Clearest Covenant Language ever


Eph 2:11 So then, remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth, called "the uncircumcision" by those who are called "the circumcision"--a physical circumcision made in the flesh by human hands--

12 remember that you were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the COVENANTS OF PROMISE, having no hope and WITHOUT GOD IN THE WORLD...... 15 He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might CREATE in Himself ONE NEW HUMANITY in place of the TWO, thus making peace,.....

20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.21 In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;22 in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God whose arguing that there is a a New Covenant? In fact, my bible has a whole section called "the New Covenant".

I didnt get a chance to elaborate on this yet. Wanted to post it and then expand on it.

In short, I think that I was relating it to dispensationalism. I never did respond further on your thread from your pastor. sorry. The total abolishment of the Old Covenant. No parenthesis, no finishing up. Abolition is a strong word especially in what they are abolishing. I see one new Humanity in christ. No jews anymore, no gentiles any more. Just clipped it from a good article on the idea of a new heavens and earth.

Its clear that Paul is in his mind terminating temple judaism and almost the entire need to do or keep any jewish commandments or ordinances. I suppose Joshua B might be right in saying that Paul became an anti Semite or self hating jew in respect to the religion itself. Yet it is replaced in pauls theology with something entirely new and all encompassing. One New Humanity is a phrase that I didnt quite catch before.

I think also in looking at the views of racism, or ethnicity, Paul is saying you are jewish by birth or that is the most overarching meaning of being jewish. So Paul breaks down judaism as something like a race ? or it appears that way.

Im trying to recollect the discussions last week and continue. Has the idea of being jewish changed amongst jews from the first century perhaps ? I know that there were God fearers and those who submitted to circumcision though. Yet paul declares being jew or gentile from birth.

I wasn't aware of that verse but I agree it makes a strong case for the new covenant view.


There are degrees of Dispensationalism.  Like your pastor pointed out, a good number of Christians actually hold some Dispensational views along with Covenental theology.  The issue with Dispensationalism isn't necessarily the idea of a dispensation by itself, but the problematic idea that the Jews as a people will have a different path to God vs. the rest of humanity.  If Dispensationalists taught that we were in the final dispensation that would make a big difference.

Eschatology is a subject a person could study for a lifetime and still not have all the answers.  The more I learn about the subject, though, the less tenable dispensationalism becomes.  Even the idea that as a total eschatological paradigm it allows for the view that Jesus came to set up an earthly kingdom but the Jews didn't accept it so he had to die and go with a plan B should be enough to make the whole theory suspect because those ideas do all come from the same source historically.  Frankly I think it is obvious that if Jesus showed signs that he intended to have an earthly rule the Jews would have fallen in line with his plan given his popularity and supernatural powers.  He rejected the kingdoms of this world and became the Jewish Messiah in a way they never pictured or expected. 

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, UNTIL the fulness of the GENTILES be come in.

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Rom 11:27 For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes.

Rom 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God [are] without repentance.


You either believe in one humanity or you believe in two.

ridge, Paul makes it clear that the Israel/ the Jews will be restored. Jesus is the King of the Jews, He will reign in Israel, the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 apostles will rule with Him.

I don't know what you mean about 1 or 2 humanities. I believe that God made a promise to Abraham that had both physical and spiritual ramifications to those who were his children according to the flesh and those according to His faith.

What he said ^^^

As I mentioned in another thread, there is a story written by Soloviev, an Orthodox Christian, called "A Short Tale of AntiChrist".  In it, a great number of Jews join themselves to the body of Christ i.e. the Church near the end of time. 

On a side note,  I stumbled on this huge eschatology site that seems to have just about everything on it:


I believe you are doing the same thing that people do with Paul and James, faith and works...

You cannot white out all of the myriad verses that talk about the physical restoration of Israel and the reconciling of the Jews to just can't.

It doesn't harm grace nor the is what it is.

The physical restoration of Israel is significant from a Chiliastic point of view (meaning the belief in a literal 1000 year reign on earth rather than amillenialism).  Like I said, many Catholic and Orthodox eschatology students believe that a lot of Jews will come into the body of Christ before the Second Coming, but that means the same salvation plan for one humanity, not a separate program for Jews.

well, I agree with that ridge...I mean in the book of acts Jews were converting to this new brand of messianic judaism (christianity).

rooster :You cannot white out all of the myriad verses that talk about the physical restoration of Israel and the reconciling of the Jews to just can't.

Me: You can if you understand that the fulfillment of these images is of a new israel, ie the church. Jesus's message was pretty plain. Israel sought an earthly kingdom and jesus said no that not is what God is going to do.

rooster : It doesn't harm grace nor the is what it is.

Me: This is the same sort of logic you used regarding incest. Im still spitting up over that one.

z: You can if you understand that the fulfillment of these images is of a new israel, ie the church. Jesus's message was pretty plain. Israel sought an earthly kingdom and jesus said no that not is what God is going to do.

me: no he didn't. He didn't say that was not what God WAS GOING to do. He said that wasn't His mission (as sacrificial lamb). He's coming again as the Messiah, the King OF ISRAEL (not Palestine, not US) AND He is going to conquer all the world's kingdoms as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. . I cannot believe the torturing of the texts to discredit the Lord's own Jewishness and His promises to Israel. Wow. I know, Revelations already happened (man I miss those streets of gold, the 2 witnesses that died and were restored to life, the great judgement, the end of sin, etc...)

z: This is the same sort of logic you used regarding incest. Im still spitting up over that one.

me: not sure what you mean by that. You mean reading the text and believing it (as opposed to talking about all the *nuances and shades, and all your greys and questionings, and growings, etc. ad nauseum)?

abraham, the father of the Jews and Arabs was married to his 1/2 sister no? Was it 1) a sin and 2) historical (note I have to go with Abraham, hoping you believe in him since you clearly regard Adam, Eve, their children, Noah etc. as fictional).

z, God made several promises to Abraham in Gen 15. Let's look at a couple specifics (please tell me if you think he's a mythic creation though as that kind of poses as an obstacle to my point).

God predicts the slavery in Egypt and then a few verses later says:

Gen 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

Gen 15:19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,

Gen 15:20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,

Gen 15:21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.

Here is a physical promise of phyiscal land made to Abraham's physical children.

Then in chapter 17 (after several other promises) he says:

Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an EVERLASTING COVENANT, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the LAND wherein thou art a stranger, all the LAND OF CANAAN, for an EVERLASTING POSSESSION; and I will be their God.

Now, you can spit all you want...but it's clear that God is not hyper-spiritualizing or making some veiled reference to spiritual victory by the gentile church. He clearly says that he has an EVERLASTING COVENANT with Abraham's children (though Isaac...the Jews) and that he would give them the LAND OF CANANN AS AN EVERLASTING POSSESSION.

Now, let God be true and every man a liar. You can disregard this and a myriad of other verses I could provide and say that it's really not an everlasting covenant, or that it's not really talking about the land of canaan, or that the gentile church will rule in Israel or some such other nonesense. But when taken in whole with all the other prophecies that are as explicit as this one concerning Israel, its clear that you have an issue with God and His word (and His chosen people) not a particular theology.

I will be happy to continue down this path and examine many other verses and perhaps you can show me how the Land of Caanan isn't really canaan etc (like 1 really means 3, and Jesus name baptism doesn't really mean in His name, and that Jesus' references to Adam and Noah support their mythical stature etc.)

Look man, I don't mean to come down harshly but you continue to post about this stuff like some kind of obsession. I don't usually say to much about it (despite believing you are wrong) because it's pretty clear to me and not a pet issue. But give it a break already. You have been riding this horse non stop. I mean, even I stopped debating the godhead and baptism for a while. You are so entrenched that you don't recognize that you take minor points and are trying to build somehthing that isn't there...

Again, in my opinion and stated in the spirit of "I was spitting on that one..." ;-)

ummm, OK. I do alot of reading on certain subjects. Feel free to abstain from posting. I think its clear from the original post that Paul declared Judaism dead and we now live under the fulfilled promise.

You yourself asked what dispensationalism is defined as. Apparently you are blissfully unaware of certain beliefs you hold. Im giving you an opportunity to look at the flip side. Or better yet, the world thru a differnt eye ball. If you dont want it, dont read it or post about it.

I noticed you didn't answer my abraham question.

Also, you misquoted ephesians. It says:

Eph 2:15 Having abolished IN HIS FLESH THE EMNITY, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace...

you wrote:

He has abolished THE LAW with its commandments and ordinances...

You'll notice that these 2 "versions" are a little different. the KJV indicates that the HATRED OR ANIMUS OF the law was abolished...WHAT EMNITY? The law the bible says was our schoolmaster to Christ. Without it we do not know Him nor do we know what sin is. How would we know sin, unless God had said, "thou shalt not..."

The law brought emnity because it brought the knowledge of sin and the consequences of sin. It was holy yet it did not redeem, only educate us. therefore, Jesus nailed the emnity of the law and ordinances to the cross. He took the knowledge of our sinfulness, our frustration at our inability to deliver ourselves and to be Holy and He killed it.

(more on this coming)

you have some abbreviated version that says "he has abolished the law" which is CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE.

I looked this up in the original Greek and I do not know where or how you came up with "he has abolished THE LAW..."

Especially when Jesus said He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it?

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Your assertions are being driven by this intense desire to prove what is not true. Paul never declared Judaism dead. Find me that quote. Paul was a Jew of Jews and even went to temple and sacrificed after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Paul only declares that gentiles can now be GRAFTED INTO the foundation of real judaism, the law and the prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone.

It is the Jewish law and prophets that testified of Jesus. To say that it was abolished is an obvious misquoting.

Oh, and I'm not "blissfully" unaware of anything. I wanted to know what you defined as dispensationalism since what I had been taught was more of a melding of covenant and dispensationalism (neither as hyper positions).

Please read romans 7 and you'll see how poorly you misquoted and interpreted Paul's letter to the ephesians (in direct conflict to what Jesus said of the law). Note additionally:

Rom 7:7 ? What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: FOR I HAD NOT KNOWN lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For WITHOUT THE LAW sin [was] dead.

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but WHEN THE COMMANDMENT CAME, SIN revived, and I died.

Rom 7:10 And the commandment, which [was ordained] to life, I found [to be] unto death.

Rom 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew [me].


Rom 7:13 ? Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

ME: I'm really not sure what you are reading, but it's not the bible. Paul clearly states that the law 1) taught us what sin was 2) prescribed judgement (death) for sin 3) is impossible to fulfill and 4) overcome by the death of Jesus.

What Jesus abolished WAS THE EMNITY THE LAWS AND ORDINANCES GAVE US, he did not abolish NAY BUT FULFILED THE LAW, by satisfying it (through perfect obedience to it as well as by suffering the judgement and consequences of disobedience).

He is our substitutionary atonement! Praise God!

Look man, you need to get your nose out of books and back to the bible. You are hyper magnifying some verses to the exception of others.

The law was not abolished or was fulfilled. Jesus is the personfication of the law, He is the commandments and edicts, and moral character and laws of God (logos) made flesh. He has conquered the emnity of the law by His obedience to the law.

By the way, not trying to be a jerk, just didn't want to get the energy up to really start disecting your position because these take a long time...something I have less of right now...and once I started posting some of my frustration at your position probably came out.