Add/remove tags to this thread

Topic: 11) Foundation

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Status: Offline
Posts: 939

11) Foundation


David Hill (29 Sep 2003) "The Theocratic Covenant (13)"

Being a critique of George Peters' Book The Theocratic Kingdom

F O U N D A T I O N :

In his work Mr. Peters states that the New Covenant is nothing more than the renewed Abrahamic Covenant which the Church currently lives under (which, apparently, is a prominent view in many Premillennial circles and may be, perhaps, an attempt to bolster their belief that the Church is the "Other Nation"). I will address this belief below but would start by asking; since the Abrahamic Covenant is an unconditional covenant (Vol 1 pg 176 and see also Chafer's excellent discussion on this point in his Systematic Theology), of what need is there for it to be renewed? This was never addressed by the author, and is really where he should have started that particular proposition.

His whole argument actually hinges upon his treatment of the word New as it appears in Jer 31 and in the passages in the New Testament. He correctly points out (Vol 1 pg 323) that the word often means renewed (new creature, new heavens and earth, new moon etc) and then he goes on to say, "As the phrase 'New Covenant' only appears once in the Old Test. and but a few times in the New, the general analogy of Scripture must be allowed to determine the sense in which it is used." Thus, the renewed Abrahamic Covenant, instead of a totally New Covenant. However, this violates the first rule of Hermeneutics and that is how it is used in the immediate context (which is why he made the above statement - and note his admission of the same; when speaking of the regeneration he says, "so that, let the word be applicable to both (and thus employed), yet the meaning that Jesus attached to it must be sought in the general complexion of the passage." Vol 2 pg 476).

In the "general complexion" of the passage, the Lord is contrasting the nature of the Old Cov. with that of the New. The former was carved on stone and the latter will be on their hearts. Here, it is obvious that we have an entirely New Covenant. This is emphasized by the author's application of "The Letter" (2 Cor 3:6) to the Abrahamic Covenant though, in context, it is obviously referring to the Mosaic Covenant, and thus he inadvertently shows the similarity in the nature of the Ab. and Mos. covenants as opposed to that of the New (Vol 1 pg 332 and note a similar mix up in obs 3 note point (e)).

This is revealed further by the animal sacrifices that ratified both the Ab. and Mos. Covenants (Gen 15:9 and Ex 24:8), while the New is confirmed by the sacrifice of the Eternal Son (Is 53, Heb 10 etc). Along these lines he says that the Mosaic Covenant made no provision for the inheritance because it "provided no resurrecting power" (Vol 1 pg 322), but this is circular reasoning in that he is implying that the Abrahamic did provide this resurrection power because he believes the New is the Ab. Cov. renewed. However, there is no provision for the resurrection in the Ab. Cov. directly, only in type, which type (sacrifice of Isaac) is no stronger than the type of the smiting of the rock (or the serpent on the pole) accomplished by Moses, or even Moses' mysterious burial etc. Y'shua's statement "before Abraham was I AM" proves this point, as the Archetype of both those types.

"Those who advocate that an entire new covenant was given and confirmed by the death of Jesus differ very much as to the nature and meaning of this alleged covenant. A variety of explanations are tendered, but all these, so far as noticed, with but few exceptions, attempt no Scriptural proof. We are simply to receive assertion, without having the New Covenant itself pointed out and its language quoted. If Jesus gave such a covenant, as alleged, it ought, in the very nature of the case (like preceding ones) to be plainly stated; for a covenant is of so special a character that it cannot be taken for granted, or be simply inferred. Now not a single writer of this class has attempted to produce the covenant itself." (Vol 1 pg 326)

I would first point out that the author, and, apparently everyone else, has taken for granted the fact that Y'shua is one with Y'hava and that the New Covenant contained in Jer 30-33 was first spoken by Him. They also "simply inferred" that the New Covenant was the renewed Abrahamic with no supporting "Scriptural proof." Now, the reason no author from "this class" (Covenant/Replacement Theology) produced the New Covenant, is because they consider the Old Test. void, and for similar reasons, no writer from his class (Premillennial) has produced the New Cov. because, apparently, they feel that the Mosaic Covenant is "inferior" and voided and, therefore, the New is simply the renewed Abrahamic Covenant. They are driven to this position because the New Covenant passage in Jeremiah includes the sacrifices of the restored Priesthood (33:18) which they cannot accept, Theologically. This is also why the former do not understand the nature of the New Covenant any more than the latter.

Y'shua did not quote the "alleged" New Covenant simply because it was so well known (and expected) that the mere mention of it was understood by the Apostles, as he says referring to the covenants in general (Vol 1 prop 19, 22, 40, 44 etc). I will "point out" that the New Covenant as "alleged" by Y'shua is contained in Jer 30-33 and in listing its blessings and provisions I will "quote" its language.

"Behold, the days come when I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah" (31:31) and right here we see (hind sight being 20/20) a second offering of the New Covenant to Judah and there can only be one New Covenant (this statement was made after I critiqued Mr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum's Theology who basically stated that the Jews will receive a different New Covenant then that accepted by the Gentiles thus building up the wall again - I mailed him a copy of my book "Israel and the Church on the Road to the Kingdom" circa 1996 and he subsequently changed his tune in one of his monthly letters without extending to myself the courtesy of a reply), because Y'shua can not be offered a second time, after Ephraim/Israel and the Gentiles received it during the Church Age (and this, to provoke Judah through jealousy to repentance - Dt 32:21 and Rom 10:19).

"I will put my Law in their hearts" and this is proof positive that this is not the renewed Abrahamic Covenant for there was no provision for this in any of the first three covenants, but only in this, the New Covenant. That this is correct is confirmed by Paul in Rom 2:14-15 where the engrafted Gentiles fulfill the Law because of "The Law written in their hearts." Thus, at least Paul understood Y'shua's reference to the New Covenant as stated in Jeremiah. This alone is conclusive for he was specifically commissioned to carry this New Covenant to the Gentiles (though paired up with Barnabas and John Mark).

This fact is the strongest proof that Christianity is not separate from Biblical Judaism (it actually destroys all replacement and spiritualized theological systems) and against the belief that it was Paul and not Y'shua who founded the Church as some 'theologians' say (Vol 1 pg 429, 435), or that Paul discarded the belief that Y'shua would one day sit on the Davidic Throne over the restored Theocratic Kingdom (Vol 1 pg 437) for this very Kingdom is also confirmed by the same oath that ratified this New Covenant. Peters' rebuttal of these errors was hampered by his own erroneous views of this New Covenant. Had he understood this, he could have properly and conclusively refuted these Heretics (per Justin) who teach a progressive growth in Church Doctrine between Petrine, Johanine and Pauline (Vol 1 pg 510), the last of which, supposedly, exorcised "Jewish Fables" from our Theology (the ancient Premillennial faith of the believing nation, of John, Simeon, Annah, Y'shua, the Apostles, the Seventy, the disciples and the early Church - universally and uncontestedly - for the first three centuries of the same, as the author proves in Vol 1).

This view also helps to combat the belief that the Church is the Kingdom (Vol 1 pg 583) that replaces the Israelite Kingdom, for, the restoration of the Davidic Throne and the Levitical Priesthood is also confirmed by this same oath. And even that the Kingdom is "in your heart" (Vol 1 pg 586) or that the Apostles had a carnal/incorrect view of the Kingdom (Vol 1 pg 598) for, the Church has received no more blessings than are specifically stated in this Legal Document confirmed by the Solemn Oath of the Eternal Creator, predicted to be given to Israel and not, per sae, to the Gentiles. It is only because of their fall (Rom 11) that it was extended as "a light" to the Gentiles (Is 42:6, 49:6). The view that Israel, as a nation, has been entirely cast off and will not receive any of the blessings or promises (Vol 1 pg 588) is also sharply rebuked when we understand that the New Covenant as given in Jer 31 specifically to this Nation and specifically when this Southern Nation of Judah receives it (Rom 11 etc).

Even the view that the Church is supposed to usher in the Kingdom or to "Christianize the present world" (Vol 1 pg 589) is condemned as untrue by this understanding for the rebellious nations that persecute this nation the Lord will "make a full end of" while He preserves Judah and Ephraim. Many more errors then I present here (that the Church is just a continuation of the Jewish Synagogue - Vol 1 pg 604, or that Y'shua failed in his plans - Vol 1 pg 623) are assuredly swept away when we realize that Y'shua Bar Y'hava has always planned on giving the New Covenant to Ephraim, the Gentiles and Judah in their proper order and in His own time in preparation for the Theocratic Kingdom - the presence of God - to be re-established on this earth as it was before the Fall (Ps 68:18) As I live says Y'hava the whole earth will be full of the Glory of the Lord.

"They shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me" is also expounded by Paul in reference to the Gentile Church in 1 Cor 13 (see also 1 John 2:27, 2 Pet 1:2, John 10:14-17 - this last is assuredly a reference of our Lord to Jer 31).

"I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more" is, again, not provided by any other covenant as it is by the New, for Barnabas (please see my recent post "The Son of Consolation" in which I prove that Barnabas is the author or Hebrews) tells us that the "blood of bulls and goats" could not take away sin, and, though Abraham was made righteous by his faith, it would have been impossible without the atoning and propitiating sacrifice (both aspects seen in Is 53) of the Theocratic Covenant (note especially Heb 1 and 7) which Barnabas implies when he says that Levi (Mosaic Covenant) paid tithes in Abraham (Abrahamic Covenant) to this High Priest of the New Covenant, which he "quotes" (Heb 8:9) specifically making Jer 31 the New Covenant. Thus, the second Apostle commissioned to the Gentiles bearing this New Covenant, directly affirms its location in the Biblical record of God's Holy Oath-Bound Eternal Word, in Jer 31 - By two or three witnesses let a matter be established.

Further, it should be stated that, the omission, ultimately, by the Holy Spirit, of any reference directly by the other Apostles (who were strictly commissioned to "the circumcision") is certainly not proof that it is the renewed Abrahamic Covenant, but is itself a very solemn testimony to the fact that the Nation, as such, refused the first offer to them of this same New Covenant in the person of Y'shua himself. And this, strikingly so, emphasizes his words that if you put new wine in old skins they would burst and both be lost. The nation did not repent, and was subsequently burst open by the New Wine that was poured out into the nation at Pentecost, and the Spirit then worked, predominantly, among Ephraim and the Gentiles as it is to this day. It is lack of comprehending this that caused him (Vol 2 pg 51) to answer, unsatisfactorily, the question as to the lack of "The subject of the restoration" of Israel, directly, in the N.T. writers. The simple fact is that, to preach the restoration then, at the time of the reception of the New Covenant by the Gentiles, would have been inconsistent and unnecessary. And, in fact, this also explains why the other Apostles did not mention the New Covenant in Jeremiah per sae, because of the conditions contained therein of this restoration, when Judah, as a nation, receives the New Covenant. Thus, reference is made to it incidentally as something still future, not as something in effect now.

Thus, in accordance with the other covenants, this one was stated to be "forever" (and "everlasting") and was confirmed by the Solemn Oath of God Himself (Jer 31:35-37, 33:20-26). And if you look carefully through this covenant you will see that the Church has received no more and no less then the promises contained therein. This is the covenant that the Church is living under today. And it is this covenant, through "the death of the testator" that frees the Church from the curses of the Mosaic Covenant (where applicable - see his comments on this death and the curse Vol 1 pg 368).

I might add that Barnabas, who was himself a Priest and knew of what he spoke, stated that Ps 110 and the Melchizedek Priesthood was part of this New Covenant (Eternal and confirmed by oath - vs 4 and which he possibly calls "The Covenant of the Lord" Vol 1 pg 601), that provides us with an Eternal Intercessor, which also is not provided under any of the other three covenants. This, alone, is conclusive. Thus, "no beginning or end" is a perfect description of Y'shua, the Son of Man, as the Melchizedek High Priest existing before David, Moses and Abraham in time and superiority.

This New Covenant was intimated in Dt 30:6 as "God will circumcise thine heart" and at once shows the difference between the Ab. Cov. (which originated this sign of circumcision) and the Mos. Cov. (which continued the sign) from that of the New Covenant which will be a spiritual circumcision not done by the hands of men, but of God (Col 2:11, see also Rom 2 which links this with the New Cov. passage again). Thus, his entire line of reasoning (Vol 1 pg 320), that the renewal of the Ab. Cov., "under which renewal we now live" is forcefully refuted by one "minor" technicality.

The Church, correctly, argues (including the author) that since we are not commanded to fulfill any of the Mosaic Rituals, that we, as a Church, are not subject to the Mosaic Covenant (this rule was originally given in Acts 15 and expanded by Paul in his epistles). I might state, then, that since I am not commanded to be circumcised (Gal 3-5 which the author makes much of to show that the Mos. Cov. has been dis-annulled), and since this commandment was originally given as a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 17), therefore I am not subject to the Abrahamic Covenant. This is irrefutable for, if we live under the Ab. Cov. which was confirmed by the Solemn Oath of God, then the Church would be subject to this divine and emphatic commandment. For proof of this read Ex 4:24-26 which occurred before the giving of the Mosaic Covenant (where Moses was almost slain by the Angel for failure to circumcise his son).

"Those who admit the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in the distant future, but deny that we live under it now (making a new covenant existing), thus ignore its not having been annulled, that our adoption as children of Abraham hinges on it, that Christ's death confirms its validity to us, and that all our blessings flow from it. The dislocation offered by them is unnatural and destroys the unity." (Vol 1 pg 330)

I would make the same (last) statement concerning his view and for various reasons. In reference to Y'shua not annulling the Ab. Cov.; the same requirements he sets forth for establishing the New Covenant are lacking in his presentation of a renewed Ab. Covenant.

Why didn't Y'shua come right out and say, "This is the blood of the renewed Abrahamic Covenant?" Why didn't he quote from the same in the upper room that night?

He proves, from the Scriptures, that the promises of the Ab. Cov. were to "The Seed" Christ. Thus, his view is erroneous and "unnatural" in one particular. We do not receive the New Covenant and its blessings by becoming children of Abraham through adoption; we become the children of Abraham through adoption by receiving the blessings of the New Covenant. There remains a major difference between the two. We become "brothers and fellow heirs" with Y'shua by adoption (Eph 1:5) upon receiving the New Covenant, and in so doing, because Y'shua is now our brother and is a child of Abraham, we also now, in this relation to Y'shua, are children of Abraham.

To further emphasis this; I feel that I could successfully argue the point (though I don't feel it is needed) in God's Supreme Court of Law itself; with the Old and New Covenants as my Legal Authority; that since I am saved through Y'shua and am now his brother, I could claim, on these grounds alone, not only adoption into the tribe of Judah, from which our Lord, the Messiah, sprang, but into the very Royal Lineage of David and Solomon. Thus, the Church is "A Royal Priesthood."

"The chosen are never called the children of Christ, but his brethren, co-heirs, etc." (Vol 1 pg 329)

Here the author is trying to show that we receive not a New Covenant, but "the promises given to Abraham." However, this is begging the question for Y'shua Messiah will be called "The Everlasting Father" (Is 9:6) and that God the Father would "see his seed" (Is 53:10) and Paul calls him the second Adam or father of the Human race (Rom 5:14), and He Himself calls the saved his sons (Rev 21:7). Thus, this solely emphasizes the the elect lineage of Y'shua of necessity, and not the Abrahamic Covenant. In fact, it is because of Y'shua (symbolized in John 12:24) that Abraham's seed is going to be so populous (Gen 22:17), not the other way around.

The author makes much of becoming the seed of Abraham, and rightfully so, and also mentions that we must become grafted into "the commonwealth of Israel" not understanding that it was the Mosaic Covenant that formed Abraham's seed into that commonwealth that was "brought near" at Mt. Sinai (on Pentecost when the Church was also brought near under this Mosaic ritual in Acts 2 showing the intimate connection between Biblical Judaism and Biblical Christianity). Thus, by his own reasoning, the Mos. Cov. is also in effect, and the New is just the renewing of the Old. The fact is, that "The Old Covenant" as refereed to by the New Testament writers is referring to all three previous covenants. He himself says that the Ab. and Dav. covenants are "really one covenant" (Vol 1 pg 337), and thus the Mosaic is included in that as the link between the two, which is confirmed by the author himself when he states (Vol 1 pg 230, 232) that provision for these future adopted children of Abraham into the commonwealth of covenanted promises was first made via the Mosaic Covenant and not the Ab. Cov. showing the latter's dependency on the former as the next link in the chain to the Dav. covenant.

Thus, if you state that the Mos. Cov. has been annulled, you sever the connection of the New Covenant back to the Covenant source (as far as the Gentiles are concerned). This, itself can be seen in that, originally, for Abraham to be a blessing "to the nations" it did not necessarily provide for adoption into the Israelite bloodline. The real source for this engrafting, from our perspective, is found in Num 14:21, because these glorified Gentile Saints will be Y'shua's Ambassadors in their respective nations during the Millennium, because the unbelievers in the Israelite nation (taking this Glory for granted) refused to go up into the promised land where God's Glory would (and will) reside permanently. Ephraim should seriously ponder how this type might be repeated in the life of this nation today.

"By the death of the seed provision is made so that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith - i.e. the promise contained in the Abrahamic covenant." (Vol 1 pg 321)

Here I must emphatically protest his statement that the promise of the Spirit comes to us through the Ab. Cov. (providing no scriptural proof, only shear inference and a bad one at that), which covenant contains no such promise. Paul (Gal 3:16) qualifies his reference to Abraham as "To Abraham and to his seed" were the promises made, which seed he specifies is Y'shua. Further, there remains the obvious point (in context) that the inheritance of vs 18 is "the blessing of Abraham" in reference to the promised land (Gen 12 etc), and not "The promise of the Spirit" which is more likely drawn from Jer 31 (note this connection by Barnabas in Heb 10:15-16). This promise of the Spirit (Lk 24:49, Acts 1:4, 2:33, Eph 1:13, 1 Thes 4:8) is stated to be from the Father and Peter (Acts 2:34) links it to Y'shua's ascension which is a specific reference to Ps 68 and the New Covenant (and certainly not to the Ab.). The fact that this phrase is not repeated anywhere in the Old Testament directly led Peter to search for it in type (A Gift) and this is the reference he gave to this promise while filled with that same freshly poured Spirit. The point is that the first recorded promise of the Spirit was given by Y'shua himself (Vol 3 pg 65 noting Peter's words in Acts 11:15-17), and the prediction of John (Mt 3:11) is a reference to that of Joel (2:28) stated for the time when Judah receives the New Covenant at the end of the Age. This separate, though "earnest" of the future pouring out of the Spirit needed to be specifically stated by the Lord to authorize the preaching of the New Covenant to the Gentiles while the Kingdom was postponed.

And just here is where the "provocation" lies. Not that the Gentiles also received the Abrahamic Covenant (for any "stranger" could, by applying for membership in the nation), which was already received by the Jews, but that the Gentiles received the promised New Covenant with the indwelling Holy Spirit before the nation of Judah received it (Rom 11:11).

I feel compelled to illustrate this provocation by relating a story I heard while in Jerusalem from a lady who ran a Christian Bookstore there. One day a Rabbi got into a discussion with one of the workers and he became indignant and turned around and stormed out. But at the door he turned and said to her, "We know you Christians have more light than we do, but please leave us the little light that we do have" and then he left. This Rabbi was provoked by this girl because she had received the New Covenant and had the Holy Spirit indwelling her. If the New Covenant is simply the renewed Abrahamic Covenant, then the Church would have no more light then does Israel and there would, therefore, be no provocation.

This can further be emphasized by the loss of the New Covenant privileges in the Nation of Ephraim at their rejection as Priests at the start of the tribulation; for then will be the "famine for hearing the Word of the Lord" (Am 8:11) and "to whom shall He teach knowledge" (Is 28:9) and the people "destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hos 4:6) and "the prophet is a fool and the spiritual man is mad" (Hos 9:7) and "The sun will go down over the prophets" (Mic 3:6) and then they will know the loss of light that Judah has experienced for all these years. And this includes those Gentile nations that have had the blessings of the Church in their countries as well. Then, only the 144,000 will be lights in their worlds.

Thus, as a Father gives gifts to his children, and because we have been adopted as brethren of Y'shua by faith (Gal 3:14), God gave us (his children) "The promise of the Spirit." Thus, this promise comes to us through the Seed Y'shua and the New Covenant and not through the Abrahamic, Mosaic or Davidic Covenants.

You can not have the Abrahamic Covenant "in complete force" (Vol 1 pg 320) and yet "It has never yet been so realized as to meet the natural wisdom of man." (Vol 1 pg 335). It either is, or it is not, in operation. If so, than why are we, the Church, not currently living in the promised land? Isn't this a sign of rebellion as it was for the Israelites? The only logical answer is that the Ab. Cov., like the Dav. and the Mos., is held "in abeyance" until the Second Advent. I might add, that as long as the nation, as such, is dispersed from the land, and not fulfilling any of the oath-bound covenants, then the Church as such, engrafted into the commonwealth, can not and will not fulfill any of these covenants either. Only the New has been (currently) given to the Church, and the others only by way of a promise (earnest) of future inheritance, as he points out in numerous places.

The author even goes so far as to say (Vol 1 pg 328) that these covenants will be fulfilled as a result of the incarnation, thus implying via the New Covenant, which, could also be called the Melchizedec Covenant - "A Body have you prepared for me." And all of these covenants are received through faith (Vol 1 pg 334) and not solely the Abrahamic (Heb 11 proves this). Thus, it is a specific new covenant that will fulfill all the covenant promises through the Seed to whom all the covenant promises are given and to whom they all belong and to whom he may graciously bestow them to by faith in his blood, being "slain from the creation of the world" as the Sacrifice of the true "Everlasting Covenant" (Jer 32:40, Heb 13:20 - The New and not the Abrahamic as he states in Vol 1 pg 323), based on the Eternal Nature of the Testator.

This is forcefully proven by the author's own words (Vol 2 pg 375) where he says, "The inheriting of a 'Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world' again favors our position. For, if it refers to a Kingdom designed for them in the beginning, it must correspond with the covenant and the promises based thereon." Now, there is only one such covenant that was ratified "from the foundation of the World" and that is the New Covenant specifically stated by John (Rev 13:8 see also Mt 13:35, 25:34, Lk 11:50, Heb 1:10, 4:3, 9:26, Rev 17:8) which is further emphasized by the fact that this sacrifice - God's Son - existed before said foundation of the World (John 17:24, Eph 1:4, 1 Pet 1:20), and we were in him then, not because of the Ab. Cov. but the New. For, though the Covenant with Abraham was made with the Eternal I AM, the sacrifice that ratified it was not eternal. Only of the New Covenant can it be said, that it procures for us, forever, the forgiveness (Atonement) of sins (please see my posts on "Theoferrum Crucibulum") and Eternal life and enjoyment of the personal presence of the Creator as our Abba, forever.

That is the difference in the natures of the two covenants.

In fact, in light of all that has been presented, it is obvious that the New Covenant is the Theocratic Covenant and all others stem from it, for it was confirmed from the foundation of the world, and all the subsequent covenants only procured the promises that Y'shua had already been given. Take the offering of Isaac by Abraham, which had already been done (from God's perspective) by Himself in His own Son ("Abraham rejoiced to see my day"); take Moses being hidden in the Cleft of the Rock ("and that Rock was Christ"); and David building God a House that was already built by Y'shua ("as a son over the House"); and we see that, contrary to Peters' (and others') opinion, it is the New Covenant that is the foundation on which all the other Covenants are built (including, by the way, the one with Noah - Gen 9:9, and Phinehas - Num 25:11 and all other Covenants that are recorded in the Word, which can not be claimed by the Ab. or Mos. or Davidic, and yet they must be included in the Covenant Chain). This is typified by the City of the New Jerusalem (Rev 21) for, although the twelve tribes are seen in the gates ("salvation is of the Jews") implying the permanence of the Ab. and Mos. covenants, the foundation of the city is in the Apostles of the New Covenant.

The significance of choosing Jeremiah, just before the pouring out of God's wrath via the Babylonians (not just on Israel mind you, but on the entire known world), to confirm Moses' words of a coming New Covenant (Dt 30:6 etc), so as to give the exiles hope and to prepare the way for the first offer of the New Covenant to Judah by Y'shua is clearly seen in this passage of Moses who connects it to a time of exile, after blessings and curses had been experienced by the nation, which includes (Lev 26) the destruction of the City and nation and subsequent exile. It is significant that it was Jeremiah (like Moses both a prophet and priest) who first penned down a specific record of this covenant. Of passing interest is that his name means "Yah will rise" and is not this a veiled reference to the death and resurrection of the Seed that ratified this New Covenant and ensure our own resurrection at his hands?

He talks of the Olive Tree (11:16) which is assuredly where Paul (Rom 11) drew his conclusions from of the grafted Gentiles in the place of the branches "cut off" in judgment. He also refers to the Indwelling Spirit as God's Word like a Fire (1:9, 5:14, 9:23, 11:19, 20:9, 23:9) as it appeared on Pentecost (Acts 2). The foreknowledge of God in Paul's great passage (8:29) including sanctification and predestination find their foundation in Jeremiah (1:5).

As Moses was the "Father" to Israel at its founding, and Elijah the "Mother" that nursed the nation into revival, Jeremiah thus becomes the "Male Child" of Israel (1:6), who experiences the judgment on the nation, and, as such, is a type of Y'shua at the first offering of the N.C., and of the Male Child of Rev 12, who offers the N.C. to Judah the second time.

Thus it is that Jeremiah was (like the Church) sent to the nations (1:10, 1:5, 1:7 and chapters 46-51) to warn them to repent because of coming judgment. The reception of the N.C. by Israel is linked to God's judgment as "The Time of Jacob's Trouble" (Chap 30 in the New Covenant Passage) or Birthpains (13:21, Rev 12), and is connected to this same time when the captivity shall return and the Davidic Throne be restored (chapters 31-33 and note also 23:5), at a time when the woman flees to the wilderness (Rev 12 compare with Jer 9) and the land itself is restored (contrasting the clay pot of chapter 19 with the earthen vessel of chap 32 see also Ez 36-37).

The judgment itself is described as Wormwood (9:15, 23:15 and Rev 8:11), a Whirlwind in the latter days (23:19 and Rev 6:13), Four Sore Judgments (15:1-4 repeated several times, compare Rev 6, Ez 14:21), the Swelling of the Jordan at Armageddon itself (12:5 and see my post the Seven Thunders), as a Cup of Wine (25:12-18 compare Rev 18:3), the Seven Thunders (10:11-13 and Rev 10), the earth trembling at the Wrath of the Lamb (10:10 and Rev 6:15-17) and the Signs and Wonders thereof (10:2, Mt 24:30, Rev 12:1, 15:1).

It is also significant, as a symbol to provoke them to repentance at the first offer of the New Covenant, that Y'shua compares the nation to an old garment and wine skins, both of which are drawn directly from Jeremiah (13:1-17, Mt 9:16-17). And thus, Y'shua himself locates the New Wine of the New Covenant in the Book of Jeremiah, and the second offer of the same will occur during the seven year tribulation, when conditions are basically, the same as they were in the world and nation in Jeremiah's day and then again in Y'shua's day.

And; if the writing of the Ten Commandments on Stone resulted in the establishment of the Theocratic Kingdom the first time and the utter overthrow of the Egyptian World System then; and the carving of the Law on the Hearts of the Gentiles completely turned the Roman World System upside down; and when the Theocratic King, aided by 6,000 years worth of all the Saints decides that the time has come to engrave the Law on the heart of His people; what do you think that we can rightfully expect as an outcome to His "Labor of Love?"

Read Zechariah 12:8 and Ezekiel 37, for starters.

C O N C L U S I O N :

"This covenant will pour a flood of light on many precious promises linked with it. Language, otherwise dark, becomes easy of comprehension; dispensational procedures, otherwise dim and unaccountable, become precise and significant in their meaning; the preaching of John, Jesus, disciples, and Apostles, instead of being contradictory or accommodating to error, is found consistent. It explains much that enables us the more clearly to perceive and appreciate a regular divine plan in preparing for and ultimately establishing the Theocratic Kingdom under Messiah. It tells us, as nothing else can, why the Gentiles must be grafted in, why 'blindness in part is happened to Israel until the fullness of Gentiles is come in. And so all Israel shall be saved, as it is written: there shall come out of Zion a Deliverer and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob for this is my covenant with them.' It, and it alone, as the outgrowths from it are developed, gives us a strict historical, providential, doctrinal, and divine unity of purpose in the Word."

Just as the life bearing seed (Mk 4:26-29) clothes itself from the vital nutrients of the lifeless soil, until it grows up and brings forth a bountiful harvest; so also has the life giving seed (John 12:24) of the Eternal Word as contained in the Theocratic Covenant clothed itself in Glorious Majesty from the vital nutrients of the soil of the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic Covenants, so that, when it reaches maturity, it will render a bountiful harvest in the Theocratic Kingdom of God on Earth.

I wish it Godspeed...


Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Members Login

Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard