism has put millions of people who profess to be Christians on a huge freeway, and they are driving 90 headed, they think, for the Kingdom of God. And some who are now on that wide freeway will turn off and get on the narrow road to life - but most will not. The dispensationalist "church" is out there in the middle of the broad freeway, and those on it think they have found favor with God even in being on the broad way and thinking the first covenant is still in force for the Jews, and not knowing that God transformed physical Israel into Israel reborn in Christ, and entry into life is through him into Israel. The Remnant got off the broad freeway a few off-ramps back.
WERE THE OT SAINTS ALSO WAITING FOR THE ETERNAL HEAVENLY NEW JERUSALEM??
Romans 10:12: �For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile�the same Lord is Lord of all.� Galatians 3:28,29: �There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise!!� Read Ephesians 2:11-22!!
Hebrews 11:9,10,13-16: By faith he {Abraham} made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the City with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. {The Eternal New Jerusalem not an earthly Jerusalem built by man}:applause:
All these people were all living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised, they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had the opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country�a **HEAVENLY ONE**. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a City for them {The eternal Heavenly New Jerusalem!}:peace:
Hebrews 11:39-40: �These {OT Saints} were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us {NT saints} would they {OT saints} be made perfect!�{Receive New heavenly bodies and the Eternal, Heavenly New Jerusalem}
Galatians 3:29: If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.
Galatians 4:22-26: For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is **ABOVE** is free, and she is our mother!!�:peace:
The Old Covenant has not been completely done away with. It has as far as God is concerned it has, however as for man; many refuse to let go of it and those who try to live by the law will die by the law.
On a side note: The law has crept back into many Christian churches, for example to name a couple prominent: Catholics and The Seven Day Adventists have a type of hybrid new covenant combination between law and grace. (I'm not judging them as people, God will have to sort that out)
The way the CDFF system spaces out sentences vertically will result in this being very long:
I just noticed that prophetic774 is using the International Version.
The New International Version (NIV) used the Nestle-Aland Greek text which is based largely upon Greek texts associated with Alexandria, Egypt, the Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort Greek texts, which are from two Alexandarian texts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
A few authors, such as Maurice A. Robinson and Wilbur Pickering teach that the Byzantine type texts more accurately reflect the "autographs" or original texts than does the Nestle-Aland 27th edition text (NA27) that relies heavily on manuscripts of the Alexandrian type text. The Textus Receptus Greek text, from which the King James Version was translated in 1611, is a Byzantine type text.
The NIV tends to use the dynamic equivalence method of translation rather than the word for word system
used predominately for the King James. Sometimes the dynamic equivalence, or the meaning which the translator gets from the verse works, but often this method results in verse wordings that are slightly or very different than what the word for word Greek text says. And there are obvious problems in translations with the NIV, for example, in Proverbs 8:18 where "righteousness" in the KJV is replaced by "prosperity" in the NIV. Someone on the translation committee had an agenda. See:
for a long list of other NIV problem translations of Bible verses.
In addition, many verses in the King James Version are left out of the NIV and are also in the Textus Receptus
but left out of the Westcott-Hort Greek text. There are also numerous words which are in verses of the King James but left out or radically changed in the NIV. Here is just a part of an essay called "Gnosticism Reborn In The End Times" on New Testament verses quoted by Irenaeus in his book, Against Heresies, and about the problems of differences between the Textus Receptus (and King James) and the Alexandrian Greek texts.
the link is: http://www.christianmediaresearch.com/gnosticism.html
-- Bernard Pyron
�2006 CHRISTIAN MEDIA RESEARCH, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
I am reproducing only a small part of this essay. To list all the verses left out of the Westcott-Hort and the NIV and the verses that have very different wordings from the King James plus words left out of the NIV would take a small book.
"Colossians 1: 14 is one of those verses where an important word has been left out of the New International Version. It reads: "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
Lets look at the Westcott-Hort Greek text and see if blood is left out there too for Colossians 1: 14. Their Greek text says: "en w echomen ten apolutrosin the aphesin ton amartion."
The Textus Receptus, used for the King James, says: "en w echomen ten apolutrosin dia tou aimatos autou ten aphesin ton amartion." The Greek words "dia tou aimatos" are in the Textus Receptus but not in the Westcott-Hort Greek text. "dia tou aimatos" means "through his blood."
Luke 1:6 in the King James reads: "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."
Book Three, Chapter 10.1 of Against Heresies says: "Luke also, the follower and disciple of the apostles, referring to Zacharias and Elisabeth, from whom, according to promise, John was born, says: "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."
And again, speaking of Zacharias: "And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course, according to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense;"
Irenaeus here is also quoting Luke 1: 8-9 which reads in the King James "And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course, according to the custom of the priest's office his lot was to burn incense when he went the temple of the Lord." Irenaeus does not quote the last part of this sentence "when he went into the temple of the Lord."
In the King James, Galatians 4:4-5 has this wording: "But when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."
In Book Three, Chapter 16.3 of Against Heresies, Irenaeus says "And again, in his Epistle to the Galatians, he says: "But when the fulness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under
the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption;" plainly indicating one God, who did by the prophets make promise of the Son, and one Jesus Christ our Lord, who was of the
seed of David according to His birth from Mary; and that Jesus Christ was appointed the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, as being the first begotten in all the creation; the Son of God being made the Son Of man, that through Him we may receive the adoption,--humanity sustaining, and receiving, and embracing the Son of God."
Irenaeus leaves out "of sons" after adoption. In this paragraph, he is arguing from Scripture, as he does so often in Against Heresies, against the Gnostic confusion of the nature of the godhead, with their many Aeons etc. 5.
WESTCOTT-HORT VERSUS TEXTUS RECEPTUS ON THE DEITY OF CHRIST
If I quote all the verses in the Textus Receptus, Westcott-Hort text, the KJV, NIV, etc. that I've found on the deity of Christ where the Westcott-Hort differs from the Textus Receptus, it would go on and on. On the topic of the incarnation of Christ in human flesh, there are also verse wordings different in the two Greek texts, enough verse differences (eight or more) to suggest a possible Gnostic influence.
The Gnostics opposed the doctrine that Jesus Christ was fully God who took on human flesh in what they considered to be the evil material world. I am going to briefly go over some of the verse differences between the Westcott-Hort-NIV, etc wordings and Textus Receptus-King James Version wordings on the subject of the deity of Christ, as follows:
Matthew 16:20: "Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ." "Jesus" is left out of the Westcott-Hort Greek text and is also left out of the NIV. This seems to conform to the Gnostic view that there is a separation between Jesus in human flesh and the spiritual Christ.
Mark 1:1: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." "Son of God" is left out of the Westcott-Hort Greek text. It is in the NIV. The Gnostics did not accept the Biblical teaching that Jesus was fully God.
John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." While the Textus Receptus and King James have "only begotten Son," the
Westcott-Hort text says "only begotten God." The NIV does not translate "monogenes," or "only begotten," but instead says "God the One and Only." The new translations do not clearly say that Jesus is the Son of God, making him fully God. Some Gnostics, especially Arius, said Jesus was a created being.
John 4:42: "And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." "Christ" is left out of the
Westcott-Hort text and the new translations. Gnostics did not want to teach that Christ is the Saviour.
Acts 2: 30: "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne (II Samuel 7:12)." The Westcott-Hort text leaves out "to raise up Christ according to the flesh." The NIV says "that he would place one of his descendants on his throne," which is not saying that the descendant is Christ. Removing "according to the flesh to raise up Christ" fits the gnosic teaching that Christ was a purely spiritual being. To say that Jesus Christ was incarnated in human flesh as a descendant of David opposes Gnostic theology.
Halfback, when you write or copy and paste an article, all you have to do is make sure you have no spaces the start of a new paragraph.
Just start your new paragraphs without spacing between your first one and then when you submit, it will automatically do the spacing for you. Like this sentence of this new paragraph I satrted, but I didn't space between but hit enter to separate it from the same sentence of the first under it therefore, it came out as a separate paragraph.
