New Covenant

A New Covenant

Definitions.

For our purpose, and to avoid confusion, we should define a few key terms before we begin.

The Old Testament = The Tanakh: every book from Genesis to 2Chronicles. In Gentile Bibles, every book from Genesis to Malachi.

The New Testament = The Christian Greek scriptures from Matthew to Revelation.

The Old Covenant = A covenant God made with the people of Israel after rescuing them from Egyptian slavery. A large portion of it was revealed at Horeb in the books of Exodus and Leviticus. During the forty years wanderings, more was added in the book of Numbers. Later, just prior to Joshua's invasion of Palestine, a codicil, sometimes called the covenant of Moab, was tacked on in the book of Deuteronomy. Often called Moses' Covenant, the old covenant is spelled out in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

The New Covenant = A covenant scheduled to be fully implemented with the people of Israel sometime in the future after the Diaspora is recalled to Palestine to live in Messiah's kingdom. It was predicted in the Old Testament books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

Mitzvot = Moses' covenanted law: the laws and rules contained in the old covenant.

Torah = An ambiguous word; Torah can mean the entire Old Testament, the Mitzvot, the first five books of the Bible, the content of Moses' covenant, or all Jewish law including Halacha and Oral Law.

Qorbanot System = Judaism's sacred rituals; requiring a Temple and a fully functioning Aaronic priesthood.

A Whole Other Country

The new covenant is totally different than the one God made with Israel in Moses' day. So it is sometimes confusing, and frustrating, to try and analyze the new one through the lenses of Moses' Covenant; especially in regard to the atonement method of the new one. The two covenants are so different in their scope that it is impossible to harmonize them. They have to stand alone. It just doesn't work to try and fuse the two together; neither is the new one built upon the old one; as if it was designed to enhance the old one in some way. Like Forrest Gump said to his friend Jenny about Viet Nam: "It's a whole other country."

The new covenant was predicted for Israel's future some time after Messiah sets up his rule. Here's how it reads.

†.Jer 31:31-34 …See, a time is coming— declares the Lord —when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers, when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, a covenant which they broke, though I espoused them— declares the Lord.

...But such is the covenant I will make with the House of Israel after these days— declares the Lord: I will put my Teachings into their inmost being and inscribe it upon their hearts. Then I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer will they need to teach one another and say to one another, "Heed the Lord"; for all of them, from the least of them to the greatest, shall heed Me— declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquities, and remember their sins no more. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

Today, the vast majority of the Jewish people are secular and do not "heed The Lord". The very purpose of the new covenant is to ensure that every individual Jew will heed God. The covenant also has provisions to forgive every imaginable sin, even the ones that cannot be forgiven through Moses' Covenant— capital crimes, and violations committed by offenders who know what they are doing is wrong, a.k.a. deliberate sin.

Every beneficiary of the new covenant, both Jew and Gentile, will live, not just obedient to God, but actually follow God willingly and cheerfully; because righteousness will become second nature to them, and a part of their normal personality. The new covenant contains provisions to supernaturally, and quite literally, turn an individual into a new man. Moses' covenant does not have provisions for rehabilitation and, its rituals aside, is really only good for law and order. The new covenant isn't like that. One of its strong points is, in point of fact, rehab, and makes a person self disciplined instead of forcing them to be civil by means of law enforcement and criminal justice.

Years ago, lobotomy experiments were tried in an effort to control criminal behavior. Well, those didn't really succeed too well and sometimes left the patient messed up. The new covenant performs something much better than a lobotomy. The operation is supernatural and actually performs the creation of a brand new human being sans the sinful nature they had in the old one. Years ago, back when I was lost and on my way to Hell, I thought to myself if only it wasn't so difficult and unnatural to follow God's law. If only I could please God naturally, without so much effort, then it would be much easier. Praise God! The new covenant is the answer to my wish.

Jeremiah wasn't the only prophet who predicted the new covenant and its benefits. Ezekiel predicted it too.

†.Ezk 36:24-28 …I will take you from among the nations and gather you from all the countries, and I will bring you back to your own land. I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean: I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your fetishes. And I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit into you: I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a tender heart; and I will put My spirit into you. Thus I will cause you to follow My laws and faithfully to observe My rules. Then you shall dwell in the land which I gave to your fathers, and you shall be My people and I will be your God. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

The laws and rules of the new covenant are not exactly the same as the ones in Moses' covenant. There are major differences in the two pacts. Although the laws and rules of the two covenants were enacted by the same God, they clash and cannot dwell together in harmony. So it is impossible to participate in both covenants at the same time.

†.Matt 9:16-17 ...No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved. (NIV)

My spirit

An outstanding benefit of the new covenant is the gift of "My" spirit (Ezk 36:24-28).

I often tell Jews that they will never understand nor make sense of the New Testament scriptures until they first become beneficiaries of the new covenant. That riles many of them into thinking I'm trying to sell a religion that must be accepted before one can even understand it. But that's not my point. Jeremiah's covenant is simple. It is straight forward, and very easy to understand. It's the New Testament's teachings that are difficult to understand.

†.2Pet 3:15-16 ...Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (NIV)

All of our human logic is based upon what we know as creatures who are products of their environment— much as a primitive aboriginal who has never seen a steel mill, nor a light bulb, nor flush toilets, nor a milk shake. There is no way to explain those things to them because they have no points of reference in their thinking to understand what you might like to tell them about your world.

So it is with Almighty God. He is so far outside human experience and imagination that it is impossible for us to understand Him except on the very simplest, and the most elementary, levels of information. Until one becomes a beneficiary of the new covenant, and receives the gift of "My spirit" to augment their mortal human mind; there is just no way that God can reveal His way of thinking to them on any higher level than that of a kindergarten kid.

†.1Cor 2:11 ...For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. (NIV)

†.Deut 29:1-3 ... Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: You have seen all that the Lord did before your very eyes in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and to all his courtiers and to his whole country: the wondrous feats that you saw with your own eyes, those prodigious signs and marvels. Yet to this day the Lord has not given you a mind to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

Moses didn't make that statement the day they came out of Egypt. He said it forty years later. So his audience had forty years to develop "eyes to see and ears to hear". But they never did. And God left them that way.

†.2Cor 3:7-17 …Now if the ministry that brought death [the Law], which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

...Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Messiah is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (NIV)

The New Testament cannot be taught to either Jew or Gentile who does not have "My spirit". Without the advantage of God's spirit, the New Testament documents, and a goodly portion of the Old Testament too, will be misunderstood. Those who do not have "eyes to see and ears to hear" might just as well be trying to read the Bible with a thick blanket over their head. This problem isn't limited to Jewish unbelievers only. Many professing Christians as well are interpreting the Bible with an unaided mortal mind; totally dependant upon their own natural IQ; and with predictable results.

I have dialogued with Jews who feel that the New Testament scriptures are flawed, contradictory, and convoluted. Well of course! They see it that way because that is how those writings are supposed to appear to the unaided human mind. Their perception merely reflects the limitations of a mortal mind attempting to make sense of Divine concepts.

There are those who feel that human beings have powerful intellects and don't need assistance from God's spirit to understand the Bible. Compared to the infinite, inhuman mind of Almighty God, even the best of us have no sharper spiritual acumen than retarded gorillas. The human brain is a three-pound lump of organic tissue. Just how expansive can that possibly be compared to the immeasurable mind of Almighty God?

†.1Cor 2:12-14 ...We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. (NIV)

David lived many years before Jeremiah and Ezekiel. But his soul cried out for the benefits of God's spirit even before anyone knew the new covenant was coming. Everyone who sincerely longs to live a Godly life must surely feel his frustration and the longing he had for a better nature than Man's sinful human nature.

†.Ps 51:11-14 ...Hide Your face from my sins; blot out all my iniquities. Fashion a pure heart for me, O God; create in me a steadfast spirit. Do not cast me out of Your presence, or take Your holy spirit away from me. Let me again rejoice in Your help; let a vigorous spirit sustain me. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

A Covenant Of Peace And Friendship

†.Ezk 34:23-31 ...Then I will appoint a single shepherd over them to tend them— My servant David. He shall tend them, he shall be a shepherd to them. I the Lord will be their God, and My servant David shall be a ruler among them— I the Lord have spoken.

...And I will grant them a covenant of friendship. I will banish vicious beasts from their land, and they shall live secure in the wasteland, they shall even sleep in the woodland. I will make these and the environs of My hill a blessing: I will send down the rain in its season, rains that bring blessing. The trees of the field shall yield their fruit and the land shall yield its produce.

...[My people] shall continue secure on its own soil. They shall know that I am the Lord when I break the bars of their yoke and rescue them from those who enslave them. They shall no longer be a spoil for the nations, and the beasts of the earth shall not devour them; they shall dwell secure and untroubled. I shall establish for them a planting of renown; they shall no more be carried off by famine, and they shall not have to bear again the taunts of the nations.

...They shall know that I the Lord their God am with them and they, the House of Israel, are My people— declares the Lord God. For you, My flock, flock that I tend, are men; and I am your God— declares the Lord God. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

†.Ezk 37:21-28 ...Thus said the Lord God: I am going to take the Israelite people from among the nations they have gone to, and gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I will make them a single nation in the land, on the hills of Israel, and one king shall be king of them all. Never again shall they be two nations, and never again shall they be divided into two kingdoms. Nor shall they ever again defile themselves by their fetishes and their abhorrent things, and by their other transgressions. I will save them in all their settlements where they sinned, and I will cleanse them. Then they shall be My people, and I will be their God. My servant David shall be king over them; there shall be one shepherd for all of them.

...They shall follow My rules and faithfully obey My laws. Thus they shall remain in the land which I gave to My servant Jacob and in which your fathers dwelt; they and their children and their children’s children shall dwell there forever, with My servant David as their prince for all time.

...I will make a covenant of friendship with them— it shall be an everlasting covenant with them— I will establish them and multiply them, and I will place My Sanctuary among them forever. My Presence shall rest over them; I will be their God and they shall be My people. And when My Sanctuary abides among them forever, the nations shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

It amazes me to find that so many Jews mistrust the new covenant. Some even go so far as to say that the Gentiles invented it. That is utter nonsense. As anyone can plainly see, it was predicted in the Tanakh by the Jewish prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Gentiles did not invent the new covenant. It is totally Jewish.

Other Jews, out of zeal for Moses' covenant, claim that the new covenant is not a new one at all but merely an improvement upon the Mosaic covenant. No it isn't. Jeremiah did not say that the new one is an amendment or a codicil to the Mosaic covenant. He specifically called it a *new* covenant and he also said that it is not like the one that God made with Israel in the wilderness.

But I think one of the main reasons that modern Judaism has so much trouble with the new covenant is because it implicates Jesus of Nazareth. So they automatically strive to interpret the new covenant in a way that opposes the New Testament's point of view. And they try to discredit the crucifixion by applying the Mosaic Law to it; which is the wrong way to go about it because the new deal is not based upon the old one's law.

It only stands to reason that if the new covenant is designed to forgive every imaginable sin; and permanently restore the people of Israel to their land in an environment of peace and prosperity under Messiah's jurisdiction and blessings, and also guarantee their rehab and their willing obedience to God's laws and rules; then the victim for its atonement has to be far superior in value to the sacrifices offered by the Aaronic priesthood; which pardoned only unintentional sins and had no provisions at all for rehab, nor even for a permanent Davidic king. That is why the new one requires a human being. A human being is so superior in value to standard qorbanot offerings that Messiah needed to be offered only one time; whereas livestock, fowls, incense, and grain have to be offered over, and over, and over again because the duration of their atonement value is very brief.

The priests couldn't keep your offering on deposit for you to draw upon whenever you came to confess and be purified. The Aaronic qorbanot system requires a new offering each and every time. And the priests often cooked and ate it. But Christ is on deposit continually. Like a huge bar of gold that can never be worn down no matter how much money you spend; he is perpetually effective.

Objection: G_d abhors human sacrifice.

Search the Scriptures and you will find God abhorring only the sacrifice of one's own children rather than the sacrifice of adults.

Have you ever wondered why human sacrifice, as a rule, is repugnant to God? Because it's barbaric? Cruel? Pagan? Yes, there are instances in the Bible where God expresses disgust for certain kinds of human sacrifices such as parents cooking their babies to death inside red hot idols. But in principle, human sacrifice is repugnant to God because Man is unsuitable for atonement purposes since he's basically an unclean beast.

†.Gen 6:3 ...And the Lord said, "My spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is sinful flesh; (WHV)

†.Gen 6:5 ...The Lord saw how great was man’s wickedness on earth, and how every plan devised by his mind was nothing but evil all the time. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

†.Gen 8:21 ...“Never again will I doom the earth because of man, since the devisings of man’s mind are evil from his youth; (1985 JPS Tanakh)

Specified *clean birds and beasts may be used for Aaronic sacrifices because they are inherently innocent and sinless. But not so with Man. He is an unclean being whose mind is awash with sinful thoughts; and "evil from his youth."

Qorbanot law requires all the firstborn males of clean beasts to be dedicated to God. But the firstborn males of Man are unacceptable. They are to be redeemed just like any other unclean animal's offspring are to be redeemed.

†.Num 18:15-17 ...The first issue of the womb of every being, man or beast, that is offered to the Lord, shall be [Aaron's]; but you shall have the firstborn of man redeemed, and you shall also have the firstling of unclean animals redeemed. Take as their redemption price, from the age of one month up, the money equivalent of five shekels by the sanctuary weight, which is twenty gerahs. But the firstlings of cattle, sheep, or goats may not be redeemed; they are consecrated. You shall dash their blood against the altar, and turn their fat into smoke as an offering by fire for a pleasing odor to the Lord. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

[ See also Ex 13:11-15 and Ex 32:19-20 ]

The lesson of those passages is obvious. On the night that God liberated the people of Israel from Egyptian slavery, He went through the country and slew every firstborn of Man and Beast. (the rank of firstborn typically falls to the males) It made no difference whether or not the men and the beasts were Jew or non Jew. All perished unless the occupants of the firstborn's home painted the blood of a Pascal lamb on their door posts. The lambs, according to Moses' Law, are clean animals, and qualify to be used for redemption purposes; for redeeming the unclean— in this case, firstborn male human beings.

(Hence; it only stands to reason that if the firstborn— the highest in rank among his siblings— is unclean, then so are the rest of the family's children, both the boys and the girls, because they are lower in rank than the firstborn.)

The word for *redeem is from padah (paw-daw') which means: to sever, i.e. ransom. Redemption, plain and simple, is a buy-out. Redemption is not a reward; no, not in any sense of the word. Unclean beings deserve no reward. First they have to be redeemed; then maybe they can start working towards rewards; because unredeemed people cannot please God until they are first covered by some sort of atonement.

[ Aaron and his sons, although Divinely designated from among the people of Israel as the official priests, were not permitted to function in the priesthood until they were first properly consecrated for service. (Ex 29:1-3) ]

If a firstborn donkey isn't redeemed, it's to be slain. It's not offered to The Lord because God cannot accept an unclean gift. Neither can the firstborn of Man be offered to The Lord. If he isn't redeemed, then he's to die. (and you know what that implies)

For an unclean being like Man to redeem himself would be akin to someone picking themselves up off the ground by their own ankles. It just can't be done. (hopping doesn't count) No, an outside force must be applied to lift someone off the ground. Man cannot redeem himself because he cannot offer his own self to God as a ransom; nor can he offer his fellow man, not even newborn children.

No, a price must be paid for his ransom, in this case a lamb, because the lamb is clean (and harmless). Just imagine! Man was created superior to all forms of life, but is now considered dirtier than many of them and no cleaner than a donkey.

Man was created innocent— in the image and likeness of God. But that innocence was lost when he became a sinner. So now Man cannot come near God because he is a dirty minded creature; and of course totally unacceptable for use as a sin offering because of it. The sin offering must be innocent, and it must be pure. Not even little children can be used as sin offerings because even they, as young and sweet as they are, come into the world as unclean creatures. They may seem cute and cuddly on the surface, and totally innocent to their parents, but in God's opinion, all of Man's offspring are unholy larva spawned by a race of unsanitary creatures.

†.Ps 51:7 ...Indeed I was born with iniquity; with sin my mother conceived me. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

†.Ps 58:4 ...The wicked are defiant from birth; the liars go astray from the womb. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

Do little kids need to be taught how to lie? No. Lying comes very natural to every one of them. It is unnecessary to teach them how to lie; on the contrary, it is necessary to teach them honesty; not lying. And do little kids need to be taught defiance? No. Kids just naturally resent being told what to do, and they'll do whatever they want unless somebody makes them regret it. And charity. Do little kids need to be taught how to be selfish? No. They are very good at selfishness. They need to be taught how to share. They are pretty good at ingratitude too. The most basic social skill that every parent has to teach their kids is how to say thank you. And sensitivity. Do kids naturally care about the feelings of others? No. They are totally self absorbed; typically caring only about themselves. How about respect for parents and elders? No. They are quite insolent. Children are rude by nature; without even thinking about it. Nobody has to teach them how to be inconsiderate. They don't have to be taught bad manners. They have to be taught good ones.

Surely by now you've noticed in your own experience that it takes quite a bit of self discipline to do what's right; but hardly any effort at all to do what's evil. Doing the right thing is contrary to Man's nature and can actually lead to inner conflicts and emotional disorders that may become so serious as to require therapy.

No human being comes into this world inherently pure and sinless. Even the Aaronic high priest, the holiest man on the planet, soils the Holy Place by his presence there and it then has to be decontaminated every year on Yom Kippur with the blood of a sinless, innocent victim.

Objection: To show any credibility at all, you would do well to get yourself a Bible translated from the original Hebrew and Greek instead of quoting from a translation of a translation.

Even if the original Hebrew documents were available, and they are not, many Hebrew words are ambiguous, and actually so are many Greek words. Even if you had access to a version of the Bible that was translated directly from the actual original inspired documents, there's just no way to guarantee that it precisely communicated the originals because of all the ambiguities that make such a translation impossible when moving one language into another. If Bible students argue over the meanings of the very same English words in the very same English translations, don't you think there are pretty active debates going on among translators over the meanings of words in ancient Hebrew and Greek? There sure is. And it's like Abraham Lincoln once commented: "You can make some of the people happy some of the time, but you can't make all of the people happy all of the time."

Objection: You quote Ps 51:7 ...Indeed I was born with iniquity; with sin my mother conceived me. The translation from the original reads; "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

There are no original Hebrew versions in existence. Both English translations are correct as far as they can go because of the ambiguities I mentioned previously. And they both mean the very same thing: baby homo sapiens are already sinful beings even before they exit the womb.

Objection: If your mother was a sinner while you were being formed you would be "shapen in iniquity, NOT 'born with iniquity.

David's focus is upon the fetus, not upon the mother of the fetus. He didn't say; "My mother was a sinner when she conceived me." No, he didn't say that at all. He said he himself was "in sin" from the moment of his conception.

Objection: Your version of Ps 58:4 says; "The wicked are defiant from birth; the liars go astray from the womb." The original says: "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." How can totally uneducated babies speak lies? How many newborn Babies know how to speak as soon as they are born? Most people know that babies aren't born with a brain full of knowledge, but that it is a learning process as they mature and their brain develops.

Neither version is meant to say babies come into the world telling lies. Both versions are saying that baby homo sapiens go astray the moment they are born; eventually becoming liars— and they become liars because they have a propensity to lie from the moment they're given life. You know, you've got to use a little sanctified common sense when interpreting the Bible because of those ambiguities I mentioned previously.

Previously you lectured me about failing to quote from the original, and now you are actually opposing what you believe to be the original of Ps 58:3. Since you your own self do not accept what you believe to be the original of Ps 58:3, then how can you honestly expect me to accept it?

Objection: The Bible defines sin as transgressing The Law (1John 3:4). So tell me, just how can a newborn baby transgress The law when they don't even know what The Law is?

It isn't necessary to "know what The Law is" in order to qualify as a sinner. The antediluvians were all sinners and drowned in the Flood before The Law. The people of Sodom were very wicked sinners against The Lord before The Law. What makes homo sapiens sinners is what they are on the inside: what constitutes their very being. Homo sapiens are primarily sinful beings; viz: sinners by nature. So then, sin is not only an act; but sin is also the propensity to commit sins. Jesus died not only for the sins of the world, but also for "the sin" of the world (John 1:36), which is its propensity to do wrong.

Objection: God is the creator of all babies; and what he creates is NEVER unclean as you claim.

Newborn babies aren't fresh creations. God hasn't created anything else since the sixth day of Genesis. We all, every one of us, existed in Adam the very day himself was created— even his wife Eve existed on the day he was created even though she didn't become viable till later; and the source of her life was indirect; she got her life from Adam, not directly from God. Human life— like bug life, bird life, fish life, and animal life —is a transferable kind of life; passing from one generation to the next, and so on. Yes, God is your maker, but He didn't create you the day you were conceived. He created you in the "lowest parts of the earth" long before you were ever born.

†.Ps 139:15-16 …My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

Objection: The Bible tells just how God made man. Ec 7:29 "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." So when babies come into the world, they are upright until they get old enough to commit a sin.

The tense of the verb "made" should have been your first clue that the "man" to whom Solomon no doubt was referring was Adam; in the garden prior to his fall. Yes, God *made Man upright, but he didn't stay that way for very long. And now, every "man" that comes into the world comes into it as a sinful being.

†.Gen 8:21 …for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth

You see, when God made that comment, there were no laws in existence regulating imaginations; yet God said; "the imagination of man's heart is evil". So then, homo sapiens are evil even when there's no law on the books to break.

The Akedah: The Binding Of Isaac (Gen 22:1-19)

Modern Judaism argues that the concept of human sacrifice has always been repulsive to God's people; but that is just not true. Abraham and Isaac started a tradition called mitatan shel tsaddiqim mekapperet (the death of the righteous atones) and a good number of modern Jews truly believe that Jewish deaths in Nazi camps during WW2 somehow atoned for the sins of their countrymen.

To begin with, there are no human sacrifices stipulated in Moses' covenanted law; so then, it is would be a grievous sin to sacrifice a human being upon the Temple's altar because The Law is closed, and cannot be amended.

†.Deut 4:2 . .You shall not add anything to what I command you or take anything away from it, but keep the commandments of Yhvh your God that I enjoin upon you.

†.Deut 5:29-30 . .Be careful, then, to do as Yhvh your God has commanded you. Do not turn aside to the right or to the left: follow only the path that Yhvh your God has enjoined upon you, so that you may thrive and that it may go well with you, and that you may long endure in the land you are to possess.

†.Deut 27:26 . .Cursed be he who will not uphold the terms of this Teaching and observe them. —And all the people shall say, Amen.

However, Moses' covenanted law does not have ex post facto jurisdiction; viz; it isn't retroactive. And it's really important to take into consideration that the only official priesthood in existence in Abraham's day was Melchizedek's.

Prior to Moses' day, there were no laws regulating offerings. In point of fact, Abraham, the progenitor of the Jews, under direct orders from God, was prepared to offer his own son Isaac to God as a burnt offering— without protest; and that's extremely important to note because some of God's men have not been reluctant to challenge His conduct if they think it's not right (e.g. Ex 32:9-14). Abraham had three days to think the matter over, and by that time, he surely would have protested at least once if he thought at all that what God required of him was wrong.

Ancient Judaism considered Abraham's obedience as a righteous deed and even though God stopped Abraham at the last second, the ancient Jews did in fact credit the father, Abraham, for following through and they also credited the son, Isaac, for not only willingly offering his body, which was reckoned turned to ashes, but also for offering ¼ of his blood too. (Midrash HaGadol on Genesis 22:19), (Sifra, 102c; b. Ta'anit 16a) and also (Mekhilta d'Rashbi, p.4; Tanh. Vayerra, sec.23)

For what, or for whom, did Isaac willingly offer his body and blood? Was it for himself? Was it for his father Abraham? No; neither. According to the Targums, It was for his future posterity, the people of Israel.

T_ And Abraham prayed in the name of the Word of the Lord, and said, Thou art the Lord who seest, and art not seen. I pray for mercy before Thee, O Lord. It is wholly manifest and known before Thee that in my heart there was no dividing, in the time that Thou didst command me to offer Izhak my son, and to make him dust and ashes before Thee; but that forthwith I arose in the morning and performed Thy word with joy, and I have fulfilled Thy word.

_ And now I pray for mercies before Thee, O Lord God, that when the children of Izhak offer in the hour of need, the binding of Izhak their father Thou mayest remember on their behalf, and remit and forgive their sins, and deliver them out of all need. That the generations who are to arise after him may say, In the mountain of the house of the sanctuary of the Lord did Abraham offer Izhak his son, and in this mountain of the house of the sanctuary was revealed unto him the glory of the Shekinah of the Lord. (Jerusalem Targum)

and in another Targum:

T_ Now I pray for mercy before You, O Lord God, that when the children of Isaac come to a time of distress You may remember on their behalf the Binding Of Isaac their father, and loose and forgive them their sins and deliver them from all distress. (Fragmentary Targum)

This concept— mitatan shel tsaddiqim mekapperet (the death of the righteous atones) —is deeply imbedded in ancient Jewish tradition and has been extremely helpful in lending a degree of sanity to horrors like the Holocaust. The six million Jews who died under the heels of Fascist oppression are reckoned by many pious Jews as effecting the salvation of the whole world.

In a well known Talmudic discussion (b. Mo'ed Qatan 28a) the question is asked why the book of Numbers records the death of Miriam immediately after the section on the Red Heifer (Num 19:1-20:1). The answer is, that just as the Red Heifer atones, so also the death of the righteous atones. (see also Rashi on Numbers 20:1) And why, the Talmud asks, is the death of Aaron recorded in conjunction with the Torah's reference to the priestly garments? (Num 20:25-28) The answer is, that just as the garments of the high priest atone (Ex 28 especially verse 38) so also the death of the righteous atones.

This principle is fairly common in rabbinical literature. At Leviticus Rabbah 20:12, repeated elsewhere verbatim ( y. Yoma 2:1, Pesika deRav Kahana 26:16) Rabbi Hiyya Bar Abba said: The sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, died the first day of Nisan. Why then does the Torah mention their death in conjunction with the Day Of Atonement? (which occurred on the tenth of Tishrei; Lev 16:1) It is to teach that just as the Day Of Atonement atones, so also the death of the righteous atones.

It's stated in Midrash Assereth Memrot: The Messiah, in order to atone for them both, [for Adam and David] will make his soul a trespass offering, as it is written next to this, in the Parash [scriptural passage] Behold My servant 'shm ['shm = guilt offering]

The *servant* the midrash refers to is the servant of Isaiah 52:13-53:12; whom the midrash taught was none other than Messiah and whom the midrash also taught was to be a human offering for both guilt and trespasses.

Rabbinical scholar Solomon Schechter summarizes the Talmudic teaching that human suffering and death atone for sin:

"The atonement of suffering and death is not limited to the suffering person. The atoning effect extends to all the generation. This is especially the case with such sufferers as cannot either by reason of their righteous life or by their youth possibly have merited the afflictions which have come upon them. The death of the righteous atones just as well as certain sacrifices [with reference to b. Mo'ed Qatan 28a] They are caught (suffer) for the sins of the generation. If there are no righteous, the children of the schools (that is, the innocent young school children) are caught for the sins of the generation. [b. Shabbat 32b]

Applied to Moses [personally] are Scriptural words— And he bore the sins of many (Isa 53:12)— because of his offering himself as an atonement for Israel's sin with the golden calf, being ready to sacrifice his very soul for Israel when he said: And if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book (that is, from the Book Of The Living) which thou has written. (Ex 32:32, b.Sotah 14a; b. Berakhoth 32a)

This readiness to sacrifice oneself for Israel is characteristic of all the great men of Israel, the patriarchs, and the Prophets acting in the same way, whilst also some Rabbis would, on certain occasions, exclaim; Behold, I am the atonement of Israel. [Mekhilta 2a; m. Negaim 2:1] "

This same thought is also carried over in a prayer, still included in the additional service for the Jewish new year, Rosh Hashanah, which culminates with these words: Remember today the Binding Of Isaac with mercy to his descendants.

The rabbis taught that the final resurrection of the dead would take place "through the merits of Isaac, who offered himself upon the altar." (Pesikta deRav Kahana, 32)

Rabbi Shem Klingberg, known among his followers as the Zaloshitzer Rebbe, when led out to be slaughtered by the Nazis, an instant before his death lifted up his eyes to heaven and cried out in a piercing voice: Let me be an atonement for Israel! To this very day, when a leading rabbi dies, it is quite common for his mourners to say: May his death serve as an atonement for us.

You quote sources of Midrash Agadah, or interpretation by legend and parable. The sources of Midrash Agadah are to be taken as parables; this is evident both from a study of it and from a knowledge of Jewish study. Midrash Agadah is 90% fable and 10% truism; or "kernel of truth." The implication from these four sources would be that Isaac was completely ready to sacrifice himself for God if that were God's demand.

You may interpret the writings of the sages any way you please, and you may construe them to imply whatever you like; that is your privilege and I will not deny you the right to do your own thinking. But I would remind you that the Midrashim are a precious Jewish heritage, and you show unthinkable disrespect for those traditions by discrediting them the way you just did. I would also like to emphasize it is very clear that ancient Judaism believed in a degree of human sacrifice and I've provided plenty of Jewish references to prove it.

You provided four(4) sources supposedly proving that Isaac was actually sacrificed. I have told you that these four were Midrash Agadah, or legend-interpretations, meaning that a story has been created and based on a hidden message, or kernel of truth. Thus, it is not true to say that Isaac was sacrificed, but it is true to say that the parables claiming he was are the kind like Aesop's.

First off, I did not say Isaac was actually sacrificed. Second, I provided more than just Midrash commentary. There was also Targum, Talmud, and Rabbinical commentary as well. Look, if modern Judaism doesn't believe that the death of the righteous atones: fine; okay by me. But modern Judaism should not try to repeal history and say the ancients didn't believe in it. There is just too much evidence to the contrary.

It is not surprising that Christians seek to de-legitimize Judaism, since they seek to usurp our covenant.

To me, as a professing Christian, Moses' covenanted law is obsolete. So I'm sure that you can appreciate that I not only wouldn't usurp it, but I don't even have any use for it.

It is true there are Christians religions— e.g. Catholicism and Jehovah's Witnesses —who are not only trying to steal Israel's covenants, but also trying to steal her identity. I am not one of those I assure you. My conversion to New Testament Christianity permits me to join Jacob's family, not to take their place.

†.Eph 2:11-13 …Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)—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. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. (NIV)

†.Eph 2:17-19 …He (Jesus) came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, (NIV)

Jesus was in no way a viable sacrifice. There is no doctrine for human sacrifice. Human sacrifice is totally against Torah.

If you mean against the Torah contained in Moses' covenanted law; then I agree. There is not one single stipulation in the Mitzvot either permitting or requiring human death atonements. Therefore it is quite illegal to offer a man on the altar of the Temple. The only way a human sacrifice can be made acceptable is outside the Law via another covenant and another priesthood.

Aaron vs Christ

Melchizedek was a priest of the Bible's God who lived in Abraham's day prior to the birth of Levi, Moses, and Aaron; and subsequently prior to the Aaronic priesthood (Gen 14:17-20). Aaron's priesthood— along with its attendant retinue of under-priests —is THE priesthood for people whose religion consists of the commandments.

In contrast, Melchizedek's priesthood had no connection to the commandments whatsoever; therefore, his constituents (which included Abraham) were not required to obey the commandments because they didn't become law till a few hundred years later (Gal 3:17). So then it was, and still is, impossible for a Melchizedekian priest's constituents to break the commandments.

†.Rom 4:15 . .where no commandments exist; there is no transgression.

So then, what does this mean in practical terms?

Jesus is clearly stated to be a priest whose order is patterned after Melchizedek's.

†.Heb 5:4-6 . .So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to him, "Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee" and also "Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek."

ergo: If you are trying to earn salvation points via the commandments, then you are mixed up with the wrong priesthood because Melchizedek's order doesn't mediate for people whose religion consists of the commandments. You are inadvertently relying upon the now-obsolete Aaronic order rather than Melchizedek's; viz: Jesus is of no use to you whatsoever; and you are in grave danger of the wrath of God.

†.Gal 3:10 . .For as many as are of the works of the commandments are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continually abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them." (Deut 27:26)

†.Heb 7:11 . .Now if perfection was through the Aaronic priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the commandments), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

The answer to that question is quite simple. No flesh will be made righteous in God's sight by keeping the commandments simply because no flesh can obey them consistently (Rom 3:19-20). Therefore, Melchizedek's priesthood is mankind's only hope of escape from retribution.

†.Heb 5:8-10 . .He became, to all those who heed him, the source of eternal salvation, being designated by God as a High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

†.Heb 6:19-20 . .This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

Religions that require their adherents to comply with the commandments in order to be worthy to escape eternal suffering rather than depending entirely upon Jesus' priesthood; are religions that doom their members to a status that the Bible calls: fallen from grace and alienated from Christ.

†.Gal 5:3-5 . .For if you are trying to make yourselves righteous with God by keeping the commandments, then you have been severed from Christ! You have fallen from grace.

†.Gal 2:21 . .I am not one of those who treats the kindness of God as meaningless. For if we could be spared by keeping the commandments, then there was no need for Christ to die.

†.Gal 3:21-22 . .If the commandments could have given us new life, then we could have been made right with God by obeying them. But the Scriptures have declared that we are all prisoners of sin, so the only way to receive God's promise is to rely upon Jesus Christ.

†.Rom 6:23 . .For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life in Messiah Jesus

FAQ: You say the commandments didn't exist in Cain's day. Then how did God hold him accountable for murdering his brother Abel?

Although Cain was a murderer, God could not legally charge him with the crime of murder because God had not yet enacted a law against murder in Cain's day, nor had He prescribed a punishment for murder.

†.Rom 4:15 . .where no commandments exist; there is no transgression.

†.Rom 5:13 . .For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

That is a very important principle: viz; biblical law does not have ex post facto jurisdiction (Gal 3:17). What that means is; God could not use His later-to-come commandments to prosecute Cain for terminating his brother Abel's life.

Since Christ is a priest of the order of Melchizedek, his constituents are not subject to the commandments because he is not a priest of the commandments. Those laws are Aaron's jurisdiction; not Christ's (Heb 8:4). Therefore, when Christ's constituents break one of the commandments, they are in no danger of Hell and eternal suffering because both Christ and his constituents are outside Aaron's jurisdiction. (Rom 8:1-4, Rom 6:14)

Rome's priesthood is actually a manufactured priesthood— a man-made, bastard amalgam of Aaron's and Melchizedek's since it attempts to associate itself with Christ, and with the commandments, both at the same time.

You know, I have been a Bible student since 1968 and have yet to find an official order of priests in the New Testament other than Melchizedek's; which is not a guild of priests like the Levites, but rather, a High Priest priesthood like Aaron's.

This presents a problem all its own for Mormon men since Melchizedek's is a solitary, one-man priesthood just like Aaron's. Also, Melchizedek's priesthood will never be transferred to a successor simply because the office of a High Priest transfers only upon the death of a current High Priest. Since Christ is now immortal, and cannot die ever again, then he is the permanent priest of the order of Melchizedek.

A priest of the order of Melchizedek is obviously the mediator of choice for people looking for immunity from prosecution for breaking the commandments. The Aaronic order of priests are themselves subject to the commandments; but Melchizedek's order isn't; no, it's priests are above the commandments. This is easily seen in Abraham paying tithes to Mel in Gen 14:17-20, about whom the Bible says the lesser is blessed of the better; and Levi himself paid tithes to Mel; thus indicating that Mel's priesthood overrules, and is superior to, Aaron's. (Heb 7:4-10)

Rome's priesthood, of course cannot offer the kind of immunity I'm talking about because Rome's priests, like Aaron's, are subject to the commandments and cannot immunize their own selves from prosecution, let alone their constituents.

†.Heb 6:18-20 . .we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a High Priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.

FAQ: High Priests are essentially mediators who effect, and preserve, harmony between God and Man. Since a High Priest of the order of Melchizedek doesn't mediate for people whose religion consists of the commandments; then what people's religion does Christ mediate for?

Christ mediates for people whose religion consists of eternal life— all of his constituents have it.

†.John 10:27-28 . .My sheep heed my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish

Jesus' sheep are a father's gift to his son— to whom the son then grants eternal life. So then, people claiming to be Jesus' sheep, while not possessing eternal life, are not a gift from God to His son.

†.John 6:37 . .All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

†.John 6:39-40 . .And this is the will of Him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that He has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son, and believes in him, shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

†.John 17:2 . .For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those You have given him.

Jesus' sheep (a.k.a. his constituents) are believers. In the passages below, that relate belief to eternal life; note the grammatical tense of the "have" verb. It's present tense, not future, indicating that believers have eternal life right now: no delay, and no waiting period.

†.John 3:36 . .He who believes in the Son has eternal life

†.John 6:47 . .Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

†.John 5:24 . .I assure you, those who heed my message, and trust in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already transferred from Death into Life.

†.1John 5:13 . .I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

According to God's testimony as an expert witness in matters pertaining to His son, people who don't have eternal life, do not have His son; viz: they are quite Christless.

†.1John 5:11-12 . .And this is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in His son. So whoever has God's son has the life; whoever does not have the life, does not have His son.

Under-priests

Since Christ is the High Priest of Christianity, then any, and all, of his under-priests would of necessity be in the jurisdiction of the order of Melchizedek rather than Aaron's. Is there a New Testament order of under-priests? Yes; and every one of Jesus' sheep are in it.

†.1Pet 2:9-10 . .But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

†.Rev 1:4-6 . .John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

†.Rev 5:9-10 . .And they sang a new song, saying; Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

†.Rev 20:6 . .Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Objection: Christ created an official priesthood with these words: "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt 16:19)

When one takes into consideration 1Pet 2:9-10, Rev 1:4-6, Rev 5:9-10, and Rev 20:6 it becomes instantly obvious that Jesus wasn't just ordaining the apostle to whom he spoke those words, but every last one of his sheep; both lay and clergy. The apostles of course are the top dogs of Christianity, but they certainly did not have a monopoly on its priesthood.

It is Yhvh's wish that all of His people be priests (Ex 19:5-6). His wish is a reality in Christ.

Crucifixion is not a method of proper sacrifice.

True. Crucifixion isn't stipulated in Moses' covenanted law and is therefore illegal and cannot be used for atonements by people under its jurisdiction.

G_d said I am tired of the blood of bulls and goats, I want the sacrifice of the fruit of your lips.

Let's examine the objector's reference.

†.Hos 14:2-3 ...Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have fallen because of your sin. Take words with you and return to the Lord. Say to Him: “Forgive all guilt and accept what is good; instead of bulls we will pay [the offering of] our lips. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

To begin with, the "fruit of our lips" is not an implied sacrifice in that passage; and it certainly isn't listed as a prescribed sacrifice among the Aaronic qorbanot system's sacrifices in Moses' covenanted law— a law that is strictly forbidden to be either added to, or subtracted from.

†.Deut 4:1-2 . .And now, O Israel, give heed to the laws and rules that I am instructing you to observe . . You shall not add anything to what I command you or take anything away from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I enjoin upon you.

†.Deut 5:29-30 . .Be careful, then, to do as the Lord your God has commanded you. Do not turn aside to the right or to the left: follow only the path that the Lord your God has enjoined upon you

The "offering of our lips" is primarily the paying of vows and keeping your word. They thought they could get away with forgoing honoring their vows and keeping their word if they only offered sacrifices to cover their neglect. But no. Hosea says you honor your promises first, then come back later and offer a sacrifice. Cain's fault lay pretty much along those very same lines. God rejected Cain's offering because God rejected Cain. However, God told Cain if he would do right, then his offerings would be accepted (Gen 4:6-7, cp. Matt 5:23-24).

The Aaronic qorbanot system is a God-given, God-ordained, God-mandated religious law; yet God abhorred not only it but prayer too in the first chapter of Isaiah. Haven't you ever wondered why on earth God would abhor prayer, and abhor His own Divinely ordained qorbanot system especially while Solomon's Temple— dedicated by the Divine Splendor (1Kng 8:11) —was still standing and in full operation? It's because it is hypocritical to pray and to practice Temple rituals without a righteous life to go with it; especially for someone who uses profanity, who lies, who gossips, who doesn't honor their vows, who is deceitful, who bickers, and who says unkind things about others. The "offering of our lips" should be clean speech, integrity, honesty, and kindness because God prefers righteousness over and above— and prior to —sacrifices. If you read the first chapter of Isaiah with that in mind, it makes perfect sense why God sometimes abhors prayer and Aaronic sacrifices. However, David said God will accept sacrifices when they're offered by people who live good pious lives.

†.Ps 51:20-21 …May it please You to make Zion prosper; rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. Then You will want sacrifices offered in righteousness, burnt and whole offerings; then bulls will be offered on Your altar. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

The trick is that prayers and Aaronic sacrifices must be offered "in righteousness." God just hates it when people abuse the system. It's like when Xtians go to church on Sunday as if that is supposed to make up for a whole week of living like an atheist; or even worse, attend church on Easter as if that is supposed to make up for an entire year of impious living.

Hosea's ministry spanned the reigns of four kings— Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Jeroboam II. His turf was primarily up in the northern kingdom. His contemporaries included Amos, up in Israel with himself, and Isaiah and Micah down in Judah.

Solomon's Temple was still standing in Hosea's day; the doors were open for business, and the Aaronic priests were on duty. During that time, Isaiah, in the 1st chapter of his book, and the 58th, blasted the people of Judah for their hypocritical worship. Oh, the people and their leaders were very faithfully observing all the Sabbaths, the festivals, the feasts, the new moons, and offering all the correct sacrifices, and praying vigorously, and attending assemblies on a regular basis. But God hated their religion: He hated their Sabbaths, and He hated their prayers too. He hated them practicing His own God-given, God-ordained, God-mandated religion. Why would He ever do such a thing!?! Because the worshippers coming to the Temple were bad worshippers. Oh they were religious to their fingertips; but underneath it all, they were impious. And that is why there are times when God will not accept the Aaronic sacrifices— nor will He accept prayer either for that matter.

But David said in Ps 51:18 …You do not want me to bring sacrifices; You do not desire burnt offerings; (1985 JPS Tanakh)

Of course God didn't want David's burnt offerings and sacrifices because in his case, the primary issue was criminal justice rather than worship.

At that particular time in his life, when he wrote Psalm 51, David was an adulterer and a premeditated murderer. There is absolutely neither atonement nor forgiveness for those kinds of crimes under the jurisdiction of Moses' covenanted law. The offenders have to die, no exceptions.

†.Num 35:31-34 . .You may not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of a capital crime; he must be put to death. Nor may you accept ransom in lieu of flight to a city of refuge, enabling one to return to live on his land before the death of the priest. You shall not pollute the land in which you live; for blood pollutes the land, and the land can have no expiation for blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it. You shall not defile the land in which you live, in which I Myself abide, for I the Lord abide among the Israelite people.

†.Ex 21:14 . .When a man schemes against another and kills him treacherously, you shall take him from My very altar to be put to death.

†.Lev 20:10 . .If a man commits adultery with a married woman, committing adultery with another man’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.

If the Aaronic system had in its inventory a sacrifice for capital crimes, you can bet David would have been right there at the altar to offer them.

Did God ever accept offerings from David? Yes, He did, even when David offered them illegally; contrary to Moses' covenanted law.

†.2Sam 24:25 …And David built there an altar to the Lord and sacrificed burnt offerings and offerings of well-being. The Lord responded to the plea for the land, and the plague against Israel was checked. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

How could anyone possibly think holy men like David and Hosea and Isaiah would dare annul the Aaronic qorbanot system— especially while the Temple and the priesthood were in full swing in their very own day? Wouldn't that be tantamount to annulling practically the entire book of Leviticus? Don't you believe The Law is eternal? How is it possible then to annul an eternal law? It isn't even possible to edit the Law let alone annul it.

†.Deut 4:1-2 ...And now, O Israel, give heed to the laws and rules that I am instructing you to observe . .You shall not add anything to what I command you or take anything away from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I enjoin upon you. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

Some people believe Hosea instituted a contingency in preparation for the future long-term lack of a Temple in Jerusalem. But the Temple was up and running in his own day, and the Aaronic priesthood was fully functioning. Modern Judaism's interpretation of Hos 14:2-3 implies that Hosea was treasonous, and favored a rebellion against the God-ordained Aaronic priesthood. I just don't think a true prophet of God would ever do such a thing.

Many years after Hosea's day, (and after David's) the prophets Haggai and Zechariah strongly encouraged the exiles who returned to Jerusalem to get on with the work of rebuilding the Temple.

†.Ezra 5:1-2 …Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet and Zechariah son of Iddo, prophesied to the Jews in Judah and Jerusalem, inspired by the God of Israel. Thereupon Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Jeshua son of Jozadak began rebuilding the House of God in Jerusalem, with the full support of the prophets of God. (1985 JPS Tanakh) [See also Haggai chapter 1]

Why on earth would God inspire the prophets to encourage the people to rebuild the Temple long after Hosea's day, and long after David's, if the Aaronic qorbanot system was defunct? Malachi, the last of the Old Testament prophets, who lived after Hosea, predicted that God would once again restore the priesthood to its former glory.

†.Mal 3:1-4 …Behold, I am sending My messenger to clear the way before Me, and the Lord whom you seek shall come to His Temple suddenly. As for the angel of the covenant that you desire, he is already coming. But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can hold out when he appears? For he is like a smelter’s fire and like fuller’s lye. He shall act like a smelter and purger of silver; and he shall purify the descendants of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they shall present offerings in righteousness. Then the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem shall be pleasing to the Lord as in the days of yore and in the years of old. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

Modern Judaism thinks that God annulled the Aaronic priesthood's qorbanot system or that He somehow put it on hold. Well, I have news for them: The Law remains in effect as long as the universe exists, its mandates are perpetual ordinances, established for the Jewish generations to come. It is so ironic that the very people who pride themselves in Torah knowledge, and regard it as so holy and Divine, are the very ones who have invented themselves ways to evade it's obligations.

†.Mal 3:6 …For I am the Lord— I have not changed; and you are the children of Jacob— you have not ceased to be. From the very days of your fathers you have turned away from My laws and have not observed them. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

If, as you say, there is neither pardon nor atonement available for the crimes of adultery and premeditated murder, then are you alleging that Nathan lied when he informed David that "Yhvh has remitted your sin; you shall not lie."

Think about it. According to the terms and conditions of Moses' covenanted law, God gave David what appears to be an illegal pardon for the sins of adultery and premeditated murder.

†.Ex 21:14 . .When a man schemes against another and kills him treacherously, you shall take him from My very altar to be put to death.

†.Lev 20:10 . .If a man commits adultery with a married woman, committing adultery with another man’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.

It's blasphemous to allege that Yhvh would do anything illegal! God is God. He can forgive whom he wants and whenever he wants.

That is so typical of modern Judaism to brush aside the fact that the Tanakh's God is a Jurist of the highest possible caliber of ethical integrity. Time and again in the Tanakh; Yhvh gives Himself credit for being just. Well, in your opinion, He's unjust-- a judge who has given Himself the advantage of immunity and placed Himself above His own law with the attitude; Do as I say do, but don't do as I do; viz: the yhvh of modern Judaism is a jurist who goes by a double standard-- one for his court, and one for himself. That kind of a jurist can only be described as a colossal hypocrite.

Webster's defines *just as: acting, or being in conformity with, what is morally upright or good; viz: righteous; legally correct; viz: lawful.

†.Gen 18:25 . .Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?

In Abraham's opinion, the answer to his own question is YES. In the mind of modern Judaism, it's not.

I can assure you that when David heard Nathan tell of the pardon, his mind began swimming with questions wondering how in Heaven's name a 100% just God could possibly let him off without compromising His integrity and disobeying His own Law. From that point onwards in his life, David was aware of a mystery plan of salvation up God's sleeve about which David himself obviously heretofore had very little information; but also about which he wrote quite a number of Psalms praising and anticipating it.

Since there is no justifiable way to forgive David legally via Moses' covenanted law, and the Tanakh's God is a jurist of the highest possible caliber of ethical integrity; then wouldn't it follow that God somehow transferred David's deadly sins into the jurisdiction of another code of justice outside Moses' covenanted law? A code of justice that somehow supersedes Moses' covenanted law and permits God to forgive even impossible-to-pardon crimes like adultery and premeditated murder?

†.Acts 13:38-41 . .Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through this man Jesus the absolution of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is acquitted from everything you could not be acquitted from by the law of Moses. Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you: Look on, you scoffers, wonder and perish, for I am going to do something in your days that you would never believe, even if someone were to explain it to you in minute detail (cf. Isa 53:1-12).

Even your Jesus downplayed the importance of sacrifices in Matthew 9:13 by quoting Hosea 6:6; "I will have mercy and not sacrifice."

Have you read any more of that passage? It goes like this:

†.Hos 6:6-11 . .For I desire goodness, not sacrifice; obedience to God, rather than burnt offerings. But they, to a man, have transgressed the Covenant. This is where they have been false to Me: Gilead is a city of evildoers, tracked up with blood. The gang of priests is like the ambuscade of bandits who murder on the road to Shechem, For they have encouraged depravity. In the House of Israel I have seen a horrible thing; Ephraim has fornicated there, Israel has defiled himself.

Would you— were you a holy God —accept burnt offerings from the kinds of people described in that passage? Even the very priests themselves were armed robbers and murderers.

The audience of Jesus' remarks in that scene in Matthew were his Jewish countrymen— in particular, members of the Pharisees. I can easily guarantee that the Pharisees of that day understood Judaism a whole lot better than the average Jew of today. It was to them that Jesus said: "But go and learn what this means." Now if they, the most learned men in the Judaism of their own day, couldn't understand the relationship between mercy and sacrifice, then how is it even remotely possible that you would?

You see, the Pharisees were very good Jews. They practiced Judaism meticulously. Their degree of piety would shame even the most dedicated modern Christian. They offered all the correct sacrifices mandated in the God-given Aaronic qorbanot system, they prayed twice a day, they tithed regularly, they gave to charity, they attended synagogue as well as Temple services, followed the Oral Law and Halacha, observed the Sabbath, studied Torah, avoided assimilation with Gentiles, and kept every one of the feasts. Pharisees did everything a practitioner of Judaism is supposed to do. But some of them were insensitive and hard hearted. That's the point Jesus was making in that passage; viz: "I prefer compassion to sacrifice."

†.Isa 58:2-7 . .To be sure, they seek Me daily, eager to learn My ways. Like a nation that does what is right, that has not abandoned the laws of its God, they ask Me for the right way, they are eager for the nearness of God:

"Why, when we fasted, did You not see? When we starved our bodies, did You pay no heed?"

. .Because on your fast day you see to your business and oppress all your laborers! Because you fast in strife and contention, and you strike with a wicked fist! Your fasting today is not such as to make your voice heard on high. Is such the fast I desire, a day for men to starve their bodies? Is it bowing the head like a bulrush and lying in sackcloth and ashes? Do you call that a fast, a day when the Lord is favorable? No, this is the fast I desire: To unlock fetters of wickedness, and untie the cords of the yoke to let the oppressed go free; to break off every yoke. It is to share your bread with the hungry, and to take the wretched poor into your home; when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to ignore your own kin.

Many of the Pharisees were religious to their fingertips— as were the people of Isa 1:2-15 and 58:2-7—but they lacked the milk of human kindness and that is why God scorned sacrifices from them. Not that God never approves sacrifices because David himself saw ahead to the day when his people will offer them with the right attitude.

It's just that not even God-given, God-ordained, God-mandated Temple rituals can substitute for things like kindness, compassion, courtesy, fairness, gratitude, equity, and justice. Some of the Pharisees didn't think of that. They thought law and ritual were all they needed to make them righteous; but unfortunately, for them, compliance with The Teaching only served to inflate their superiority complexes even more.

†.Rom 10:2-3 …For I bear them record that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

That's an amazing statement coming from a devoted Jew like Paul (Php 3:4-6). He is saying that even though his fellow Pharisees kept God's Law to perfection, they were still only accredited with a man's righteousness rather than God's. And since God's own personal righteousness is the only degree of righteousness of which He can possibly approve; then a man's personal righteousness just isn't good enough even when men manage to cross all the T's and dot all the I's.

Objection: If Jesus died physically on the cross, and it was a substitutionary death, then why do Christians still die physically?

Because physical death is the natural order of things; for everybody— both the good and the bad; the old and the young, Christian and non Christian alike.

†.Gen 3:19b …For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.

When God denied human beings access to nourishment from the tree of life in the garden (Gen 3:22-24) it sealed their physical doom because without that fruit, nature takes its course: Man debilitates and nothing can be done to stop it. Christ himself would have eventually died of natural causes had not his life been interrupted with crucifixion.

The death that Christ died was not a natural death, no, it was a criminal's death; an execution. He didn't even finish living out his days.

All of Adam's posterity have to die a natural death at least once, and it makes no difference whether they are Christian Jews or Orthodox Jews or secular Jews. It is appointed unto all men to return to the dust from whence Adam came— that is a given.

†.Heb 9:27 …it is appointed for men to die once

Christ didn't die to protect believers from dying, no he died to ransom their souls from the wrath of God. It's the second death that Jesus died for, not the first one. According to the book of Revelation, a certain number of souls will be resurrected from their first death to face judgment. They will have to die again yet one more time; not by natural causes, but by criminal execution in a molten substance— quite literally incinerated to death; a death akin to burning at the stake.

†.Rev 20:11-15 …Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (NIV)

That passage in Revelation bears a remarkable similarity to one like it in Daniel

†.Dan 7:9-10 …As I looked on, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took His seat. His garment was like white snow, and the hair of His head was like lamb’s wool. His throne was tongues of flame; its wheels were blazing fire. A river of fire streamed forth before Him; thousands upon thousands served Him; myriads upon myriads attended Him; the court sat and the books were opened. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

The most important feature of the Great White Throne courtroom is the condition of the "certain number of souls" who're summoned to appear: they're all dead. The Dead are mentioned five times; The Living aren't mentioned at all because The Living's judgment took place at Calvary; so they're in absolutely no danger of eternal suffering.

†.John 5:24 …I assure you, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

†.Matt 22:31-32 . .But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying; I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

If Jesus took the Christian's place in judgment, shouldn't he burn forever in Hell in their place?

Jesus' life is of such a high value that he doesn't have to suffer forever in order to ransom people from an eternal Hell; nor does he even have to suffer at all; he only had to die. Our individual lives are of such low value that the most that any of us could hope to die for is just one(1) sin. That leaves a pretty large balance to atone for. The value of Jesus' life is such that his one death is more than adequate to atone for an infinite number of sins.

†.1Pet 1:18-20 …For you know that God paid a ransom to save you from the empty life you inherited from your ancestors. And the ransom he paid was not mere gold or silver. He paid for you with the precious life's blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God.

Peter called the blood of Christ *precious meaning it's like precious metals and/or jewels; rare and very costly. Your life and mine aren't as valuable as Christ's life. Peter would never call yours and mine rare and very costly. No, our lives are a dime a dozen and quite useless for redemption purposes. Jesus' life is the only life God will accept for multiple sins: and the alternative is infinite punishment because no amount of finite punishment can ever equal the value of Christ's blood.

Let's say you're a serial killer and knocked off thirty people in your career. That's an extreme case, but I'm only trying to make a point. The serial killer can pay for one of his victims via capital punishment; but what about the other 29 murders? How will he even the score for those having but one life of his own to forfeit? So you see he just doesn't have the means to truly satisfy justice for those extra murders.

Since that's the case; how will those who commit sins more than once pay for all of them? The truth is, they can't: because they quite frankly don't have sufficient value with which to pay. Thus, since they, like the serial killer, lack sufficient value with which to satisfy absolute justice; they will just have to face never-ending punishment.

Additionally, absolute justice for multiple sins can't be satisfied with torture— it can only be satisfied with life; ergo: if you should find yourself translated to a place of fiery torment after death, know that it's for the worse; because according to Jesus, Paul, Peter, and John, limited suffering in a place like a purgatory is inadequate for atonement purposes. Only the extremely valuable life of Christ will suffice to satisfy absolute justice and permit God to acquit a sinner's guilt (John 3:14-18, Rom 3:23-26, Rom 5:6-11, 1Pet 1:18-19, 1John 2:1-2).

You Christians are so obsessed with blood. Don't you know that there are many sacrifices that don't require it?

During the calendar year, low income sinners are permitted to bring Aaron's sons a specified quantity of flour for an atonement. However, the flour cannot atone for sin all by itself. It has to piggy-back on a valid blood offering.

†.Lev 5:11-12 ...And if his means do not suffice for two turtledoves or two pigeons, he shall bring as his offering for that of which he is guilty a tenth of an ephah of choice flour for a sin offering; he shall not add oil to it or lay frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering. He shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall scoop out of it a handful as a token portion of it and turn it into smoke on the altar, with the Lord’s offerings by fire; it is a sin offering. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

The poor man's flour isn't just flung into the altar's fire. It's offered along with The Lord's offerings by fire— placed on top of The Lord's offerings and consumed right along with them. Since offerings become the personal property of God once they're placed on the altar, He's at liberty to loan them out if He wants. Thus, God Himself provides a virtually free atonement for those who can't afford to provide one of their own by letting them ride along on one of His. That is so cool because it foreshadows Messiah, whom no man can afford to offer; but God only.

†.John 3:16 ...For God so loved the world that he donated His one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (NIV)

Other offerings like money, jewelry, incense, and prayer, are special offerings that atone only in very specific cases; and typically only to avert disasters such as plagues and wrath. They are never permitted as offerings for sin in the usual sense.

However, on Yom Kippur, atonements like those above are totally unacceptable in lieu of the death of animals. Blood must be taken into the Holy Place by the high priest and sprinkled on the lid of the ark of judgment. The particular lambs chosen for that day's rituals are not bought and paid for by each individual sinner. The animals used are donations so that everyone, both the rich and the poor, can benefit from Yom Kippur. So on that day, it is not the loss of something of value that buys national atonement; it is the death of an innocent victim that buys it; and it is the blood of an innocent victim that is sprinkled in the Holy Place to purify it.

Yom Kippur is an extremely important day of atonement because the rituals atone for an entire year's worth of sins; even those sins for which an atonement was already made once before during the year. So those monthly and daily atonements really only effected a reprieve which protected individuals up until the annual offering of blood for the whole congregation on Yom Kippur.

There are no lambs used in the Yom Kippur ritual. The animals are young goats.

It's true that male goats are specified for Yom Kippur. However the word *lamb can designate the young of either sheep or goats, e.g. Passover specifications.

†.Ex 12:5 …Your lamb shall be without blemish, a yearling male; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

The animal on whom the sins of the people are placed is sent out into the wilderness. It is NOT killed.

Yom Kippur is the only ritual in the entire Aaronic repertoire that actually takes sin out of Israel. The sacrifices and offerings that go on during the year only purchase individual sinners a brief reprieve; but their sins stay on record until the great day of atonement.

The banished goat isn't killed because it needs to be fit for travel. All the people's sins are placed on it and then the goat carries them out into the unknown; away from Israel. That is so very, very important because it is one thing to be forgiven for sin; it is quite another to have the sins deleted from your record and forgotten.

Unfortunately, Yom Kippur is a total waste of time as it is practiced by modern Judaism today. It is essential to have a fully functioning Aaronic priesthood officiating at the Temple in Jerusalem to make Yom Kippur work properly. The people of Israel have been without those means since 70 CE and they have been observing Yom Kippur illegally ever since then. Not only that, but none of the firstborn sons among the people of Israel have been redeemed in all that time (Ex 13:12-13). I'm not really aware of the ramifications of that; but it certainly can't be a good thing.

Can you at all appreciate the gravity and the magnitude of what I'm talking about? It means that modern Judaism, as a corporate body, has been toting its sins around with them for almost two thousand years and it has been toting its unredeemed firstborn sons around with them all that time too. Can you appreciate the position that puts God in? He is forced to deal with modern Judaism as a fugitive with a very long rap sheet. Is it any wonder they have suffered so much in the last two millennia?

So how does the banished goat find a fulfillment in Christ? This is so cool. Here's what the New Testament teaches about that.

†.Col 3:1-3 …Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. (NIV)

My life, the whole thing from front to rear, all the sins I have ever committed and all the sins I will ever commit from here on in, are hidden with Christ in God. My sins have been banished and somehow, mysteriously, sent out into the unknown just like sins on the scapegoat. My record is permanently purged and, best of all, no new sins are being recorded. From here on in, God is at liberty to treat me as if I had never sinned, nor will ever sin again, in my entire life. That is in total accord with the new covenant: "For I will forgive their iniquities, and remember their sins no more." Can modern Judaism offer me that? It cannot even offer itself that. The best it can offer the world is a modernized, illegal Yom Kippur; one that is completely and hopelessly ineffective without a Temple in Jerusalem and a fully functioning Aaronic priesthood.

So what about the goat that gets killed? Oh that goat is so precious. No sins whatsoever are put on it. It is, in practicality, an innocent goat, killed for a sin offering and it is the blood of that goat, the sinless goat, that is sprinkled on the lid of the ark of judgment, turning the lid into a mercy seat on behalf of the people.

Jesus fulfilled that part of Yom Kippur too.

†.Heb 9:11-12 …When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. (NIV)

Messiah, a man of impeccable purity, sprinkled his own blood on the very Throne Of God in heaven; thereby making it possible for God to be eternally merciful to anybody who appropriates Jesus of Nazareth as a ransom to rescue their soul from the wrath of God.

The sacrifices were not only for atonement, but for other purposes as well. The elevation offerings, the wave offerings, etc….You are still ignoring the fact that we could atone with flour, with coins, etc... I didn't know that flour had blood in it...

Yes, like I already said; there are permitted atonements via "flour, with coins, etc" during the course of the year— but on Yom Kippur? Never. And Yom Kippur is the one that really counts because its ritual atones for an entire year's worth of sins, even the sins that were atoned for once already during the course of the year.

All other atonements and sacrifices pale in importance compared to the importance of Yom Kippur. And on Yom Kippur the only acceptable sacrifice is the life of an innocent animal whose blood is afterwards sprinkled on the lid of the ark of judgment. The whole procedure is spelled out in Lev 16.

Two male goats are used in the ritual. The sinful goat lives and is banished. The innocent goat is slain, and its blood sprinkled on the lid of the ark.

†.Lev 16:5 …And from the Israelite community he shall take two he-goats for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

†.Lev 16:8 …and he shall place lots upon the two goats, one marked for the Lord and the other marked for Azazel. Aaron shall bring forward the goat designated by lot for the Lord, which he is to offer as a sin offering; while the goat designated by lot for Azazel shall be left standing alive before the Lord, to make expiation with it and to send it off to the wilderness for Azazel. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

†.Lev 16:15 …He shall then slaughter the people’s goat of sin offering, bring its blood behind the curtain, and do with its blood as he has done with the blood of the bull: he shall sprinkle it over the cover and in front of the cover. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

If the Aaronic sacrifices were symbolic of Jesus' crucifixion; then how was his sacrifice an offering for every sin when Aaron's were only for unintentional sins?

You're attempting to apply the old covenant's qorbanot laws to the new one. Christ's crucifixion is a provision of the new covenant, not the old one. Under the terms and conditions of the new covenant, his sacrifice is good for every sin you can possibly imagine; both the intentional and the unintentional.

†.Acts 13:38-39 ...Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses. (NIV)

He was not unblemished, having been supposedly whipped before crucifixion.

The old covenant stipulates that an animal used in the sin offering must be physically perfect. But again, you are attempting to apply the old covenant's qorbanot laws to the new one. The new covenant is different. The man chosen for the offering could be crippled, disfigured, blind, ill, diseased, scarred, bald, ugly, flat footed, and left handed. However, the person chosen must be 1) a Jew, 2) a male, and 3) thoroughly sinless. The old covenant's qorbanot laws are useful to help understand Christ's crucifixion; but those qorbanot laws aren't duplicated in the new covenant.

Jesus was a human sacrifice; which is illegal under the terms and conditions of the old covenant. And if he had attempted to offer himself on the Temple's altar, God would have thoroughly rejected his sacrifice. So Jesus not only offered himself away from the Temple, but completely outside the olde city, so there is no question that he was completely off-reservation; ie: off old covenant sacred precincts.

If Jesus was a sacrifice, why would he have come back?

There's a couple of reasons for that; one of which of course was to fulfill the prediction in Isa 53:10-12.

Sacrifices aren't required to stay dead, not even in Moses' covenanted law. They're only required to die; at least once. However, David would be found a liar if Messiah's body were allowed to decay in a grave.

†.Ps 16:8-10 ...I am ever mindful of the Lord's presence; He is at my right hand; I shall never be shaken. So my heart rejoices, my whole being exults, and my body rests secure. For You will not abandon me to Sheol, nor let Your faithful one see the Pit. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

Sheol is from the Hebrew word she'owl (sheh-ole'); or sheol (sheh-ole') and means: the world of the dead (as if a subterranean retreat), including its accessories and inmates. Sheol corresponds to the Greek word haides (hades) and means pretty much the same thing in both languages. Sheol and Hades are very broad words that can mean either a burial plot or the invisible abode of the departed.

The Hebrew word for *Pit is from shachath (shakh'-ath) and means: a pit (especially as a trap); figuratively, destruction. Job utilized both Sheol and shachath to describe what happens to people after they're dead and buried.

†.Job 17:13 ...If I must look forward to Sheol as my home, and make my bed in the dark place, say to the Pit, “You are my father,” to the maggots, “Mother,” “Sister”— where, then, is my hope? Who can see hope for me? Will it descend to Sheol? Shall we go down together to the dust? (1985 JPS Tanakh)

So when people are buried, the Pit locks them in death and decay; and they themselves go to the invisible abode of the dead, while their bodies disintegrate and return to the dust from whence they came.

David of course died and departed to both Sheol and the Pit just as it's written of him.

†.1Ki 2:10 ...So David slept with his fathers, and he was buried in the City of David. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

Therefore the Pit locked him in and David's body rotted and disintegrated like what Job talked about. But the person David wrote about in Ps 16:10, "Your faithful one", isn't supposed to see the Pit; viz: he isn't supposed to be locked into death and experience decay. David of course was, and now rests in hope of escape— "You will not abandon me to Sheol." So since David is still in Sheol, the one he called "Your faithful one" who was not supposed to see the Pit, can't be David but has to be someone else. I believe "Your faithful one" is none other than Messiah who rose from the dead because neither Sheol nor the Pit could hold him.

†.Rev 1:18 ...I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades. (NIV)

A second reason that Jesus had to come back from death is *justification.

†.Rom 4:25 …Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

The New Testament Greek word for "raised again" is egeiro (eg-i'-ro) which means: (through the idea of collecting one's faculties); to waken; viz: rouse (literally: from sleep, from sitting or lying, from disease, from death) or (figuratively: from obscurity, inactivity, ruins, nonexistence)

Although egeiro can imply resurrection, it doesn't necessarily mean resurrection. It can also mean simply to wake up from sleeping (e.g. Matt 8:23-25) and it can mean simply getting up on your feet (e.g. Matt 9:6-7).

The New Testament Greek word for *justification is: dikaiosis (dik-ah'-yo-sis) which means: acquittal

Webster's defines *acquittal as: a setting free from the charge of an offense by verdict, sentence, or other legal process.

Although Jesus was "delivered for our offenses" (Rom 4:25), his crucifixion alone isn't quite adequate to fully liberate sinners from their due retribution. It was only after he was "egeiro" — revived and put back on his feet —that sinners could be guaranteed full and complete immunity from the wrath of God.

†.1Cor 15:17 …And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!

Therefore, via Jesus' resurrection, I'm now a freed man. In response to my God-granted acquittal; I fully agree with the angel's announcement at Luke 2:10, that Jesus' arrival was certainly good news of great joy! If you knew for certain that God has permanently loosed you from any, and all, charges held against yourself— and/or ever will accumulate against yourself —wouldn't you be happy about it? I think you would, because the benefits of such an acquittal are immediately apparent: You would actually, and really and truly, be on your way to Heaven!

The interesting aspect about this particular acquittal is that, according to Rom 5:6-20, it's effects are similar to how Adam's one sin made all men sinners. In the like manner, Jesus' one crucifixion has the potential to make all men innocent. This is a one-time kind of acquittal just as Adam's sin was a one-time kind of condemnation. So that it isn't necessary to keep seeking acquittal after acquittal for your sins. No, you need this special acquittal only just the one time and you don't need to get it again any more than you can expect to get Adam's condemnation again and again. Adam's act and its consequences is the model that explains Jesus' act and its consequences.

Romans 5:6-20 has probably been responsible for producing more ex Catholics than any other passage in the Bible. Just about every ex I've spoken with, including an ex priest who actually served and conducted masses in the Vatican, came to a realization via Romans 5:6-20.

That's preposterous! Nobody can get a one-time acquittal. It's necessary to keep coming back to God with timely confessions (1John 1:9-10).

You've erred by confusing the acquittal that's based upon Jesus' resurrection with the washings that are necessary for fellowship. The model for this can be seen in the dedication process of the Aaronic priests in the Old Testament. They were dedicated just one time, and one time only (Ex 29:1-21) but they washed each and every time they reported for duty (Ex 30:18-21) ergo: without first obtaining the acquittal, confessions are a futile pastime. Let me explain.

First, let me state emphatically, that Romans 5:6-20 are the sacred teachings of the inspired Holy Apostle Paul. Thus; as the testimony of God; Paul's teachings are immutable and cannot be annulled. So that everything I said previously in regards to that passage is true; every last word. So then, it becomes imperative to harmonize the one-time acquittal Paul discusses in his epistle of Romans with the multiple washings John discusses in his epistle of 1John.

In a nutshell: the one-time acquittal available via Christ's resurrection is a criminal justice procedure intended only for sinners on their way to Hell. The washings obtainable via confessions, although made possible by Jesus' crucifixion (1John 2:2), aren't available to sinners on their way to Hell; and wouldn't do them any good anyway while they remain in grave danger of the wrath of God. No, the washings obtained via confessions in 1John 1:9-10 serve a different purpose and are a sacred privilege reserved only for current members of God's family (1John 2:1-2, 1John 3:1-2); it is not a privilege granted to outsiders. The reason, is that confessions are like the already-dedicated Aaronic priests' daily washings in that they cleanse the family of God in preparation for sacred service; viz: fellowship.

†.1John 1:5-10 ...This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

If you'll notice, John said "if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1John 1:9). The pronouns we, us, and our, don't refer to John's fellow men. No; within the context of the epistle of 1John, those pronouns refer only to the author's fellow believers— his siblings in God's home— not to outsiders. And according to 1John 5:9-13, the author's siblings all possess eternal life; so that any professing Christian claiming to be a member of God's family, while not possessing eternal life, is a Christless orphan.

Outsiders— e.g. Christians who don't have eternal life —need immunity above all else: they're fugitives from justice who desperately need to be moved out of the kill zone and given safety and security in God's home. The resurrection's acquittal accomplishes that very purpose. This very special acquittal acquits an entire lifetime of trespasses, not just some now and then some later (2Cor 5:19, Col 2:13). After a sinner has been fully acquitted and transferred into God's home (Col 1:13-14), from then on, any, and all sins they commit are no longer criminal matters; no, au contraire, their sins are family matters; which is a whole lot better arrangement; wouldn't you agree?

If Jesus is now the one and only approved sacrifice for all sins, then why are there plans for a return to the sacrificial system in the messianic age? (Isa 56:7, Zech 14:21 and Ezk 43:22-25)

Before I answer that; let me ask you a question along that same line. If prayer, fasting, confession, good deeds, repentance, and charity suffice for atonement, then why did God bother to institute the Aaronic priesthood in the first place? If— as alleged by modern Judaism —the way of Hos 14:2 is so much more effective to atone for even deliberate, willful sins, and even for capital crimes, then why even bother to bring back the old system at all since it only atones for the less serious, unintentional sins?

The new covenant, predicted by Jeremiah and Ezekiel, is scheduled to be offered to the people of Israel sometime in the future when Messiah sets up his kingdom. It will be a national kind of presentation similar to how Moses' covenant was offered to the people of Israel back at Sinai and Moab. But the wording of the prediction does not specify a precise time element. What I mean is; it is very difficult to tell just exactly *when God plans to make the new covenant an Israeli national policy. Will it be on the day when He gathers the Diaspora from every corner of the globe, or will it be some time later after Messiah has the country up and running for a while? I think it will be some time later.

The reason I think it's some time later is because God gave His word in Jer 33:19-22 that the Aaronic priesthood will stay in business as long as the cosmos exists. The only way to get rid of the Aaronic priesthood now is to delete the universe. So, in the early onset years of Messiah's kingdom— prior to the deletion of the universe and the advent of the next Genesis described in Isa 65:17, 2Pet 3:10, and Rev 21:1-5 —the Mitzvot, and the Aaronic qorbanot system, will be the law of the land in Eretz Israel, and Messiah pretty much intends to enforce it to the max (Ezk 20:33-38).

So what about people like me; the Jews and Gentiles who opted to enroll in the new covenant early; prior to Messiah's era? I have no doubt we'll be exempt from many of the Temple services just as we are now because the Aaronic qorbanot system isn't included in the new covenant and it would be a very grave insult to Messiah if we went back to the old ways.

There is coming a day, sometime into Messiah's kingdom, when the people of Israel will be so extraordinarily righteous that ordinary Jews will become Levitical priests and there will then be no need of a sacrificial system because everybody's going to be squared away.

†.Isa 66:20 …And out of all the nations, said the Lord, they shall bring all your brothers on horses, in chariots and drays, on mules and dromedaries, to Jerusalem My holy mountain as an offering to the Lord—just as the Israelites bring an offering in a pure vessel to the House of the Lord. And from them likewise I will take some to be levitical priests, said the Lord. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

†.Isa 61:5-6 …Strangers shall stand and pasture your flocks, aliens shall be your plowmen and vine-trimmers; while you shall be called "Priests of the Lord," and termed "Servants of our God." (1985 JPS Tanakh)

Moses' wish will one day be realized. Every Jew, the entire nation of Israel, will be priests; and all wholly dedicated to serving God.

†.Jer 31:33-34 …But such is the covenant I will make with the House of Israel after these days— declares the Lord: I will put My Teaching into their inmost being and inscribe it upon their hearts. Then I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No longer will they need to teach one another and say to one another, "Heed the Lord"; for all of them, from the least of them to the greatest, shall heed Me— declares the Lord. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

The Sacrificial System will be brought back and we pray for it. But while there is no Temple, do you think that G_d just abandoned us without hope, or a plan?

If you consider yourself a traditional Jew, one who is under the jurisdiction of the Sinai covenant, then you have to realize that the rituals of the covenant are not a way to obtain atonement only when it's convenient. You are obligated to comply with the Temple sacrifices whether there is a Temple and a priesthood in full operation or not.

†.Deut 4:2 …You shall not add anything to what I command you or take anything away from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I enjoin upon you.

†.Deut 5:29-30 …Be careful, then, to do as the Lord your God has commanded you. Do not turn aside to the right or to the left: follow only the path that the Lord your God has enjoined upon you, so that you may thrive and that it may go well with you, and that you may long endure in the land you are to possess.

†.Deut 26:16-18 ...The Lord your God commands you this day to follow these decrees and laws; carefully observe them with all your heart and with all your soul. You have declared this day that The Lord is your God and that you will walk in his ways, that you will keep his decrees, commands and laws, and that you will obey him.

†.Deut 27:26…Cursed be he who will not uphold the terms of this Teaching and observe them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

†.Deut 27:1 …Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people: "Keep all these commands that I give you today."

†.Mal 4:4 . .Be mindful of the Law of My servant Moses, whom I charged at Horeb with laws and rules for all Israel.

Don't you get it? The loss of the Temple wasn't a temporary hiatus. The people of Israel lost the Temple because God despises not only it, but He despises them as well. Why is it that so many of you Jews blame the Gentiles for your woes without stopping to ask why your God has permitted them to abuse you in the first place? See Deut 28:15-68 for the terrible consequences that have befallen the Jews for their rebellions against their God.

On the whole, the world's Jews are quite decadent. Today, less than ten percent are Orthodox. The overwhelming majority are secular. And among the modern Orthodox leadership practically all have energetically rejected both Jesus of Nazareth and the Aaronic qorbanot system; defying God by encouraging the practice of man-made rabbinical substitutes for atonement. Why shouldn't God abandon the people of Israel when it is they who abandoned Him first?

However, God has always had a way for a faithful few to obtain forgiveness; even before there was any such a thing as the Aaronic priesthood. If that weren't so, then Daniel and his friends would have been hopelessly lost during the seventy year captivity. But they, as well as all the rest of us who hope in God for redemption, are depending upon a non-Aaronic redemption— a lamb of God so to speak —who will, with his own blood, obtain a much better atonement for his countrymen than that of the goats of Aaron's ritual on Yom Kippur.

Today, modern Judaism, sans the Temple and a fully functioning priesthood, is pretty much painted into a corner; and forced to look elsewhere for a valid atonement just as Daniel and his friends did. It's quite obvious then, that there is a universal way to obtain atonement aside from Temple rituals, aside from Moses' covenant, and aside from rabbinical substitutes.

Post-Christ rabbis have attempted to promote the use of prayer, charity, fasting, confession, and good works for atonement. But those kinds of sin offerings are highly illegal for a people who stubbornly prefer to remain under the terms and conditions of Moses' covenant.

I think it is clear that this "new" covenant you talk about is really just a renewal of the old covenant.

The wording clearly, and without ambiguity, indicates that it's a whole new deal.

Those words: "it will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers", tells me it is different than the covenant God made with Israel at Horeb. And the words: "a new covenant", also say to me that it's a totally new deal.

Besides, the new one has different stipulations and different promises. For one thing it's unconditional— whereas the first covenant is way too conditional and relies too much upon human will power. The apprehension of its blessings hinge on the big if: IF you will be faithful. And it's loaded with curses; whereas the new covenant threatens no curses at all. The new one doesn't require consistent obedience from its beneficiaries; and in fact itself promises that God will provide the power to be faithful; and overlook the difference.

†.Ezk 36:26-27 …And I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit into you: I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a tender heart; and I will put My spirit into you. Thus I will cause you to follow My laws and faithfully to observe My rules. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

†.Jer 31:34 ...For I will forgive their iniquities, and remember their sins no more. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

That is a fantastic covenant.

There can't possibly be a new covenant like you say because G_d gave Abraham an everlasting covenant. Wouldn't G_d be a liar if He annulled the covenant?

Yes, I agree one-hundred percent. The covenant that God made with Abraham is an everlasting covenant that can neither be annulled, nor cancelled, nor replaced, nor edited, nor amended. But the new covenant isn't intended to obsolete Abraham's covenant. It's intended to obsolete Moses' covenant— the pact that God made with Abraham's descendants at Horeb and Moab.

So, why aren't we seeing your version of the new covenant played out in history, when by Christian reckoning this covenant was ratified by Christ?

Today, Jews and Gentiles are enrolling in the new covenant on an individual basis. Corporately, the people of Israel will continue to remain under the jurisdiction of Moses' covenant until some time after Messiah returns and takes charge.

If the new covenant hasn't made any substantial differences in peoples' ability to obey G_d's law and commandments, how do you justify the assertion that the new covenant is present?

Your premise is faulty. The new covenant most certainly has made a substantial difference. "My spirit" is quite actively moving in the hearts and minds of many individuals; influencing them to make an effort to please God in all that they say and do.

It's true the new covenant is not yet a national religious policy in Eretz Israel. But elements of the new covenant have made a substantial difference in the lives of lots of individuals— in their attitude towards God, in their conduct, in their business practices, in their manners, in their treatment of animals, in their roles as spouses, parents, minor children, employees, and citizens. I guess you just haven't met anyone yet who can tell you about it for themselves; except maybe me.

I've had God's spirit with me since 1968 and over time it has made me into a totally different person than the one I was then. God's spirit has totally altered my conscience, my personality, and the way I relate to people. So even if the New Testament wasn't saying it, I would know for myself that some of the new covenant is available right now for anyone who wants in. When I first saw the promise of Ezk 36:26-27 back in 1968, I knew right then and there that the new covenant was just the thing for me. I found out that God doesn't want to hurt me. No; on the contrary, He wants to pardon and rehabilitate me— all for free; Himself providing the atonement, Himself providing the rehab, and Himself providing the mental make-over. How can anyone not want a deal like that?

The new covenant is the basis for the new birth Jesus talked about with Nicodemus in John 3. But the effects of the new birth are not instant and total; which can be a source of disillusionment for many new Christians. It's a growth process that's greatly hindered by human nature. I guess you could say earthly beneficiaries of the new covenant are only 25 megahertz processors in this life; but will become super Pentiums in the next one after they're free of Adam's sinful mortal body and get a new one that isn't infected with carnal appetites and sinful tendencies.

Wouldn't you say that a man like David— said by God to be a man after His own heart —was a good example of the work of God's spirit? Well.. I'd settle for that. If I could be like David that would be fine with me, I'll tell you. But even as great a man as David was, beneficiaries of the new covenant are destined to go even one better. They eventually will become, not like David; but like Jesus Christ because he's the prototype of the new human race that's in the works.

In this present era, the effects of the new covenant are severely stymied by the influence of human nature, which in the New Testament is called the flesh or sometimes the sinful nature. It resists God's spirit even now today just like it did in Gen 6:3 and Gen 6:5-7. But when I die, the flesh, which is an inherent part of my Adamic self, will flake off like a dead skin. Then the new self— the new heart and the new spirit dispensed by the new covenant— will come on line 100%. And after that beneficiaries of the new covenant will never sin again. But while people are trapped in an Adamic mortal body, with its passions and lusts, like David was, it's not like that.

David, being a prophet, was assisted by God's spirit; who aided him in leading his countrymen to greatness in prosperity, politics and religion. But David never really lost his human nature, nor his free will. He was still vulnerable to the passions of human nature. For now, beneficiaries of the new covenant are a lot like David. God's spirit is at work in their minds and hearts, but at the same time human nature has its way too and trips them up quite often.

Fortunately for beneficiaries of the new covenant, death ends the struggle with human nature. And eventually they will be given brand new bodies sans the passions and impulses that make otherwise pious people do the things they do. All will have the same kind of mind that was in Christ— a pure, sinless mind in perfect alignment with God in all that they do or say.

How can you be absolutely sure that "new" doesn't just mean renewed and/or refreshed?

The word for *new used in the wording of the new covenant is chadash (khaw-dawsh') which means: new. It does not mean renewed or refreshed.

To further reinforce the intent, God said that the new covenant would *not be like the one He made with Israel after rescuing them from Egyptian slavery. I really think that when he says "a new covenant" He means it is a totally new deal.

The word chadash is used with that intent in quite a few places in the Tanakh. Here are some of them.

†.Ex 1:8—a new king
†.Lev 23:16—a new meat offering
†.Deut 20:5—a new house
†.Deut 24:5—a new wife
†.Judg 5:8—new gods
†.Josh 9:13—new wine skins
†.Judg 16:11—new ropes
†.1Sam 6:7—a new cart
†.2Sam 21:16—a new sword
†.1Ki 11:29—a new garment
†.Ps 33:3—a new song
†.Isa 65:17—a new universe
†.Ezk 11:19—a new spirit
†.Ezk 18:31—a new heart

The only place that I found where somebody might successfully construe new to mean refreshed is Lamentations 3:23.

In the New Testament book of Hebrews, two different Greek words are rendered *new to describe the new covenant.

The first is employed in three places.

†.Heb 8:7-9 …For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said: "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. (NIV)

†.Heb 8:13…By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. (NIV)

†.Heb 9:15 …For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. (NIV)

The word used in those passages is kainos (kahee-nos') and means: new (especially in freshness)

The second word is used in only one passage.

†.Heb 12:24 …to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. (NIV)

The word used in that passage is neos (neh'-os); including the comparative neoteros (neh-o'-ter-os); a primary word; "new", i.e. (of persons) youthful, or (of things) fresh; figuratively, regenerate

Since both kainos and neos are used to describe the new covenant, I think it is safe to combine them and describe the new covenant as one that is both new in age, and new in freshness. You know; stale bread cannot be freshened up. It's necessary to bake another loaf to get fresh bread. I really believe that is what those two Greek words imply; especially since the author of Hebrews called the old covenant the *first covenant, and the new covenant *another covenant; and because Jeremiah said that the new covenant is not like the one God made with the Jews when he liberated them from Egyptian slavery.

One very strong objection to a concept of the new covenant being merely a revamped old covenant— besides the language and grammar used to describe them —is the atonement method in the new one. It is absolutely illegal to offer a human being for sin under the old covenant. It's unthinkable. But in order for God to forgive all sins, and to forget them too, the sacrificial system has to be radically different. There are no provisions in the Mosaic Law to atone for capital crimes, nor for the sins that are committed by people who know what they are doing is wrong. It's necessary to either rewrite the Mosaic covenant, or get away from it altogether and find forgiveness for those kinds of sin elsewhere.

I believe it is unreasonable to ignore language and grammar and sentence structure— just waving it all aside to construe texts to mean something other than what they are obviously saying. That, I believe, has been modern Judaism's problem of unbelief all along. They just can't believe God means what He says. Quite a few professing Christians have the very same problem with Christ. Many of them don't believe he means what he says either.

Surely, you will admit, never before has there been an ingredient to the Covenant as powerful as the gift of G_d's spirit!

Nobody can add ingredients to the first covenant. The covenant Yhvh made with the people of Israel prior to their entry into the promised land is a done deal. Not even God can add anything to it now without willfully violating his own God-given Law and thus bring down a curse upon Himself.

†.Deut 4:2 …You shall not add anything to what I command you or take anything away from it, but keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I enjoin upon you." (1985 JPS Tanakh)

†.Deut 27:26…Cursed be he who will not uphold the terms of this Teaching and observe them.—And all the people shall say, Amen." (1985 JPS Tanakh)

†.Mal 4:4 . .Be mindful of the Law of My servant Moses, whom I charged at Horeb with laws and rules for all Israel.

G_d's original covenant will never be abrogated.

When people say "covenant" I sorely wish they would say which one; especially when they use a word like *original. I seriously don't think the Mosaic covenant is eternal because I have yet to find convincing evidence to support that position. It's duration is contingent upon the existence of the current universe (Jer 33:17-22), and upon the fallen condition of human nature. If we were to remove today's universe, replacing it with a totally fresh one, and remove Man's sinful nature, replacing it with a purely sinless one, then we could throw out the Aaronic priesthood and replace it with another one— in fact, replace it with a priesthood after the manner of Melchizedek, whose jurisdiction was outside The Law and wasn't restricted to the tribe of Levi.

Let me ask you something. Do you really feel comfortable contemplating a return to slaughtering helpless little lambs, and kids, and calves; or of wringing the necks of doves and pigeons? At your next visit to a county fair, go on over to the animal exhibits and pet some of those little guys and ask yourself how it might feel to slit their throats and cut their guts open. Don't you secretly wish deep down in your heart that the Aaronic qorbanot system would go away forever?

The NT says; "By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear." (Hebrew 8:13) Do you read "soon disappear" as referring to thousands of years after its writing?

It does; if you read it as "will disappear soon enough."

The Talmud predicts the world would exist six thousand years— two thousand years of desolation [from Adam to Abraham]; two thousand years of Torah [from Abraham to somewhere around the beginning of the common era]; and two thousand years of the Messianic era [roughly the last two thousand years]. But that theory was thrown out of whack because Messiah allegedly did not show up when he was supposed to. However, according to the New Testament, he mostly certainly did. Two of the authors of the NT say we are in the final era; just like the Talmud expected.

†.Heb 1:1-2a ...In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, (NIV)

†.1John 2:18a ...Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. (NIV)

In the grand scale of things; world history is rapidly winding down. Soon enough, everything will be different. According to Jewish tradition, and to the New Testament, we are in the final third of world history. At any moment, Messiah could appear. If you put it in perspective, then yes, "soon" in comparison to the years between Adam and Calvary, is very near.

But even at that, the old covenant, although still binding upon those who prefer it, is genuinely obsolete. Whenever a new model of something like cars or computers appear on the market, they automatically render the previous models old and out of date. True, people continue to drive their old cars and use their old computers; and you can still get parts for them. But typically those older models are inferior to the newer ones; and eventually no longer offered for sale.

The "new" covenant does not require any change at all. All it requires is simple belief without any maturing.

Your hang-up in this respect is that you want a Boy Scout merit badge. You prefer a religion that recognizes those who excel; viz: you want to be recognized for your own personal righteousness rather than take advantage of a religion that offers you a guaranteed fail-safe, sin proof, God proof, free-of-charge-and-nothing-asked-in-return rescue from the wrath of God, and full-time protection from retribution (Rom 10:1-3).

The new covenant does indeed promise that God will enhance Man's ability to reform himself with assistance from "My spirit." However, personal initiative is still an important part of the gospel message just like it has always been even since the days of Cain and Abel.

†.Gen 4:6-7 ...Then the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." (NIV)

†.Acts 26:19-20 ...So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds. (NIV)

Christians are not only supposed to be trusting Messiah to protect them from judgment, but they are also supposed to be following him as their king, complying with his guidelines for holy living. Here's some examples of what I mean.

†.Eph 4:21-24 ...Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. (NIV)

†.Eph 4:25-29 ...Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. "In your anger do not sin": Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold. He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need. Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (NIV)

†.Eph 4:30-32 ...And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. (NIV)

†.Col 3:8-9 …But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices. (NIV)

†.Eph 5:3 …But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. (NIV)

†.1Thes 4:3-8 ...It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit. (NIV)

Taking "if you will not repent, you will all likewise perish," together with "If you will not forgive, you will not be forgiven," it is clear that repentance, (i.e. forgiving), at least to Jesus, was absolutely necessary. In fact, it is all that is necessary. If you need Jesus to repent, maybe you aren't even repenting? David, Jonah, Ester, Judah, etc, all repented long before 2000 years ago.

Jesus' audience was primarily Jewish; and lived under the jurisdiction of Moses' law. There wasn't a single Christian in existence at that time. The "law" Jesus referred to is Lev 19:17; "You shall not hate your kinfolk in your heart." Until a person forgave their brother, (fellow Jew) they were in danger of the judgment of God for violating the law. Although beneficiaries of the new covenant are commanded to forgive, they are in no danger of Divine judgment for failure to do so. However, they do risk disciplinary action for non compliance. But discipline is much easier to endure than Divine judgment. Discipline is on the order of child training; whereas Divine judgment is on the order of criminal justice.

God long ago lost confidence in the human spirit's resolve to reform itself. In your case, repentance would involve changing your mind and accepting the terms and conditions of the new covenant; which means buying into Christ's crucifixion. If you refuse, I guarantee you will regret it. The Mitzvot will see to it because there are many kinds of sins for which the Mosaic Law permits neither atonement nor forgiveness; most especially for sins committed by people who know what they are doing is wrong.

Just to refresh your memory:

†.Ezk 36:26-32 …And I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit into you: I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a tender heart; and I will put My spirit into you. Thus I will cause you to follow My laws and faithfully to observe My rules. Then you shall dwell in the land which I gave to your fathers, and you shall be My people and I will be your God. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

Wouldn't you agree that God's spirit would be a great asset, and a whole lot better at effecting personal reform than human initiative all by itself? Of course you would. Earlier you yourself said: "Surely, you will admit, never before has there been an ingredient to the Covenant as powerful as the gift of God's spirit!" Why are you now reversing your position? Do you no longer believe God's spirit to be a powerful ingredient in a covenant?

Question: If a new covenant is available; then why are there still Jews who choose the so-called *old covenant?

Since Moses' covenant pretty much defines their ethnic identity, I'm sure you can understand why modern Jews would want to remain connected to it. But Abraham, the progenitor of the people of Israel, wasn't identified by Moses' covenant in any way at all because it didn't exist in his own day; nor was he obligated to comply with any of its terms and conditions. If modern Jews would switch over to Jeremiah's covenant, their status would more resemble their ancestor Abraham's status because their ethnic identity would then be rooted in a relationship with God based on a position aside from the Mitzvot; like Abraham's was.

If a person fully complied with Moses' covenant, wouldn't that make them righteous in G-d's eyes? Apparently your Jesus died for nothing.

Yes, that would make them righteous— actually quite blameless —but unfortunately, it wouldn't make them sinless; especially as regards the mind and psyche. And that's extremely important because Man's evil mind makes God sick to His tummy, and is the very reason the Adam's family is destined for extinction.

†.Gen 6:5-6 ...The Lord saw how great was man’s wickedness on earth, and how every plan devised by his mind was nothing but evil all the time. And the Lord regretted that He had made man on earth, and His heart was saddened. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

Man's mental condition prior to the Flood was not good. After the Flood was over, he was no better; not even Noah.

†.Gen 8:20-21 ...Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking of every clean animal and of every clean bird, he offered burnt offerings on the altar. The Lord smelled the pleasing odor, and the Lord said to Himself: “Never again will I doom the earth because of man, since the machinations of man’s mind are evil from his youth; (1985 JPS Tanakh)

Man's mind needs repairs. In point of fact, it needs replacing. It's unreasonable to expect God to put up with Man's evil mind forever. Something has to be done to help Man escape himself. But Moses' covenant has no provisions for that. Only the new covenant has a provision for that.

Sinless vs. Blameless

†.Rom 10:1-3 ...Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God, and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. (NIV)

What kind of righteousness is *God's righteousness? It's a sinless kind of righteousness as opposed to a blameless kind of righteousness. *Sinful can be defined as being prone to sin; viz: an inclination, tendency, and/or propensity to sin. Even if you were to exercise the utmost self control and never again commit a sinful act, you would still be sinful; and that's the rub. Self control implies holding something in check; but in God, there is nothing to hold in check because God cannot sin, nor can He be tempted to sin (Jas 1:13, 1John 1:5, 1John 3:9).

The righteousness attainable by compliance to a code of law is a self-control kind of righteousness. Paul He had it too.

†.Phil 3:5-6 …in regard to the law, a Pharisee;……as for legalistic righteousness, faultless. (NIV)

So Paul was just as righteous as Job in that respect (Job 1:1) and just as righteous as ol' Zechariah (Luke 1:6). But those men were not sinless. Later in his book; Job confessed to being a low down sinful mortal.

†.Job 42:1-6 ...Job said in reply to the Lord: I know that You can do everything, that nothing you propose is impossible for You. Who is this who obscures counsel without knowledge? Indeed, I spoke without understanding of things beyond me, which I did not know. Hear now, and I will speak; I will ask, and You will inform me. I had heard You with my ears, but now I see You with my eyes; therefore, I recant and relent, being but dust and ashes. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

And even Zechariah, John the Baptist's dad, a levitical priest, wasn't sinless. The Mitzvot mandates that the priest has to offer sacrifices for not only his constituents, but for himself as well because Aaronic priests are not inherently sinless men. The proof of that was Zechariah's doubt. He didn't believe the angel who promised the old man a son. So he was stricken temporarily mute for punishment.

Although God mandated the Temple rituals, they weren't really what he had in mind for His people when He brought them out of Egypt.

†.Jer 7:22 ...For when I freed your fathers from the land of Egypt, I did not speak with them or command them concerning burnt offerings or sacrifice. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

That's right, He didn't. Here's what happened.

†.Ex 19:1-6 ...On the third new moon after the Israelites had gone forth from the land of Egypt, on that very day, they entered the wilderness of Sinai. Having journeyed from Rephidim, they entered the wilderness of Sinai and encamped in the wilderness. Israel encamped there in front of the mountain, and Moses went up to God. The Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, “Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob and declare to the children of Israel: ‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Me. Now then, if you will obey Me faithfully and keep My covenant, you shall be My treasured possession among all the peoples. Indeed, all the earth is Mine, but you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the children of Israel.” (1985 JPS Tanakh)

And Jeremiah reminded them.

†.Jer 7:23 ...But this is what I commanded them: Do My bidding, that I may be your God and you may be My people; walk only in the way that I enjoin upon you, that it may go well with you. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

God made no mention of the Aaronic qorbanot system until after they broke the commandments written on the tables of stone and made for themselves a golden calf. So sacrifices are a buffer between God and His disobedient people. He longs for faithful obedience, but is forced to deal with His people through a qorbanot system instead. So there is a higher righteousness that is superior to the legal righteousness of the Mitzvot and of the Aaronic qorbanot system. That higher righteousness is a gift from God and totally unattainable by human effort.

†.Rom 3:20-24 ...Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. (NIV)

Moses' Law cannot create a human mind. Only a repeat of Genesis can do that. Absolutely no one can become sinless by choosing to remain with Moses' covenant. At best they would merely become a law abiding sinner, but still a sinner, and at terrible risk of the Mitzvot's deadly judgments. The new covenant guarantees immunity from the Mitzvot— plus makes you a better man too.

If G-d is going to augment our ability to choose righteousness— in other words removing our free will— then how is it that we even have a choice between these covenants?

Augmenting one's ability to choose righteousness is not he same as removing one's free will; for if that were so, how would you make any "choices" at all? To my knowledge, God has no plans to remove anybody's free will. Man was made in His image and that is not destined to change. All of us will continue to be responsible beings even after death. But be advised, once you buy into the new covenant, there is no going back. Redemption is a purchase. Redeemed people become property much like a slave, and slaves have no say in their destiny, nor in their circumstances. They are not free agents like many of today's professional athletes. So think about it. Do you want to continue mastering your own ship, retain your current identity, and go on in the grips of an evil mind? Or would you like a makeover and become someone else— someone with whom God enjoys associating? It's your choice.

Let's go back to David again for just a moment. David was a man who quite literally had two natures because God loaned him His spirit so David could be a prophet. So David was influenced by his own human spirit, and also by the one he got from God.

But David didn't lose his freedom of choice as you well know because he got into serious trouble with another man's wife. Today's beneficiaries of the new covenant also have those same two spirits at work within themselves just like David did. They can go either way: follow their natural inclinations, or follow the influence of "My spirit." One choice is called: walking in the Spirit— the other choice is called: walking in the flesh. But God's people have only a very limited time to make those choices.

Down the road— after death —these Adamic bodies of ours, with their inherently faulty human spirit, will not be allowed to remain and influence beneficiaries of the new covenant. We are slated for new bodies that come with a totally new mind that is inclined to please God and listen to what He says.

Don't you understand? Your identity, the one you so cherish, is a "damned" identity. You've got to get away from it so it doesn't take you down and ruin your chances for happiness in the future.

Actually, the loss of your natural identity— and the loss of control over your own destiny as well —is not all that bad really. I've been a beneficiary of the new covenant since 1968; and the man I was at that time is gone. To tell you the truth, I did not like that man. I don't miss him at all. I very much prefer the one I am today. And I like the direction my life has taken in God's hands too.

Don't you trust God? Do you really think that you, a sinful mortal, with your so-called free will, can make a better man of yourself than God's spirit could do? Let me point out something. You came into this world a prisoner of human nature. That human nature has a mind of its own. You did not choose that mind by the exercise of your free will, did you? No, you weren't given any options at all. That mind was imposed upon you at birth. Well... now you have an option. Wouldn't you like to trade your birth mind for a new mind? One that has a will inclined to do what is good? Don't you think you would eventually become attached to that new, naturally good mind just like you became attached to your naturally sinful mind? Sure you would.

It is clear that the law was intended to be observed forever, not just exist in a museum.

Moses' covenant has always been vulnerable to obsolescence. The maximum length of time that it can possibly exist is the duration of the current cosmos because God gave His word in Jer 33:19-22 that the Aaronic priesthood will stay in business as long as the cosmos exists. The only way to get rid of the Aaronic priesthood now is to destroy the universe— an event which, in fact, is clearly predicted in Isa 65:17, 2Pet 3:10, and Rev 21:1-5.

As a religio-civil code, Moses' Law is very definitely doomed to become extinct; primarily because, out in the future, it won't be needed in order to ensure domestic tranquility. A large portion of The Law's rules and regulations are simply control measures to keep people in line and help make the world a safe place to live. Think about it. If you had an entire society of people who never commit a crime, then it's totally unnecessary to make it illegal to steal, murder, or commit adultery. And if you were to threaten them with the death penalty for certain kinds of capital crimes, that society of people would stare at you like a mad man for threatening them with a kind of punishment they could never possibly deserve in a zillion years. And if that same society of people never even sins— either in thought, word or deed —then the Aaronic priesthood, and it's atonement system, would gather cobwebs from disuse.

Those who stubbornly hang on to the old covenant are faced with a terrible future because God intends to enforce The Mitzvot to the max upon those under its jurisdiction. Old covenant adherents may be getting away with violating The Law for now, but there is coming a day of reckoning.

Out in the future at some time, just prior to the reality of Messiah's kingdom, the Diaspora will rounded up from all over the world and taken to one place. At that time each individual Jew will be evaluated to determine which ones qualify to return to Israel under Messiah's regime. The evaluations will be according to the law in Moses' covenant. Those Jews who do not measure up will be banished from Messiah's kingdom; and many will be summarily executed on the spot.

†.Ezk 20:33-44 …As I live— declares the Lord God— I will reign over you with a strong hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with overflowing fury. With a strong hand and an outstretched arm and overflowing fury I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you from the lands where you are scattered, and I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples; and there I will enter into judgment with you face to face.

...As I entered into judgment with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I enter into judgment with you— declares the Lord God. I will make you pass under the shepherd’s staff, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant. I will remove from you those who rebel and transgress against Me; I will take them out of the countries where they sojourn, but they shall not enter the land of Israel. Then you shall know that I am the Lord.

For many Jews, Messiah's arrival will not be a pleasant experience.

What has Christianity added to humanity's understanding of how to lead a moral life?

A new human race.

Everybody you see around you each day, and in your mirror, are Adam's posterity. Every Jew, and every Gentile descends from him. Since we are all members of Adam's family, we all share his innate human weaknesses.

It is very evident that mankind was not created perfect. Innocent?— yes, innocent —but certainly not perfect. Both the male and the female came into being with innate weaknesses that the Serpent exploited to pull the whole race down to ruin. Here's what I mean:

First off, the woman saw in the forbidden fruit a chance for superior intelligence, which appealed to her desire for self improvement. Second, she employed feminine wiles to persuade her husband to do something that he knew was wrong.

The man was inclined to please his woman rather than to please God. Men still have that very same weakness even today. Too many guys are willing to crawl on their bellies and do whatever it takes keep their women happy— especially the ones they live with. That was certainly Solomon's ruin, and Samson's too, wasn't it?

A pretty good seat of the pants definition of perfection goes something like this: Perfection retains its innocence in the presence of temptation.

James 1:13 says that God cannot be tempted with evil. I believe that is because He, unlike mankind, has nothing within Himself that can respond to it.

Today, Christ is offering his fellow man an opportunity to participate in another Genesis; but this time in a genus of Man whose origin is Heaven itself, rather than another earthly weakling like Adam.

†.1Cor 15:45-49 …So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. (NIV)

Some of the stipulations in the new covenant promise to completely re-create people with a heart and spirit that are much superior to Adam's. It is impossible to get those benefits through Moses' covenant. Everyone must advance to the new one to get them. Adam's race is governed by his own human nature. The new race is governed by a new nature— one that's augmented by "My spirit."

How can a genetic Hebrew— locked into the Mosaic covenant many generations ago —get out of it without breaking his obligations and thus incurring serious guilt upon himself?

Excellent point; and a very grave matter worthy of serious consideration.

†.Deut 29:9-14 …You stand this day, all of you, before the Lord your God—your tribal heads, your elders and your officials, all the men of Israel, your children, your wives, even the stranger within your camp, from woodchopper to waterdrawer—to enter into the covenant of the Lord your God, which the Lord your God is concluding with you this day, with its sanctions; to the end that He may establish you this day as His people and be your God, as He promised you and as He swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I make this covenant, with its sanctions, not with you alone, but both with those who are standing here with us this day before the Lord our God and with those who are not with us here this day.

†.Deut 27:26 …Cursed be he who will not uphold the terms of this Teaching and observe them. —And all the people shall say, Amen.

Once a person is either born into, or converted to, Judaism, they can't get out of it without incurring a permanent, damning curse upon themselves. However, a dead Jew is no longer under the jurisdiction of Moses' law, nor of Halacha, nor of the Oral Law. So then, one way out of Judaism is by dying. And God has devised a way to do that without losing your life.

According to the New Testament, Jews who accept Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah become dead; and the death they die is a retribution for breaking the entire scenario of Jewish Law.

†.Rom 7:1-4 ...Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man. So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.

†.Rom 6:3 ...Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

When a Jew offers Christ as their atonement, they're not just offering another pound of flesh like the usual Aaronic sin offering; but they themselves become nailed up on the cross by proxy just as if it were themselves being executed. As modern Jews participated vicariously in that ancient Amen of Deuteronomy 29, so they can participate vicariously in Christ's execution. And their original self is not only reckoned dead by it— it becomes extinct by it. No joke. That's how powerful the new covenant's redemption process is. It not only deletes the sinner's sins; it deletes the sinner. And once a Jewish sinner is executed that way, they have fully paid their debts to Moses' Law; and they're moved into a new sphere, and under a totally different jurisdiction.

It's all done on the books of course because Christian Jews don't just vanish and disappear when they buy into the new covenant. But out in the future, they're slated to be raised from the dead as brand spanking new kinds of people— literally. Their old self will never reappear. It will be gone…forever.

†.2Cor 5:16-17 …So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

The procedure is called "circumcision made without hands" because God surgically removes the sinner's original identity— his sinful flesh. It's a very supernatural concept but all that it really means is that the sinner loses their old self and becomes a totally new self. And best of all, they are automatically enrolled in Messiah's kingdom.

†.Col 3:3-4 …For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.

†.Col 1:13 …For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son

If Christian Jews are under Jeremiah's "new covenant," wherein Torah is placed in the heart so that one Jew does not have to teach another Jew what to do... then why are Christian Jews allowed to eat pork? Why are Christian Jews allowed to eat chametz on Passover, and why do they not dwell in a sukkah (booth) on Sukkot? Isn't that a little strange? If the laws of Torah are placed in their heart, shouldn't they be obeying them?

The new covenant is stated to be "not be like the covenant I made with their fathers, when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt" so it's reasonable to expect some differences; especially in the areas of diet, the priesthood, and the Temple qorbanot system.

God's commandments regarding morality and civil conduct are of course retained since the Old Testament expresses God's righteousness in matters of right and wrong. The mind of the God of the Bible isn't morally flexible; so whatever was right and wrong in the Old Testament, remains right and wrong in the New. Nothing's changed in that respect. It's still wrong to murder, still wrong to refuse to assist someone to rescue their livestock from peril, still wrong for a man to sleep with his father's wife, still wrong to steal, still wrong to practice witchcraft and necromancy, still wrong to eat fresh blood and living flesh, still wrong to blaspheme The Name; and still wrong to keep two different sets of merchant's weights in your bag. Those kinds of laws are absolutes; but practices like diet and sacred holidays are dispensational. Neither Noah nor Abraham were restricted to kosher foods; nor were they required to observe special holidays and feasts.

Jesus died to enact the new covenant (Luke 22:20). It's often a shock to some Christians to discover that the purpose of the new covenant is to implant God's Old Testament commandments in Man's heart so that Man will obey His commandments willingly rather than by force. A good number of Christians are somehow under the impression that Paul's expression "you are not under the law" frees them to disobey it. No, it doesn't work that way. Though Christ's crucifixion ransomed believers from the law's curse (Deut 27:26, Gal 3:13) his crucifixion in no way relieves them of their duty to comply with it.

When professing Xians are opposed to obeying God's Old Testament commandments; then I have to seriously question whether they have yet been made a beneficiary of Christ's crucifixion because the result of coming under the auspices of Christ's crucifixion is that God's Old Testament commandments should be automatically instilled in their heart, and they should desire to obey them willingly rather than putting up an argument about it.

†.2Tim 3:16-17 . .all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

†.Ps 1:1-3 . .Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. But his delight is in Yhvh's law, and on His law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither.

†.Ps 19:9-11 . .Yhvh's ordinances are sure and altogether righteous. They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the comb. By them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward.

†.Rom 3:31 . .Do we then make void The Law through faith? God forbid! yea, we establish the law.

†.Rom 7:7 . . Is the law sin? God forbid.

†.Rom 7:12 . .The law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.

†.1John 3:4 . .Whosoever commits sin transgresses also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

†.Rom 6:1-2 . .What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.

_____________________________________

Summary

†. Jer 31:38-40 …See, a time is coming— declares the Lord —when the city shall be rebuilt for the Lord from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate; and the measuring line shall go straight out to the Gareb Hill, and then turn toward Goah. And the entire Valley of the Corpses and Ashes, and all the fields as far as the Wadi Kidron, and the corner of the Horse Gate on the east, shall be holy to the Lord. They shall never again be uprooted or overthrown. (1985 JPS Tanakh)

That promise— "they shall never again be uprooted or overthrown"— could never become a reality if Abraham's posterity were permitted to remain under the Mosaic covenant's jurisdiction because we know from Deut 28:15-68 that Moses' covenant stipulates mandatory eviction whenever the Jews become too decadent.

Even if there were no such thing as Jeremiah's new covenant, reason would cry out for one so the Jews could stay put in Israel instead of being kicked out of it and/or dominated by foreign powers again and again.

Messiah's reign would be jeopardized too without a new covenant. He might be an okay guy himself whose methods please God alright; but his countrymen's typically half-baked attitude towards God's authority would most likely ruin things for him in short order. But God has guaranteed Messiah's kingdom to be an everlasting kingdom and the one which will never pass away. So his constituents absolutely have got to be made one hundred percent God-fearing to protect Messiah's best interests.

I think history has proven well enough that the people of Israel cannot be trusted to be faithful to Moses' covenant. But the new covenant does not rely upon their inconsistent human will power. God's spirit will take charge and reform the people in spite of themselves; and done in such a permanent way that they will never lose the benefits of Messiah's peace and prosperity. Jeremiah's covenant is a very good deal.

Related References

Answering Jewish Objections To Jesus
by Michael L. Brown
Volume 1 ISBN 0-8010-6063-X
Volume 2 ISBN 0-8010-6334-5
Volume 3 ISBN 0-8010-6423-6

TOP

Musicnot.wmf (1656 bytes) Angel Eyes (Jim Brickman)