SHOULD THE CHURCH TODAY BE CALLED NEW TESTAMENT

[DougE]

The church, the body of Christ, should not technically call itself a new testament church.

First of all the new testament should be viewed as being distinct from the old and new covenants.

The new covenant was made only with the house of Israel and Judah (Jeremiah 31:31). The new covenant promised Israel and Judah that God will, by His Spirit, write His law in their hearts; by His Spirit, enable them to keep His law, and be a light to the Gentiles (Jeremiah 31:31-34 Ezekiel 36:24-28 Matthew 5:14 Isaiah 60:3). The new covenant will be fulfilled in the future.

The new testament is given to Israel as well. Jesus died and shed his blood to redeem Israel; for the redemption of their transgressions that were under the first testament (Hebrews 9:15-18 Matthew 26:28 Mark 14:24). The new testament was put into force upon his death (Hebrews 9:17), while the new covenant has yet to be fulfilled.

Paul is a minister of the spirit (2 Corinthians 3:6); a minister of the new testament, not the new covenant. Paul expounds the spiritual blessings, the spititual benefits, of the new testament, given to the body of Christ; the blessings and eternal salvation, which are bestowed, by the cross of Christ. The new testament blood of Christ, has also been applied to His body, the church (Romans 3:25 Romans 4:25 Romans 8:16 1 Corinthians 2:12 1 Corinthians 12:13 Philippians 3:3).

That Jesus would die for the sins of Israel was in prophecy (Mark 8:31 Mark 9:31 Isaiah 53 Psalm 16:10); that his death and shed blood would also be applied to Gentiles and the body of Christ was kept secret until revealed to Paul (1 Corinthians 15:3-4 Ephesians 3:2-6).

The fact that the shed blood of Jesus was for the new testament (Luke 22:20); for the redemption of Israel's transgressions that were under the first testament (Hebrews 9:15), makes calling the church today new testament dubious. If the church today considers itself new testament it can lead to the error that it was redeemed by the blood of Christ to "receive the promise of eternal inheritance" promised Israel (Hebrews 9:15). The only church that could be called new testament would be the church comprised of those who received Jesus as Messiah, the Son of God (John 1:12 John 20:31) and believed the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 4:23) which promised entrance into the Davidic kingdom on earth (2 Peter 1:11).

 

[Wick Stick]

I guess it's nice that all you hyper-dispies have a place where you can pat each other on the back and reinforce each other in your beliefs, no matter how screwed up they may be.

 

[Clete]

I guess it's nice that all you hyper-dispies have a place where you can pat each other on the back and reinforce each other in your beliefs, no matter how screwed up they may be.

Says the waste of time who only ever responds to any cogent argument with this sort of stupidity rather than actually engaging the debate.

If it's so screwed up then refute it. I dare you to even try - which you won't do!

Otherwise, keep your pedantic comments to yourself. No one cares what you think anyway.

 

[Clete]

The church, the body of Christ, should not technically call itself a new testament church.

First of all the new testament should be viewed as being distinct from the old and new covenants.

The new covenant was made only with the house of Israel and Judah (Jeremiah 31:31). The new covenant promised Israel and Judah that God will, by His Spirit, write His law in their hearts; by His Spirit, enable them to keep His law, and be a light to the Gentiles (Jeremiah 31:31-34 Ezekiel 36:24-28 Matthew 5:14 Isaiah 60:3). The new covenant will be fulfilled in the future.

The new testament is given to Israel as well. Jesus died and shed his blood to redeem Israel; for the redemption of their transgressions that were under the first testament (Hebrews 9:15-18 Matthew 26:28 Mark 14:24). The new testament was put into force upon his death (Hebrews 9:17), while the new covenant has yet to be fulfilled.

Paul is a minister of the spirit (2 Corinthians 3:6); a minister of the new testament, not the new covenant. Paul expounds the spiritual blessings, the spititual benefits, of the new testament, given to the body of Christ; the blessings and eternal salvation, which are bestowed, by the cross of Christ. The new testament blood of Christ, has also been applied to His body, the church (Romans 3:25 Romans 4:25 Romans 8:16 1 Corinthians 2:12 1 Corinthians 12:13 Philippians 3:3).

That Jesus would die for the sins of Israel was in prophecy (Mark 8:31 Mark 9:31 Isaiah 53 Psalm 16:10); that his death and shed blood would also be applied to Gentiles and the body of Christ was kept secret until revealed to Paul (1 Corinthians 15:3-4 Ephesians 3:2-6).

The fact that the shed blood of Jesus was for the new testament (Luke 22:20); for the redemption of Israel's transgressions that were under the first testament (Hebrews 9:15), makes calling the church today new testament dubious. If the church today considers itself new testament it can lead to the error that it was redeemed by the blood of Christ to "receive the promise of eternal inheritance" promised Israel (Hebrews 9:15). The only church that could be called new testament would be the church comprised of those who received Jesus as Messiah, the Son of God (John 1:12 John 20:31) and believed the gospel of the kingdom (Matthew 4:23) which promised entrance into the Davidic kingdom on earth (2 Peter 1:11).

While I agree with your point in a technical sense, I don't think I'd be too worried about what the church calls itself. No one would use such a discriptive phrase such as "New Testament Church" as a major premise to build their doctrine on, and if someone did, they'd be sort of a weirdo outlier anyway. Afterall, every syllable of Paul's gospel is in the New Testament and so it's not exactly an inaccurate way to describe even a Mid-Acts Dispensational Church.

The mere fact that the bible is split into an Old and a New Testament is itself where such confusion most often comes from rather than from anyone getting confused by what the church calls itself.

 

[Wick Stick]

If it's so screwed up then refute it. I dare you to even try - which you won't do!

You're right, I won't. The task would be monumental. It's not a simple matter of pointing out a logical error here or there. Your errors are built on bad premises which are built on other bad premises, passed down over generations. To do so would involve demolishing layer after layer of bad thinking and pretty much razing the whole theological construct and starting over on the foundation. But hey, at least you started on a good foundation, right?

No one cares what you think anyway.

Also true. It's so much easier when you simply admit your close-mindedness, so thanks for that.

 

[Right Divider]

You're right, I won't. The task would be monumental. It's not a simple matter of pointing out a logical error here or there. Your errors are built on bad premises which are built on other bad premises, passed down over generations. To do so would involve demolishing layer after layer of bad thinking and pretty much razing the whole theological construct and starting over on the foundation. But hey, at least you started on a good foundation, right?

More babbling pablum from someone who highly values his own inflated opinion of himself.

Put up or shut up, as they say.

 

[DAN P]

I guess it's nice that all you hyper-dispies have a place where you can pat each other on the back and reinforce each other in your beliefs, no matter how screwed up they may be.

Hi I am a Pauline , Acts 9 , DISPENSATIOPNALIST and begin the B O C in Acts 9 !!

Where do you begin the B O C ?? Got any IDEA ??

How was Paul saved , got a verse of proof ?

Who is your APOSTLE for today ?

If you can answer , these fundamental questions , then Eph 3:9 MEANS nothing to your understanding and are just a LEMMING !!

And it is obvious that TESTAMENT / DIATHEKE is not in your VOCABULARY !!
dan p

 

[Wick Stick]

Put up or shut us, as they say.

Hang on, I'm still admiring that typo... lul

All right, now then... I don't think I'll do either. There's really no reason for me to waste a ton of time trying to correct someone who does not want and will not accept correction. And you haven't given me a compelling reason to shut up, either. Although, if you remain this dull for long enough, I'll probably move on out of sheer boredom.

 

[Wick Stick]

Hi I am a Pauline , Acts 9 , DISPENSATIOPNALIST and begin the B O C in Acts 9 !!

Where do you begin the B O C ?? Got any IDEA ??

How was Paul saved , got a verse of proof ?

Who is your APOSTLE for today ?

If you can answer , these fundamental questions , then Eph 3:9 MEANS nothing to your understanding and are just a LEMMING !!

And it is obvious that TESTAMENT / DIATHEKE is not in your VOCABULARY !!

dan p

You know what? Good on you. Where your comrades have failed to say anything meaningful and resort to name-calling and creating fanciful ultimatums, you actually have something to say. You can articulate what you believe, and you have questions that get to the point. Let's answer them, to the extent possible:

Where do you begin the B O C ?? Got any IDEA ??

I identify the establishment of the Body as being the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the re-establishment of the northern kingdom (that is, Ephraim-Israel).

Quick recap of history - Ephraim-Israel was obliterated, snuffed out of existence by the Assyrians, as punishment for her faithlessness to God. But the prophets say that those old dry bones will be brought back to life, and exist once more, and where they were Lo Ammi (not a people), they will be called sons of God.

This was Jesus mission and ministry - to restore Ephraim-Israel back to life. He traveled throughout Galilee, the Decapolis, Perea, and Transjordan - all of the parts of the historic northern kingdom - and he called forth the lost sheep from among the heathen. His mission was not to Judah, but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, which he restored from being a footnote in history to being a real people once again. Jesus succeeded in this regard, adopting a new Ephraim-Israel into existence, which is more commonly referred to as The Church, or Christianity, or the Body of Christ. Baptism is the adoption ceremony.

How was Paul saved , got a verse of proof ?

Acts 9:17-18. Ananias laid hands on him, and he received the spirit, and was baptized

Who is your APOSTLE for today ?

I probably don't understand this question the way you're asking it. The original apostles are all long gone, and there is no such thing as apostolic succession (sorry, Catholics). Apostles can still exist, but for that to happen, they need to actually meet the risen Lord, AND receive a commandment to go forth, WITH a writ of authority. I do not presently know of anyone on earth who meets all the criteria to be an apostle.

If you can answer , these fundamental questions , then Eph 3:9 MEANS nothing to your understanding and are just a LEMMING !!

There's something grammatically wrong with what you said here. Re-phrase it, perhaps? I am not understanding.

And it is obvious that TESTAMENT / DIATHEKE is not in your VOCABULARY !!

I think it's meant to be an insult, but since I'm already answering in sincerity, I'll simply respond that I have studied Biblical Greek and Hebrew. Studies of the usage of Greek words by Biblical authors indicate that many Greek words in the Bible are used outside of their proper Attic meanings, and instead are used as stand-ins for words in Hebrew or Aramaic with which the authors were more familiar. In this case of this word, διαθήκη is used wholly as a byword for the Hebrew בְּרִית (beriyth).

Jarrod

 

[Right Divider]

Hang on, I'm still admiring that typo... lul

Yes, ... anything but some actual content to your posts.

All right, now then... I don't think I'll do either. There's really no reason for me to waste a ton of time trying to correct someone who does not want and will not accept correction.

I will accept any and all correction.... but you're going to have to make a valid argument, which it appears that you will never even attempt.

And you haven't given me a compelling reason to shut up, either. Although, if you remain this dull for long enough, I'll probably move on out of sheer boredom.

Yes, anything but making a valid argument. That's your "style".

 

[Right Divider]

I identify the establishment of the Body as being the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the re-establishment of the northern kingdom (that is, Ephraim-Israel).

I can see why you are so completely confused.

The body of Christ is the ONE NEW MAN and not a restored chunk of the nation of Israel.

 

[DAN P]

You know what? Good on you. Where your comrades have failed to say anything meaningful and resort to name-calling and creating fanciful ultimatums, you actually have something to say. You can articulate what you believe, and you have questions that get to the point. Let's answer them, to the extent possible:


I identify the establishment of the Body as being the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the re-establishment of the northern kingdom (that is, Ephraim-Israel).

Quick recap of history - Ephraim-Israel was obliterated, snuffed out of existence by the Assyrians, as punishment for her faithlessness to God. But the prophets say that those old dry bones will be brought back to life, and exist once more, and where they were Lo Ammi (not a people), they will be called sons of God.

This was Jesus mission and ministry - to restore Ephraim-Israel back to life. He traveled throughout Galilee, the Decapolis, Perea, and Transjordan - all of the parts of the historic northern kingdom - and he called forth the lost sheep from among the heathen. His mission was not to Judah, but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, which he restored from being a footnote in history to being a real people once again. Jesus succeeded in this regard, adopting a new Ephraim-Israel into existence, which is more commonly referred to as The Church, or Christianity, or the Body of Christ. Baptism is the adoption ceremony.


Acts 9:17-18. Ananias laid hands on him, and he received the spirit, and was baptized


I probably don't understand this question the way you're asking it. The original apostles are all long gone, and there is no such thing as apostolic succession (sorry, Catholics). Apostles can still exist, but for that to happen, they need to actually meet the risen Lord, AND receive a commandment to go forth, WITH a writ of authority. I do not presently know of anyone on earth who meets all the criteria to be an apostle.


There's something grammatically wrong with what you said here. Re-phrase it, perhaps? I am not understanding.


I think it's meant to be an insult, but since I'm already answering in sincerity, I'll simply respond that I have studied Biblical Greek and Hebrew. Studies of the usage of Greek words by Biblical authors indicate that many Greek words in the Bible are used outside of their proper Attic meanings, and instead are used as stand-ins for words in Hebrew or Aramaic with which the authors were more familiar. In this case of this word, διαθήκη is used wholly as a byword for the Hebrew בְּרִית (beriyth).

Jarrod

Hi and wrong on all counts !!

There are many that begin the B O C on Acts 2 , a Jewish feast day , WRONG as the B O C began with SAUL , in Acts 9 !!
:15 !!

Another proof is in 1 Cor 12:3 and in 1 Cor 15:8 and by your explanation , you have never heard ofnthese verses !!

And we know that Paul is the PATTERN that lead , and do you know what that PATTERN is explained by 1 Tim 1:16 !!

We see from Gal 1:1 that Christ appointed Paul the apostle and 1 Cor 11:1 we are as believers to IMITATORS as I also am of Christ !!

Eph 3:9 reads , and to ILLUMINATE all as to what is the DISPENSATION of the MYSTERY , the one being kept SECRET/ MUSTERION , the one being KEPT secret fro the AGES IN God , etc etc !!

Are you a PROPONENT of Eph 3:9 , do you believe this verse ??

And will be glad to ANSWER any question that you might HAVE !!

dan p

 

[Wick Stick]

Will be glad to ANSWER any question that you might HAVE !!dan p

I have no questions. I already know what you believe. You may not remember, but we've had discussions before, both on this forum and others multiple times over the last decade or two.

The verses you quote - I know what they say, and I know what you think they say. I can even see why you interpret as you do. I just don't agree with your interpretations.

Jarrod

 

[7djengo7]

You're right, I won't. The task would be monumental. It's not a simple matter of pointing out a logical error here or there. Your errors are built on bad premises which are built on other bad premises, passed down over generations. To do so would involve demolishing layer after layer of bad thinking and pretty much razing the whole theological construct and starting over on the foundation. But hey, at least you started on a good foundation, right?



Also true. It's so much easier when you simply admit your close-mindedness, so thanks for that.

Whoa, there. Why is it wrong for everybody else except Wick Stick to be close-minded? How is it that the Bible-despising Wick Stick is somehow magically absolved from Wick Stick's own hypocrisy, despite Wick Stick's own close-mindedness?

Let's see what foundation the Bible-despising Wick Stick starts on: Wick Stick denies that every thing God had made (Genesis 1:31) was very good. Why do you expect Bible believers to take you seriously when you start by contradicting Moses, Wicky?

 

[Wick Stick]

Whoa, there. Why is it wrong for everybody else except Wick Stick to be close-minded? How is it that the Bible-despising Wick Stick is somehow magically absolved from Wick Stick's own hypocrisy, despite Wick Stick's own close-mindedness?

Let's see what foundation the Bible-despising Wick Stick starts on: Wick Stick denies that every thing God had made (Genesis 1:31) was very good. Why do you expect Bible believers to take you seriously when you start by contradicting Moses, Wicky?

Why do you keep repeating the same false accusation that I contradict Moses? I interpret differently than you, but that isn't contradiction.

I suppose it's just basic rhetoric - repeat the same accusation over and over ad nauseam, and even if its not true, you can eventually wear the opponent out through sheer pig-headed stubbornness. You know what, you can win that way. My level of commitment to this isn't close to yours. So have at it. Be the guy who wins the argument by simply repeating, "I know you are but what am I?" a million times. I won't even sweat it.

 

[Clete]

You're right, I won't. The task would be monumental. It's not a simple matter of pointing out a logical error here or there.

Actually,yes it is exactly that.

No one is asking you to write a book. Just take the rather short post that you think is "silly" and make an argument on how even one single point is fallacious or in any other way "silly".

You won't do it, because you can't do it and you wouldn't do it even if you could because debating doctrine isn't why you're here.

Your errors are built on bad premises which are built on other bad premises, passed down over generations.

Liar.

If you had an ounce of proof that any of this were true, you'd jump at the chance to prove all us nutjob dispensationalists wrong.

You won't present even one single item of evidence or make one single argument because you've got nothing.

To do so would involve demolishing layer after layer of bad thinking and pretty much razing the whole theological construct and starting over on the foundation. But hey, at least you started on a good foundation, right?

Your excuse making is laughable. Literally laughable.

You're a troll. A complete waste of bandwidth troll that aught not even be allowed to be here.

 

[DougE]

While I agree with your point in a technical sense, I don't think I'd be too worried about what the church calls itself. No one would use such a discriptive phrase such as "New Testament Church" as a major premise to build their doctrine on, and if someone did, they'd be sort of a weirdo outlier anyway. Afterall, every syllable of Paul's gospel is in the New Testament and so it's not exactly an inaccurate way to describe even a Mid-Acts Dispensational Church.

The mere fact that the bible is split into an Old and a New Testament is itself where such confusion most often comes from rather than from anyone getting confused by what the church calls itself.

I do not agree that Paul's gospel is in the new testament; if so then it was not hid in God Ephesians 3:9

I also think that as I stated, a church that thinks it is under the new testament would expect that Israel's redemption ours and we will inherit all of Israel's promises....I think this view could be said to be prevalent.

 

[DAN P]

You know what? Good on you. Where your comrades have failed to say anything meaningful and resort to name-calling and creating fanciful ultimatums, you actually have something to say. You can articulate what you believe, and you have questions that get to the point. Let's answer them, to the extent possible:


I identify the establishment of the Body as being the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the re-establishment of the northern kingdom (that is, Ephraim-Israel).

Quick recap of history - Ephraim-Israel was obliterated, snuffed out of existence by the Assyrians, as punishment for her faithlessness to God. But the prophets say that those old dry bones will be brought back to life, and exist once more, and where they were Lo Ammi (not a people), they will be called sons of God.

This was Jesus mission and ministry - to restore Ephraim-Israel back to life. He traveled throughout Galilee, the Decapolis, Perea, and Transjordan - all of the parts of the historic northern kingdom - and he called forth the lost sheep from among the heathen. His mission was not to Judah, but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, which he restored from being a footnote in history to being a real people once again. Jesus succeeded in this regard, adopting a new Ephraim-Israel into existence, which is more commonly referred to as The Church, or Christianity, or the Body of Christ. Baptism is the adoption ceremony.


Acts 9:17-18. Ananias laid hands on him, and he received the spirit, and was baptized


I probably don't understand this question the way you're asking it. The original apostles are all long gone, and there is no such thing as apostolic succession (sorry, Catholics). Apostles can still exist, but for that to happen, they need to actually meet the risen Lord, AND receive a commandment to go forth, WITH a writ of authority. I do not presently know of anyone on earth who meets all the criteria to be an apostle.


There's something grammatically wrong with what you said here. Re-phrase it, perhaps? I am not understanding.


I think it's meant to be an insult, but since I'm already answering in sincerity, I'll simply respond that I have studied Biblical Greek and Hebrew. Studies of the usage of Greek words by Biblical authors indicate that many Greek words in the Bible are used outside of their proper Attic meanings, and instead are used as stand-ins for words in Hebrew or Aramaic with which the authors were more familiar. In this case of this word, διαθήκη is used wholly as a byword for the Hebrew בְּרִית (beriyth).

Jarrod

Hi and lets start with HOW was Paul saved ?

Can you answer Acts 9:17 and its meaning ?

Ananias , says , " and might be FULL OF HOLY SPIRIT ??

Did you receive the HOLY SPIRIT by WATER BAPTISM ?

Did you know that SAUL already had the HOLY SPIRIT , before verse 17 !!

Check Acts 9; 6 and then read 1 Cor 12:3 , NO ONE CALLS Jesus , LORD , except by HOLY SPIRIT !!

Notice that it does not read EXCEPT BY ( THE ) HOLY SPIRIT !!

It reads EXCEPT BY HOLY SPIRIT ?

WHY ??

dan p

 

[7djengo7]

Why do you keep repeating the same false accusation that I contradict Moses? I interpret differently than you, but that isn't contradiction.

I agree with Moses by taking him to mean that God's works were very good; and, as you just now admitted ("I interpret differently than you"), you take Moses to mean that God's works were not very good. So, yeah, you contradict Moses. Why do you say that my true accusation is false?

 

[Wick Stick]

No one is asking you to write a book. Just take the rather short post that you think is "silly" and make an argument on how even one single point is fallacious or in any other way "silly".

You won't do it, because you can't do it and you wouldn't do it even if you could because debating doctrine isn't why you're here.

Well, if you're going to lower the bar like that I can. Now then, I choose this bit of rubbish from the OP to pick on:

Paul is...a minister of the new testament, not the new covenant.

Here, Doug E. Doug puts a difference between New Testament, and New Covenant. This differentiation appears to be a keystone of his thesis. Unfortunately for Doug, such a distinction is a complete fiction, because when you look into the Hebrew and Greek, testament and covenant are literally the same word. The difference only exists in our English translations.

To prove this, I now present to you six examples of places where the Greek word διαθήκη, which Doug says is properly translated testament and not covenant, is used to mean... covenant. All the verses are quoted in parallel from the King James Bible and the Greek Textus Receptus on which it was based (emphasis added). I have chosen one verse from each book of the Pentateuch (shoutout to the moron who keeps falsely claiming I contradict Moses), and one from Jeremiah which is highly relevant to the topic-at-hand.

-----

Genesis 6:18 καὶ στήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου πρὸς σέ εἰσελεύσῃ δὲ εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν σὺ καὶ οἱ υἱοί σου καὶ ἡ γυνή σου καὶ αἱ γυναῗκες τῶν υἱῶν σου μετὰ σοῦ

Genesis 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

-----

Exodus 6:5 καὶ ἐγὼ εἰσήκουσα τὸν στεναγμὸν τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ ὃν οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι καταδουλοῦνται αὐτούς καὶ ἐμνήσθην τῆς διαθήκης ὑμῶν

Exodus 6:5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant.

-----

Leviticus 26:25 καὶ ἐπάξω ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς μάχαιραν ἐκδικοῦσαν δίκην διαθήκης καὶ καταφεύξεσθε εἰς τὰς πόλεις ὑμῶν καὶ ἐξαποστελῶ θάνατον εἰς ὑμᾶς καὶ παραδοθήσεσθε εἰς χεῗρας ἐχθρῶν

Leviticus 26:25 And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.

-----

Numbers 25:13 καὶ ἔσται αὐτῷ καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν διαθήκη ἱερατείας αἰωνία ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ἐζήλωσεν τῷ θεῷ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξιλάσατο περὶ τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ

Numbers 25:13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

-----

Deuteronomy 4:13 καὶ ἀνήγγειλεν ὑμῗν τὴν διαθήκην αὐτοῦ ἣν ἐνετείλατο ὑμῗν ποιεῗν τὰ δέκα ῥήματα καὶ ἔγραψεν αὐτὰ ἐπὶ δύο πλάκας λιθίνας

Deuteronomy 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

-----

Jeremiah 31:31 ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται φησὶν κύριος καὶ διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ καὶ τῷ οἴκῳ Ιουδα διαθήκην καινήν

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

-----

I believe that should also answer the question @DAN P; posed earlier in this thread about this particular Greek word.

Jarrod