New covenant - Not For Today

[Maxell]

Usually christians say that new covenant is here already, but is it really?

I borrow Mr Trimm, who discuss about it.


The New Covenant - Not For Today.
By James Scott Trimm
©1997


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The New Covenant is very similar to what Dispensationalists call "The Kingdom Age" or "The Millennium". The terms of this covenant are found in Jer. 31:31-34; 32:40-44; Ezkl. 16:60-63; 37:26-27 and Is. 59:20-21 where we are told that G-d will make a "New Covenant" with "the House of Israel and the House of Judah" (Jer. 31:31), ie. those with whom the Mosaic Covenant [at Sinai] had been made (Heb. 9:15, 18-20). This covenant, like the others, is to be eternal (Jer. 31:35-37; 32:40; Ezkl. 37:26). The terms of this "New Covenant" are:

G-d will put His Torah in Israel's inward parts and write it in their hearts. (Jer. 31:33; 32:40)
G-d will maintain a special relationship with Israel (Jer.31:33; Ezkl. 37:27-28)
All Israel shall know the L-RD. (Jer. 31:34)
Israel's transgressions will be forgiven. (Jer. 31:35;Ezkl. 16:63; Heb. 9:15, 22)
ALL of the promised land will be given to Israel. (Jer.32:41-44; Ezkl. 37:26)
G-d will multiply Israel. (Ezkl. 37:26)
The Temple will permanently stand in Israel. (Ezkl.37:26-28)
There is quite possibly more confusion about the New Covenant than any of the other covenants. The following are just a few of the misunderstandings being propagated:

The truth is that the New Covenant is not the Good News (Gospel) but is a covenant which YHWH will make with "the House of Israel and the House of Judah" when He establishes the Kingdom. There is nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that there is more than one New Covenant. The following are just a few reasons we know the New Covenant is not for today:

The New Covenant is always mentioned in connection with the Kingdom. (For example Jer. 31:31-34 in context of 34:10-40; Jer. 32:40-44 in context of 32:37-44; Ezkl. 37:26-27 in context of 37: 1-28; See also Mt. 26:28-29 =Mk. 14:25)
When the New Covenant comes all Israel will know G-d.(Jer. 31:31,34)
When the New Covenant comes Israel will receive ALL of the land promised to Abraham. (Jer. 32:41-44; Ezkl. 37:26;This has yet to happen, see Gen. 16:18-21)
When the New Covenant comes the Millennial Temple will stand in Israel forever. (Ezkl. 37:26-28)
When the New Covenant comes there will be no longer be sin offerings. (Heb. 10:16-18) But:
1) Heb. 10:1-3 states that the offerings continue as a remembrance.
2) Rav Shaul (Paul) made sin offerings (Acts 21:23-26 with Num. 6:13-21 also Acts 24:17-18)
3) Offerings will be made at the Tribulation Temple. (Dan 9:27)
Y'shua refused to partake of the cup of the New Covenant until his return to establish the Kingdom. (Mt. 26:28-29= Mk. 14:25 = Lk. 22:20)
If the New Covenant were in effect, the Mosaic Covenant at Sinai would have already faded away, yet as of the writing of Hebrews it had not. (Heb 8:13)
Heb. 8 simply teaches that the New Covenant is better than the Mosaic Covenant, not because it has replaced it, but because the Mosaic Covenant was to be found in the earthly holy of holies. The corresponding item in the Heavenly holy of holies is the New Covenant. In Heb. 8, Paul argues that Jeremiah's usage of the word "new" made the Mosaic Cov. "old." However, if this in itself made the Mosaic Law obsolete, then the Law was made obsolete by JEREMIAH'S use of the phrase NEW COVENANT around 600 BC!!! Obviously, this is not what Paul meant. I will discuss Heb. 8 in another article in more detail soon.

Heb. 10 is an example of Proem Homiletic Midrash. This is a form of Midrashic exegesis which utilizes Hillel's second rule (g'zara sheva - equivalence of expressions) to tie together two passages, present a drash (exposition) and then close by quoting a third verse which also ties through a phrase and which helps summarize the results of the exegesis. Paul begins this midrash by quoting Ps. 40:6-8 (Heb. 10:5-10). Paul ties this passage to Jer. 31:34 (Heb. 10:16-18) based on the key words SIN and IN THEIR HEARTS (which appears in Ps. 40 but is truncated off in Paul's quote) and [no] OFFERING. Finally Paul concludes by quoting Hab. 2:3-4 (Heb. 10:37-38) through the key words HE WHO IS COMING and HAS NO PLEASURE. I believe Paul's source here is the Aramaic of the Peshitta Tenach, for it is only here that the word "pleasure/will" is the same in Ps. 40 and Hab. 2:4 and the LXX does not agree with the wording of Hab. 2:3-4 = Heb. 10:37-38. My textual analysis of Heb. 10:5-7 = Ps. 40:7-9 (6-8) can be found on pp. 62-63 of my book THE SEMITIC ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

The context of Heb. 10 is that Paul has just discussed Y'shua in relation to the Yom Kippur ceremony in Heb. 8 through 9. Then in Heb. 10:1-3, Paul argues that the sacrifices continue as a remembrance. Paul then opposes those who oppose the Temple and encourages Temple attendance (Heb. 10:25).

The keywords tell us what Paul's subject is: The offerings, and what is and is not pleasing to G-d. Paul argues that the end of offerings for sin in Ps. 40:6-8 and the placing of the law in the heart (Ps. 40:8) tie Psalm 40:6-8 to the New Covenant in Jer. 31:34 which has yet to occur. To Paul, Ps. 40 describes a time when sin offerings will not be offered because sin will not be remembered, all of this because G-d does not have pleasure in sin offerings because they result from sin which, when the New Covenant is made, God will forget. Thus, the offerings will end with the coming of the New Covenant (Heb. 11:18 see also Heb. 8:13). Paul closes by citing Hab. 2:3-4 (giving what seems a polemic against the interpretation given in the Hab. commentary at Qumran) All of this Paul ties to the [second] COMING of the Messiah and the establishing of the New Covenant.

In Heb. 8-10, Paul does not teach that the New Covenant has come or that it has abolished the Mosaic Law.

http://www.nazarene.net/newcovenant.htm

[Goose]

I wonder if it's the same Trimm talked about here (http://www.lebtahor.com/truth/trimm/jamestrimm.htm).

[Maxell]

Thanks Goose. I have been feeling sometime that everything is not right at that guy.

[Goose]

You're welcome.

For some reason, there are a lot of people claiming to be Netzarim, but really are just imposters. For a short list of present imposters:

http://www.netzarim.co.il/ConvCtr/Xy/Imposter.htm

[dizzle]

Guys I am going to move this to Unorthodox Theology - I am aware of Trimm and he has some very "out there" ideas on some things - I know nothing of the type of charges that Goose is alleging, I am referring to a mixing of Christianity with Kabballa. Personally Mr. Trimm (I have spoken with him by email) has been very gracious and helpful to me. I also found his tape series contra Rabbi Singer very helpful on many fronts. However, he is certainly out of the mainstream of Christian thought on many fronts - not making a judgment on his orthodoxy whatsoever - I don't know. He does seem to have a problematic view of the Trinity.

Goose technically those links are argument by weblink, but since the thread starter found them useful, they can remain - also Goose please be cognizant that when you posted this was a Christian only area.

[AV1611]

Usually christians say that new covenant is here already, but is it really?
The New Covenant was instituted at the Cross however it has not ahd its fulfilment. :smile:

[Kane]

Is it possible that we are, as the scripture calls it, "firstfruits of the harvest..." Meaning, perhaps the New Covenant has been enacted, but is yet to be completely established... Just a thought. Either way, to attack Mr. Trimm's theological concepts by aiming his personal issues is not good scholarship. It is a poor and unworthy defense. One who would discuss His perspectives, must, "Rightly divide" the Word, and then show the error of His philosophy/theology. Many scholars have struggled with the very texts cited in His theology, and even abandoned any rational answer. Either way, as gracious stewards of Truth, I implore you to follow Benjamin Franklin's example: "I will speak ill of no man." Prove His theology wrong. Therein lies the secret.

[InChristAlways]

Heb. 10 is an example of Proem Homiletic Midrash. This is a form of Midrashic exegesis which utilizes Hillel's second rule (g'zara sheva - equivalence of expressions) to tie together two passages, present a drash (exposition) and then close by quoting a third verse which also ties through a phrase and which helps summarize the results of the exegesis. A jewish exegis of Paul? I didn't think they believed in Paul or the NT. In Heb. 8-10, Paul does not teach that the New Covenant has come or that it has abolished the Mosaic Law.
Hi. The "Law" is not our "tutor" as Christ has written His laws in our hearts and minds.
The "majority" of jews/judaism do not believe in Christ and thus cannot believe the NC is now in effect. Also, according to Paul stated the "form of that world"/Old "heaven and earth"] hadn't passed away yet, the jewish rebelillions I don't think had started yet, and God had not yet sent the roman army into Jerusalem. [i]1 corin 7:[i]29 But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, 30 those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, 31 and those who use this world as not misusing For the form[OC Law/ Temple] of this world is passing away. Since I am of the belief of complete "Biblical" fulfillment of the bible, only because of the way I view the book of revelation, [the destruction of the house of Judah/Jerusalem], I can see in Hebrew 8 that Judah is not mentioned in vs 10.
And why is that? Because christians like myself believe Christ became the sceptre of Israel, [genesis 49] and besides, my "Jerusalem" is above and my "mother", not here on earth. 25 And, the Hagar, is Mount Sinai, in Arabia,--she answereth, however, unto the present Jerusalem, for she is in bondage with her children; 26 But, the Jerusalem above, is free,--the which is our mother; The house of Judah was still not only "married" to God but went and played the Harlot[note Harlot in revelation], but they were essentially the rulers/priests of Israel.
If we are not in the NC, Jesus never really came, Israel was never redeemed, the temple was really never destroyed by God, and the jews just might be right in Jesus being a "false mangod" of the "gentiles". God bless.


Hebrew 8:7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 9 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 "For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

I suppose Israel doesn't believe in revelation or else maybe they could explain the Lion of the tribe of Judah in it and also note the "blood of grapes on His clothes[vineyard in revelation 14]:wink:

Genesis 49:9 Judah [is] a lion's whelp; From the prey, my son, you have gone up. He bows down, he lies down as a lion; And as a lion, who shall rouse him? 10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him [shall be] the obedience of the people. 11 Binding his donkey to the vine, And his donkey's colt to the choice vine, He washed his garments in wine, And his clothes in the blood of grapes. 12 His eyes [are] darker than wine, And his teeth whiter than milk.

[Kane]

In Christ, (Oviously a self proclaimed title *wink*)

I must lovingly disagree with several aspects of your Hermenuetics. First Let us begin with The assessment that "Jews" do not believe in Paul. Your definiton is loose of Jews as a whole. Indeed, there are many thousands of Messianic Jews who proclaim Yahshua (commonly called Jesus) as Messiah. There faith, and trust in His atonement is no less valid than anyone else's. In addition, (I offer myself as proof) they submit their lives utterly and completely to the Authority of the scriptures, including the works of Paul (and more imprtantly the Holy Spirit). If you read any extrabiblical work from the sages/rabbis and early church (gentiles as well) fathers, then surely see that Paul's works bore a striking resemblence to the works of Rabbinic texts in his era. Compare for yourself. (If you would like some detailed recitations, please do ask.) Unfortunately this leads us to a deeper question of what is Israel, and who are the Jews?

Because "Jews" are refferred to in blanket form, we are left with quite a dilemma. Indeed, I know atheists that call themselves Jews!

However, let's return to your supposition, that the majority of Israel - I use this word here, becase "Jew" is a term that originally was indicative (and even a byword amongst gentiles since the babylonian captivity) of the Tribe of "Ju-"dah. Since this is the case, I submit to you that all Jews are a part of Israel on a national level, but not all of Israel is of the tribe Judah. This could all be viewed as mincing words, so I will continue. You are right in asserting that a majority of Jews (now speaking largely of those practicers of the religion we emphasize as "Judaism") do not reguard "Christ" as the messiah. You are right to assert that many "Jews" do not hold to agreement that the Apostolic Scriptures (commonly called the New Testament) are inspired. However, you are wrong to blanket all with such a simple statement.

Point if fact, the majority of the believers- those following Christ in the first century- were Jewish. They lived and observed Jewish festivals and customs according to the commands of Yahweh (God). Paul did this, as did all of the Apostles. To say that "Jews" donot believe in Paul is simply not true, it was not true then, nor is it now. That is like saying that all Republicans are pro-life. Each individual case is unique, and must be interpreted based on that person's own merits and or claims. Now on to your Hermenuetics.

First, you would do well to re-examine the greek word "paidagogos" translated as Tutor or Schoolmaster is Galatians 3:24. I will not go over that here.

The underlying principle, I will address. If you think that the Torah (commonly called Law, better translated as "instructions") is not important for addressing righteousness, then you misunderstand the scriptures. I will agree - in part - that it's role was to reveal to us our own need for a Savior. However, by God's own word, the Torah was the standard of righteousness by which all Israel was to adhere. The notion that "Israel is a harlot" and then the abstract mention with little or no proof that she is what is being revealed in Revelation is poor scholarship at best.

Let us now go into Hebrews. It is interesting that the majority of Christendom places it's claims that the Covenant was done away with based on the verses found in Hebrews 8. The text, ALL OF IT, is the best way by which to judge the intent of the author. Here then is the major thrust of the author:

Hebrews 3 (esp.vs. 1) - Yahshua (Jesus) is our High Priest.
Hebrews 4 (esp. vss 14-16,) - More on Messiah as our Priest, and entering into His rest
Hebrews 5 (esp. vss. 1,5,7,10,) - Messiah is the "High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek"
Hebrews 6 - Falling Away...But wait! more themes on High Priesthood, see vs 19-20
Hebrews 7 - (whole chapter) Messiah is the High Priest.
Hebrews 8 - And I quote "The main point in what has been said (is this): We have such a High Priest..." Then the entire chapter continues.
Chapter 9 - (esp. vs 11) - Continues on the work and Role of our High Priest.

Here's where it get's good. If the writer of Hebrews (many believe this to be Paul) has spent 6 Chapters discussing the Priesthood, and how Christ fulfilled this role, why do we assume that the spirit is changing the subject midsentence? And why is it that the translators put the word covenant into the text? It is clearly is not there in the Greek. Here is perhaps the most compelling bit of all: Notice verse 7-8: "For if the first (first what?) had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says," Then the spirit goes on to quote an already familliar passage, Jeremiah 31. Why does the writer switch from speaking (supposedly) in terms of a covenant, singular, only to use the plural in the same breath. In the Greek text, it is absolutely indicative of a plurality there is no definite article here. Was there more than one covenant being spoken of in Jer. 31? No. Just one. Was the writer delusional? No. Maybe He was talking about all of the various covenants from Abraham through Jeremiah. Or maybe He was speaking of the main point, as he had said in verse 1, and as had been done for five chapters in a row.

What is certain is this: Covenant is not mentioned in verse 7, or verse 13. (or 9:1 for that matter) Period. No discussion.

Let's examine the alternative: The Priesthood.

Has the Priesthood (Levitical) disappeared? Yes! Is it now obsolete? Yes! (At least with no Temple. ) Makes sense.

Finally, With all the press the "New Covenant" has gotten, you would think that there would be more about it in the scriptures. In Jeremiah 31, we find the only place in the whole of scripture where the New Covenant is defined.

What does it say? It says that God's Law ("torah" in Hebrew, later "nomos" in the Greek) is written on our Hearts. Amen! But remember, the Torah has not changed, nor will it ever. Your analasys of 1st Cor. 7:31 begs a better understanding. You assert that the word "form" must have meant that the Temple and Law were passing away.(This is perhaps the loosest interpretation of scripture I have ever seen!) Why would Paul, writing to perhaps the most corrupt congregation of believers in his day, giving them concerns on marriage, briefly assert that the Temple and Law were disappearing? He wouldn't, not without explaining exactly what He meant by that. Isaiah 40:8, and Matthew 5:18 Both assert the opposite. (Matt 5:18 says "For truly I say to you, until Heaven and Earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke (jot nor tittle) shall pass away from the Law (Torah) until all is accomplished." Heaven and Earth are still here.

Please forgive me if any of this seems to be sarcastic. I assure you, my sole desire is to see that God's very words are handled with extreme precaution. Many of your other assertions were somewhat faulty, but I can not comment on them now. Please know I hold you in high reguard, and I mean no disrespect at all. We are still, One Body, with One Lord, over all, in all and through all. May we all grow closer to Him.

In Messiah,

Kane

[InChristAlways]

Point if fact, the majority of the believers- those following Christ in the first century- were Jewish. They lived and observed Jewish festivals and customs according to the commands of Yahweh (God). Paul did this, as did all of the Apostles. To say that "Jews" donot believe in Paul is simply not true, it was not true then, nor is it now. That is like saying that all Republicans are pro-life. Each individual case is unique, and must be interpreted based on that person's own merits and or claims. Now on to your Hermenuetics.
HI Kane. Thanks for that post. So the jews do not believe the OC temple and worship was the "old form of the world" that passed away in the first century?
So how do the jews interpret these passages in Paul, as they were written before God sent the roman army into Jerusalem. We assume Paul authored the book of Hebrews where it was also mention God was getting ready to shake the heavens and earth, which Jesus also preached in His Olivet Discourse, what does that symolize to you?.

Paul became as a jew to win jews, , and that was because the temple was still standing at the time.
There is also a messianic site that says Paul was a false apostle, and he stresses this because Paul preached against the Law and circumcision. How do the jews view the Great Day of the Lord in the Bible and the coming of the new heaven and earth? According to Isaiah 28, the Cornerstone would come, then vengeance and wrath on the rulers of Jerusalem. Do you not think that the OC temple and worship was that "old heaven and earth" that passed away?
Thanks and God bless.


[i]Romans 13:11 And [do] this, knowing the time, that now [it is] high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation [is] nearer than when we [first] believed. 12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light.

1 corin 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, 30 those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, 31 and those who use this world as not misusing For [b]the form of this world is passing away.


http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm

We have seen that Paul's picture of God's sovereignty doesn't exist in the Scriptures. We might call this the DNA evidence against him (Doctrine Not Accurate). It is an important part of the case against him. But it is by no means all the evidence there is against his supposed authority. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that he was not even a true apostle of Yahshua let alone the greatest apostle who ever lived as he is so often eulogized.

There are a number of historical facts, quotations from Paul, and quotations from Yahshua recorded in the New Testament that leave us with some quite compelling evidence against his apostleship being recognized in heaven.

There are several interesting facts surrounding this case that should be noted and kept in mind. They are:

[Timothy Leary]

Guys I am going to move this to Unorthodox Theology - I am aware of Trimm and he has some very "out there" ideas on some things - I know nothing of the type of charges that Goose is alleging, I am referring to a mixing of Christianity with Kabballa. Personally Mr. Trimm (I have spoken with him by email) has been very gracious and helpful to me. I also found his tape series contra Rabbi Singer very helpful on many fronts. However, he is certainly out of the mainstream of Christian thought on many fronts - not making a judgment on his orthodoxy whatsoever - I don't know. He does seem to have a problematic view of the Trinity.

Goose technically those links are argument by weblink, but since the thread starter found them useful, they can remain - also Goose please be cognizant that when you posted this was a Christian only area.

DDW, be very careful around this man. To put it nicely, he is a fraud. He used to post on the Internet as a Messianic Rabbi who believed in the Book of Mormon and the teachings of Brigham Young & Joseph Smith. He did the same thing from an Islamic POV as well.

When his bible "translation" - which other Messianic groups have shown to be plagarized from other peshitta translations, i'll pull up the information if need be - was years late in publication, he refused to refund the money of those who had paid for one.

Be very careful around this man, DDW. He's nice, but he's a wolf in sheeps clothing - and while I am no friend of the Messianics, I think you know by now that I do not make any accusations that are completely off the wall about them.

[Timothy Leary]

Don't confuse Messianic with Ebionite-like sites, ICA.

[Kane]

Hello In CHrist Always, (and Whomever;)

Thank You so much for taking the time to reply. You are very gracious. First, I must say that I disagree with those individuals (quoted as a messianic website) who would say that Paul preached against circumcision and the Law. If He had, or if Messiah had, then certainly they would have been false prophets. I personally believe that Paul is perhaps the most misunderstood writer of all time.

I would say rather, because of our misunderstandings, we believe he spoke against the Law. Many quote Galatians liberally as a book that is Anti-Torah. However, a careful word/context study paints a picture that is slightly different. The thrust of Galatians, is that we cannot be saved by our own merits. This includes the Law. Numerous times Paul reiterates: (3:15-16)

"We (are) Jews by nature, not sinners from amongst the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified." See Also:Gal 3:17 - 21; Gal. 5:4

I cannot quite see eye to eye with you on whether or not Paul "instructed them to live like a Jew". There are too many examples of Hebraic Culture and phrases that were simply understood to be true, and more importantly were "Jewish". Here are several:

All of the Apostles (including our savior Yahshua/Jesus) attended synagogue and the temple regularly. Acts 5:21; 9:20; 13:15; 17:2; 18:4,8; 19:8; (More if you need them.)

New Believers were almost expected to go to a Synangogue, just to hear the teachings of Moses, who testified of Messiah. Acts 15:21; Luke 24:44; John 5:46

Acts 21:24 says that Paul Kept the Law.

Paul Himself was a Pharisee: (all written present tense in the Greek) - Acts 23:6; Acts 26:5; Phil. 3:5

So if Paul, Messiah and all of the Early believers kept Torah (or to the best of their ability), then does not 1st John tell us "the one who abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked"? The commands of YHVH were held sacred by our Savior. Should we not hold them sacred as well? Not as a means of salvation, but as a means of obediance.

What I can agree upon is that our Savior and the Apostles did dare to question the Oral traditions, and the manner in which men had sought to interpret the Torah. This may be why so many of my brothers have such difficulty in coming to (Him who is )the Truth. We have this tendency to want things done "our way." (John 7:19)

If you believe in Paul's writings then you must further agree that Romans 11 teaches that "Christians" (or better those who have trusted Messiah for salvation) are Grafted into Israel (vs 25); Eph. 2 Confirms this saying we have become part of the "Commonwealth of Israel." Whether we like it or not, We serve the God of Israel.

You are right that Judgement will come to those in Jerusalem, as it will to all men. And those who have rejected the Messiah will be tried accordingly. May we find mercy at the Cornerstone's Feet. In vs 17, He says that Justice will be the measuring line, righteousness the level. What is the perfect standard of righteousness? I submit to you that it is the Torah. It is Perfect (Romans 7:12; Psalm 119:1) If you do not believe this, I suggest teasingly that you may want to tear out that little bit of scripture out of your bible known as Psalm 119. David knew how perfect God's Torah was, and that was his entire song.

Your quote from 1st Cor. 9:20-22 merits a bit more clarification, as well as your question about what "Jews" believe is meant by those phrases, but I cannot comment on that now. ( No Time, Slow typer!!)

Please Forgive me for being so longwinded. I do implore you to research the 119th Psalm. The man after God's own heart saw much in these eternal unchanging truths.

May you be blessed by the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Kane