Amos

Be right there, or should I wait till after thanksgiving in case you don't survive the turkey hunt? You never know, there is many DB's around with all these mutations banging around.

CX

How else are you going to tie the NT narrative to Jewish history? How are you going to convert gentile pagans if they think you made up your story from scratch? Pretty good spin doctoring if you ask me. Paul was a masterful theologian. I wish I could come up with something that would influence more than a billion people almost 2000 years after my death. I wonder what scientology is going to be like in another few hundred years.

doodad

First of all before discussing the need for a new covenant, let's look at the general meaning of convenant as it was used by Jesus at the Last Supper. A divine covenant appears to me a new
provision that is not democratic in nature, i.e., those who are to benefit from the new provision have little to say about whether it suits them or not. To me the New Covenant in the NT pertains primarily to the method of attaining salvation
because much of the OT Mosaic law was not negated by Christ's principles. The Jesus freaks will beg to differ with me but it's in the book of Matthew in black and white.

So why the need? Was Christ a solution looking for problem? Don't think so, although he was a clever person and seemed to have a vision of salvation that many preferred over the methods of the OT. There were a number of prophets in the OT, and some were killed or at least discounted as being false teachers. For some reason Jesus' ideas caught on, an now we know the rest of the story.

The laws of Moses served a purpose, but were in many cases corrupted or abused by Judaic leaders and clerics seeking personal gain. This to me inidcates a need for a system of salvation that was not subject to the whims of unscrupulous secular officials. As long as Jesus could remain pure then placing faith in his ability and willingness to forgive one's sins was a safer gambit than trying to remain under Judaism. He in a sense met the need for a dependable belief system.

In general, ancient Jews (judaists) demonstrated their faith by obeying the canon law, and making sacrifices or doing deeds were ways of atoning or reconciling their differences with God. A number of the mistzvoth (canon law of Judaism) do not apply to the Christian beliefs system because they were designed specifically for Judaism. However what is usually not emphasized by evangelical Christians is that many of the OT laws still apply in principle to Christians. Exodus 20 and later chapters detail a long list of OT "law" that is very much in effect today.

Those who claim they as Christians are not subject to OT canon law are most likely to be the evangelical types who have trouble seeing that there is more value to Christianity than the promise of an after life, or salvation. They even get this confused. In other words, what's Heaven got to do with mortal sin other than an elusive promise of reconciliation with God someday? I thought the concept Heaven was developed in order to placate man's fear of dying, but somehow it became a part of a behavioral system. In other words, let's suppose one did not sin, but did not happen to practice Christianity? Let's also suppose he longs for an afterlife. It appears to me that the only product on the market that promises such has strings attached. In other words, good little boys and girls get their reward of Heavenly bliss someday, but others get left out. Doesn't really add up to me, and maybe it's because I don't have a complete understand what I have signed on to.
Is our fate an either or thing based on our behavior? I don't think so.

As to your last question, I think God's rules were valid enough, but the existence of fallible people was the fly in his ointment. I don't think one can give Judaism a fair assessment while acting within the dynamics of Christianity because Judaism is a different belief system than Christianity is. It has different tenets and was intended to serve a different purpose than Christianity does. Judaism places emphasis on serving the needs of people's everyday mortal needs, primarily matters of behaviour, where Christianity seems to emphasize the after life and uses Heaven as an escape from mortal reality.
Judaism tends to be practical and realistic, where Christianity is somewhat idealistic and nihilistic IMO.

If one were to take the divine concepts out of Judaism you would find a belief system that is quite secular in its orientation. Much of the mistvoth is based upon common sense that has been gained from mortal life experiences. Why. Judaism is a very tradition oriented religion, and over time the principles of common sense were codified as divinely inspired code or law. I'd
like to believe that religious principles found in Christianity as well as Judaism, which seems to be the ancestor of Christianity are very much based upon unwritten tradition, and from being around faith based forums I can tell you that tradition plays a major role is the doctrine of of some sects.

Xman

Both the Greek and Hebrew words for "new" may also mean "renewed." The new covenant is not a different covenant from the old covenant, but a renewal of the old covenant.

Contra Dispensationalism (the most prevalent Protestant theology today), all the laws of the Old Testament continue to apply, though they must be applied differently in light of significant changes (social, redemptive-historical, etc.) that have occurred since they were given. The abiding, unchanging principles of the Law are those that lie behind the specific manifestations found in Scripture, not the specific applications as found in the caselaw and elsewhere. For example, in Numbers 27 the case of Zelophehad's daughters demonstrates that the spirit of the Law and not the letter of the law is what is binding.

The "new" or "renewed" covenant was necessary because God's people broke the "old" one. There are many instances of covenant renewal and covenant renewal ceremonies in the Old Testament itself, and the prophecy of the coming new covenant in Jeremiah 31 is an encouragement that God will yet again renew his covenant people and restore them to the land after their exile. Because the people failed to remain faithful to God during the restoration effort after the Babylonian exile, God extended their exile into the first century A.D. (cf. Dan 9). Thereupon, according to the New Testament, God began a new restoration effort under the leadership and covenant headship of Jesus. Thus, the New Testament statements of the presence of the new covenant do not attempt to found a new religion but to continue, renew and restore the religion of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with appropriate alterations in practice according to important changes (covenant practices changed periodically during the Old Testament, too).

Boro Nut

I think it was because there were a lot more nuns around in those days, and they needed a new covenant to put them in. The old covenant was probably in a shocking state.

Boro Nut

Butters

oposted by doodad

If this is true then God failed just as bad with the NT as he did with the old. I also note that you start out saying that Judism was corrupted and abused by Judaic leaders and clerics, but then change the idea to secular officials. It is not secular officials that corrupts and abuses religion, but the leaders of the religion themselves, and nothing has changed in this respect.

CX

Not knowing Hebrew I cannot speak to the accuracy of this statement in that regard. Concerning the Greek, however this statement is flatly false. There are a number of different words in Greek which can be translated as "new" and some of them can be reasonably translated as "renewed". Nonetheless the phrase "new covenant" (KAINH DIAQHKH) is mentioned either explicitly or in some other form only about 7 or 9 times in the entire new testament. In each case the word used is KAINOS which means "new" in the usual sense of the word new (i.e. recently made). It does not mean "renewed" but rather unprecedented, recently made, in short, new.

Interestingly the phrase KAINH DIAQHKH is really only used in the Gospels by ALk in his narrative of the last supper (i.e. GLk 22:20; cf. GMk 14:24 & GMt 26:28). The majority of witnesses to parallels in GMk and GMt do not include the word KAINH in Jesus' words. It is seems reasonable that this notion may have been a later addition to the last supper tradition, but one which developed fairly early in post-Easter Xianity. Interestingly Paul mentions this phrase only twice. Once in 1 Cor while recounting the last Supper and once in 2 Cor. The author of Hebrews goes to greater length to defend the concept of the new covenant using the phrase or a related one no less than 4 times.

In any case it is clear that the author of Hebrews thinks the "new covenant" supercedes and replaces the old.

This raises difficult questions for Xian theology which are not easily dismissed with simple apologetics. The author of Hebrews is clearly stating that this "new" covenant replaces, not renews, the old. And if we look at the nature and structure of each of these covenants we can see that the are entirely independent of one another. The abrahamic covenant promises the children of Israel a chunk of real-estate and prosperity during their lifetimes if they are obedient and faithful to gods commands (i.e. mosaic and levitical law). The Abrahamic covenant is not for everybody, but rather only for god's chosen (the israelites). The "new" covenant, on the other hand, promises that those who accept Jesus as lord and savior will have eternal life. There is no requirement and in fact there is a rejection of mosaic and levitical law. The promise concerns the next life not this one and it is open to everybody. In short it is a wholly unjewish idea.

The most fascinating thing about this particular doctrine however is what the MSS evidence says about its origin and development in the Xian tradition. It is clear, based on the reference in 1 Corinthians, that the speech Jesus gives at the last supper originates in pre-Pauline tradition (unless Paul made it up which seems unlikely). Yet it is only wholly Pauline witnesses (i.e. GLk, 2 Pauline Epistles and Hebrews) which attest to the idea of a "new" covenant. GMk and GMt seem unaware of this part of the tradition. This seems reasonable given Paul's mostly gentile audience. The confusion between Paul and the evangelists is underlined by the fact that some later MSS add the word KAINH to the last supper speech.

Xman

I hope I won't be banned or censured for contradicting the moderator, but I'd like to offer some proof for my statements.

Given your typo replacing "Q" for "TH," I'll assume you have some familiarity with Greek (Q is often the character that represents theta on a Greek keyboard). Kindly take a look at Kittel's TDNT and note that neos is the word that signifies "what was not there before," "what has only just arisen or appeared," whereas kainos means "'what is new and distinctive' as compared with other things" (III.447).

The new or renewed covenant is different in quality because it is vastly superior to the prior versions of the covenant. Nevertheless, it is not a replacement covenant in the sense that it did not exist before. Admittedly, the language in Hebrews 8 is easy to reconcile with your position, but it is equally conducive to mine: Christ's priesthood and administration of the covenant replaces the older levital/mosaic administration.

But your position is not so easy to reconcile with the broader argument of Hebrews. Specifically, the "new" covenant is the one over which Jesus is the head, which in Hebrews is not a brand new covenant but a restoration of the covenant previously headed by Abraham. The "new" Abrahamic covenant predates the "old" Mosaic. It is new under Jesus because it is radically different. Ultimately it will lead to a perfectly restored created order, in which state it will never be broken.

Moreover, the covenants are not at all independent of one another. Rather, each assumes and includes the terms, blessings and curses of the one before it. For example, in Exodus 31-32 Moses appeals to the Abrahamic covenant and applies its promises to his own day. In Leviticus 26:24 God says that even under the Mosaic administration his covenant with Abraham will hold fast.

Further, the covenant with Abraham was not just for the Israelites (e.g. Gen 18:18; 22:18). And there is no rejection of Mosaic law in the new covenant, but an affirmation of it (e.g. Matt 5:17-19; Jam 2:8ff.). Also, the promise concerns this life and the next, not just this one. In short, it is a wholly Jewish idea.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Xman ]</p>

CX

Of course not. In fact we have several moderators and I personally make it a general practice not to moderate discussions I am involved in unless it is an unrelated discussion between other individuals within the same thread. I'm sure if you needed moderating (which so far you've given no indication you do) another mod would jump in. In any case, I don't ahve time at present to address your argument, I'll get back to it around lunch time.

Apikorus

The original biblical usage of the term "new covenant" (Hebrew ברית חדשה = berit chadashah) is in Jeremiah 31:31: hineh yamim ba'im n'um YHWH vekharti et-bayit yisrael v'et bayit yehudah berit chadashah. In English, Behold, the days wil come - oracle of YHWH - when I will make with the house of Israel and the house of Judah a new covenant.

The Masoretic Text makes a distinction between the adjective "new" (chadash, chadashah) and verb "renew" (chadeish). The words appear the same in the consonantal text (חדש or חדש&#1492) but are pointed differently. chadash is pointed with a patakh and a qamats while chadeish is with patakh followed by tsereh. (There is a related word, chodesh, which means "month". It too derives from the root חדש ; a chodesh is a new moon.)

A cursory check of the Hebrew in the Book of Jeremiah reveals that the MT does not use the word chadeish. (Hence in the RSV the words "renew" and "renewed" do not appear in the English translation.) A related text from the same era, Lamentations, does use it once, in a very famous passage which religious Jews recite every time the Torah is returned to the ark: chashivenu YHWH eilekha venashua(h) chadeish yameinu keqedem = "Return us to you, YHWH, and we shall be returned. Renew our days as of old" (Lam 5:20). Another example may be found in Psalm 103:5b, which reads titchadeish kanesher n`uraichi = [so that] renewed, like the eagle's, will be your [David's] youth. The verb here connotes restoration. Jeremiah's anticipated covenant (berit), though, is new (chadashah), and not renewed/restored (chadeish).

The "new covenant" Jeremiah envisaged of course had nothing to do with events 600 years in his future, but rather with the proximate restoration of the Israelite and Judahite nations after their devastation at the hands of Assyria and especially Babylon. The new covenant would be with the faithful remnant, which was deutero-Isaiah's eved YHWH (servant of Yahweh - see e.g. Isa 41:8).

It may put too fine a point on the matter to insist that the covenant envisaged by Jeremiah was "new" and not "renewed", especially when this covenant entailed a restored Davidic kingdom, restored Temple and sacrificial cultus, etc. So indeed it was a renewal of old ways he envisaged - the same renewal that we Jews chant about when we quote Lam 5:20 as we return the Torah to the ark. I think that "new" in context (assuming the validity of MT pointings) serves to emphasize a complete break with the sinful activities of the past. The new covenant would be an eternal one. Israel and Judah had learned their lessons, and with Yahweh's benificence would be restored to their former greatness and would exhibit eternal fidelity to him. That Yahweh himself would start anew and revise - rather than restore - his covenant was expressed emphatically by Ezekiel in chapter 18, though this of course was probably more optative than prophetic. The Babylonian devastation and the horrors it wrought on the lives of devoted servants of Yahweh were an example of Yahweh visiting the sins of parents on their children for several generations. Ezekiel says (i.e. hopes) that there will be no more of this harsh form of divine justice: thenceforth all Israelites would be punished for their own sins alone.

Alas, Jeremiah's restoration never quite came to pass. Some exiles returned, thanks to Cyrus, the Temple was rebuilt, and some form of the ancient dyarchic model of priest and ruler (cf. Aaron/Moses) restored. During the early phase of the Judean restoration, this dyarchy was represented by the priest Yeshua ben Yozadak and the governor Zerubavel. Despite the hopeful attitude of Haggai and proto-Zechariah, there never would be a renewed Davidic kingdom. The Persians ruled Yehud until 333 BCE, when it changed hands to the Macedonians. For a brief period during starting in the mid-second century BCE the Hasmoneans wrested control from the Seleucids, but the Hasmoneans broke the bibical pattern in several ways, such as unifying the roles of priest and king. (They also were not Davidides.) For this reason, Rabbinic Judaism is rather conflicted on the Hasmoneans. (There is no Talmud tractate on Chanukkah, for example.) The Hasmoneans were of course displaced by the Romans, who eventually destroyed the Temple in 70 CE and made Jerusalem itself Judenrein following the failed Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE. Needless to say, to this day no Temple stands on har habayit. I wonder if Ariel Sharon has any Davidic blood in him. (If ruthlessness is genetic, he's probably a direct descendant of David's general Yoav.)

While the distinction between different vowel pointings does indicate a subtle distinction between "new" and "renewed", it is perhaps important to note that the vowel pointings themselves were added to the consonantal text during the period ca. 400 CE - 900 CE. Of course, the Masoretes based their work on detailed and meticulously transmitted traditions regarding spelling, pronunciation, etc. - traditions which in most cases are untraceably old. (Incidentally, repointing alone does not suffice to change the meaning in Jer 31:31 owing to the ה on the end of chadashah.)

Christian tradents had ingeniously coopted the expression "new covenant" and applied it, mutatis mutandis to suit their purposes. But the distinctions between the Israelite/Jewish and Christian notions are fundamental. Israelite religion and Rabbinic Judaism are ethnic, nationalistic, and particular. Pauline Christianity's innovation was to universalize the God of the Hebrew Bible and deify the person of Jesus, whereby people had an image of God they could relate to more directly. Jews overwhelmingly rejected these innovations and regarded the worship of Jesus as idolatry. Of course, parts of the Hebrew Bible do reveal some concern for gentiles by Yahweh. But the focus is overwhelmingly on the nation of Israel. Gentiles achieve salvation only by ultimately attaching themselves to Jews (see e.g. Zech 8:23).

Whoa, I'm starting to cover too much ground here. That last paragraph opens up a big can of worms.

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>