Hebrews is a carefully argued theological treatise written to remind negligent believers of the greatness of their salvation and to rekindle their commitment to it.
WHICH CHURCH WAS HEBREWS WRITTEN TO?
- Thread starter DougE
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
Hebrews was written to Hebrews about their earthly kingdom program with God and the promises that He made to Israel.
The body of Christ has a different destiny and a different calling.
Guess I should have said negligent Hebrew believers.
God's Truth
New member
You are mistaken.
No such thing what you say.
Paul says plainly that he is the MINISTER OF THE NEW COVENANT.
God's Truth
New member
Paul says plainly that he is the minister of the new covenant. Why don't you believe it?
You can't put any scripture aside, or deny it, or say it is mashed up.
Shasta
Well-known member
Labeling someone's argument a "rabbit trail" with NO EXPLANATION tells me that you either do not understand what I have said or that you want to evade debate.
I do not think you understand what the covenant is. It concerns forgiveness of sin and reconciliation to God. By instituting the practice of the Eucharist Jesus was saying that Gentiles and Jews were both partakers in the New Covenant in His blood.
The shedding blood of Christ the LAMB of God is means by which we are saved. The efficacy of the gospel message absolutely depends on what He did on the Cross so much that Paul calls the gospel the "word of the cross"
“The word of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18)
It is no accident that Jesus died on Passover or that He instituted a practice in which every believer (Jew and Gentile) would drink of a cup which Jesus SAID was (emblematic of) the NEW COVENANT in HIS BLOOD. After saying that Jesus told them to drink all of it. He did not say "you will drink of this new covenant ONE DAY in the DISTANT FUTURE" but drink it in the here-and-now and, in fact, drink of it regularly. The communion supper is a simple tangible demonstration that all members are participants in the same NEW COVENANT. Partaking of the bread shows that they through the breaking of Christ's physical body are all made ONE spiritual BODY. This message was not recondite and hidden. It was meant to be clear and visible, understandable even to people who were not theologians.
Let us look at another passage:
11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.
(Ephesians 2:11-12)
In verses 11 & 12 Paul tells them to REMEMBER how they used to be before they were redeemed. He says they were:
a. SEPARATE from Christ
b. EXCLUDED from the citizenship in Israel and
c. STRANGERS to the COVENANTS of PROMISE
Now if this is how it USED to be then it follows that it was no longer true for them. In Verse 13 he tells them that they are
a. NO LONGER separate from Christ
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
b. Also we are no longer EXCLUDED from the "commonwealth of Israel"
The word commonwealth comes from the Greek POLITeia which Thayer's Greek Lexicon defines as a theocratic or divine commonwealth, Ephesians 2:12 This does not make us part of national or ethnic Israel but according to this definition it refers to our membership in Christ's government which is currently pending but will one day rule visibly on earth. Paul uses a related word POLITeuma when he says our CITIZENSHIP is in heaven (Philippians 3:20)
The reason we are no longer excluded from spiritual Israel is that in Christ by His death took away the wall separating Jew and Gentile
14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself ONE NEW MAN out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
c.We are also no longer strangers to the COVENANTS of Promise
Observe that here the word covenant is PLURAL. What are these covenants? One is the New Covenant which Christ initiated by His blood sacrifice.
BTW If you do not want to engage please say so
That isn't supported by account of the event (eg Matthew 26:26-29) or by the prophets. In other words the Eucharist has doctrinal aspect which doesn't originate with the Messianic teachings.
Right Divider
Body part
And I explained that to you and still you have no clue.
How much more clear could God be through Jeremiah and confirmed again in the book to the Hebrews?
Jer 31:31-33 KJV 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: (32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
It cannot be more clear. That is UNAMBIGUOUS and CRYSTAL CLEAR.
That you reject scripture is a shame on you.
Right Divider
Body part
There is a LOT more to it than just that.
Your long winded posts do not merit a long winded reply.
How much more clear could God be through Jeremiah and confirmed again in the book to the Hebrews?
Jer 31:31-33 KJV 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: (32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
It cannot be more clear. That is UNAMBIGUOUS and CRYSTAL CLEAR.
God's Truth
New member
Paul QUOTES JESUS making the New Covenant! And then PAUL SAYS he is the minister of the New Covenant. Not a different New Covenant---NO SUCH THING.
God SPOKE TO the House of Israel and the house of Judah BECAUSE He had a COVENANT with them---God did NOT have a covenant with the Gentiles---So WHY WOULD say that to the Gentiles?! BUT God said the Gentiles would get to be in the one and only Covenant with them.
Paul calls it Jews first then Gentiles.
Right Divider
Body part
So what!!!! Paul quotes lots of things, including pagan philosophers.
Never said that there was a "different new covenant". You always try to twist what people say, just like you twist the scripture.
NO KIDDING?!?!?
That is exactly how He can make a NEW covenant that replaces the OLD covenant... both with ISRAEL! Just like the Bible says in Jeremiah and Hebrews.
Indeed, that's what YOU need to answer... not me.
Crazy talk.
CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT....
In the BODY OF CHRIST there is NEITHER JEW NOR GREEK... so how is one "first".
Rom 1:16-17 KJV For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (17) For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
There are TWO FAITHS mentioned there (something that you, of course, will not understand).
God's Truth
New member
Paul quoted Jesus! And then said that he is a minister of the new covenant.
Here Paul tells when Jesus made that covenant:
1 Corinthians 11:25 In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
Here Paul tells how Jesus gave the covenant that was promised a long time ago when God said He would write the new law on our hearts:
2 Corinthians 3:3 It is clear that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
Paul is explaining that HE COULD NOT CHANGE THE COVENANT, which further proves Paul taught exactly what Jesus taught when he walked the earth:
Galatians 3:15 Brothers, let me put this in human terms. Even a human covenant, once it is ratified, cannot be canceled or amended.
When Jesus was on earth, he made the testament/covenant conditions, and then he died for the testament and covenant, rose again, and ascended.
Jesus couldn't come and make a different gospel/covenant with Paul because this is the one and only everlasting covenant of his blood.
Hebrews 13:20 Now may the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great Shepherd of the sheep,
No way do I do that.
PAUL SAYS he is a minister of a New Covenant and YOU say we are not in a covenant.
There is neither Jew or Greek means it doesn't matter when we get saved and are in Christ.
Paul calls it Jews first then Gentiles.
Paul calls it Jews first then Gentiles, and SO DOES PETER:
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.
Romans 2:9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;
Acts 3:26 When God raised up His servant, He sent Him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways."
Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.
Acts 18:6 But when they opposed and insulted him, he shook out his garments and told them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."
No such thing as two faiths.
Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
Right Divider
Body part
Paul quoted Jesus confirming the new covenant with those that the new covenant applied to. No great mystery there.
Yes, Jesus was with the twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of ISRAEL. All according to God's plans for the NATION OF ISRAEL. No great mystery there.
Scripture mashing again.
That scripture has NOTHING to do with the NEW COVENANT. More turning the scripture on its head like you always do!
Conflating gospels and covenants like to good little Bible twister/masher.
The sheep are ISRAEL per pretty much every prophet of ISRAEL (per God's Word).
Never once does Paul refer to the body of Christ as sheep.
Paul is talking about doctrine for the BODY OF CHRIST there in Ephesians. That does NOT preclude two faiths as "FAITH TO FAITH" clearly indicates.
Paul also says ONE BAPTISM, but we know there are many baptisms (Heb 6:2)...
The ONE baptism is for the BODY OF CHRIST. Once AGAIN, CONTEXT!
Last edited:
Was it a testament or a covenant?
If it was a testament, then why the change from covenants referred to in Exodus 24:6-6 and Jeremiah 31:31-33 to a testament?
If it was a covenant, then why should he have to die for it? The blood of Exodus 24 was only a symbol of the practice and consent of the people of the covenant.
God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
Matthew 22:32, KJV
But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Matthew 12:7
Shasta
Well-known member
That the sacrifice of the Messiah would bring about the forgiveness of sins was foretold by the prophets. John the Baptist, the forerunner, foresaw this and proclaimed it to the people when he said: "Behold the LAMB OF GOD who takes away the sin of the world." This pointed out the parallel between Jesus and the Passover sacrifice which had delivered Israel from slavery and from God's judgment. Jesus, when eating Passover transformed it into something new when He said that the poured out wine was His blood and the broken bread was His body. It was He who commanded His followers to make it a regular practice.
Believers in Jesus continued to practice the communion, a fact verified by the Apostle Paul in the Book of Corinthians. Apparently, they even memorized the exact words spoken at the event since Paul recited the events verbatim at a time when there were no written accounts of it. Historically, we know that this practice continued. As far as your claim that the doctrinal aspect (that Christ through His blood would bring about the forgiveness of sins) Paul saw this as so integral to the Gospel of Salvation that he called his message "the Word of the Cross."
Shasta
Well-known member
And yet you will not say what this additional content is.
Long-winded means you do not want to take the time to understand anything you do not already believe. Well that is not the way to present a "reasoned defense" Truly great apologists like Ireneaus took the time to understand his opponent's views so he could mount a rational defense.
I think it is pretty clear that the Gentiles were participants in the New Covenant. This was revealed every time they drank the wine which represented the NEW COVENANT in Christ's blood. Paul never excluded the Gentiles from this rite although, if it had been contrary to fact, if the Gentiles were NOT truly partakers of the NEW COVENANT in His blood he would not have allowed them to participate.
Shasta
Well-known member
What Christ established was not merely a promise or agreement, it was a BLOOD COVENANT, a binding of LIFE to LIFE. When Abraham made his covenant he built two altars, one for himself and one for God. By custom, each party after offering a blood sacrifice on their altar would begin walking in between the altars. When Abraham laid everything out he sat down and went to sleep. What was he waiting for? If it had just been a contract all of this would have been unnecessary but he was waiting for his covenant partner (who was God) to come down and pass between the blood sacrifices. This would seal God to the covenant and that is exactly what happened. A bloodless sacrifice, like Cain's salad bar, would not have expressed the depth of what a covenant represented. If all God wanted to do was make an agreement with us He could have done that. He wanted a much more complete union with us
Right Divider
Body part
The wine represented one aspect of the new covenant to ISRAEL.
Ah... the RITE.... where did Paul institute this rite?
Once again, you must deny and twist what God says about the new covenant in Jeremiah.
If the new covenant/testament was a "gentile thing", don't you think that Paul would mention it more than just twice in ALL of this THIRTEEN epistles?
And ONE of those TWO mentions is quoting the Lord Jesus Christ speaking exclusively to the twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of ISRAEL.
God's Truth
New member
When Jesus had his earthly ministry, he made his Last Will and Testament. Then he died and it went into force. It is also called a Covenant because Jesus is God and lives.
Shasta
Well-known member
He did not institute it - JESUS did on the night before He was betrayed.
I am not saying God did not speak to Jeremiah in chapter 11. I am saying that through the cross the Gentiles became inheritors of the promise of salvation along with the Jews.
That was one of the mysteries Paul came to understand:
6This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 3:6)
iWe are only redeemed and forgiven because of the sacrifice of Christ on the CROSS which is why Paul called the gospel "The word of the Cross" There is no salvation apart from the blood sacrifice of Christ.
24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
(Romans 3:21-24)
There is a direct connection between Christ's His death on the cross and the communion supper celebrated immediately before which He said was the "pouring out of His blood" and the "breaking of His body." So integral was the cross to the gospel message that Paul called the Gospel "The Word of the CROSS"
18 For the MESSAGE of the CROSS is foolishness to those indeed perishing, but to us being SAVED, it is the power of God..22 Forasmuch as both Jews ask for signs, and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 we, however, preach Christ having been crucified, a stumbling block indeed to the Jewish and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but those called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the POWER of GOD and the wisdom of God.
(1 Corinthians 1:18-23)
How many times must something be proclaimed before it is accepted as true? Is there a minimum number? No this is you once again trying to build your case on what is NOT SAID. Well, we know they practiced the Communion Supper because Paul said so in 1 Corinthians. Therefore the practice must have been very familiar to them
I would be happy to obey something Jesus said even if no one else said it. The Apostle Paul himself based His teaching on the words of the Savior and recommended that Timothy do so as well:
Teach and urge these things. 3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions..."
(1 Timothy 6:3-4)
Unlike you, Paul did not reject the teachings of Jesus
I do not read anything in the passages about the Lord's Supper that relate it to The Twelve ruling on thrones. Salvation and the rewards to be received are different matters. The Body and Blood of Jesus pertain to how God saves us. Also, if the covenant supper was only shared among the Twelve then why did Paul not tell them not to eat it anymore since the meal was only meant for Apostles. Why did he teach the Corinthians to eat it with Godly fear? Obviously it had been a universal practice among believers that did not cease with the death of the Twelve.
Once again you have assumed your premise and afterward attempted to fit it into the passage as opposed to carefully interpreting the passage, comparing it to others, and from that formulating a doctrine.