Replies

It is not called a New Covenant in the Bible, it is called a New Testament.

This is a distinction without a difference. You're using English words to quibble over the original languages. The question is, what does the Greek word diatheke mean in Scripture? What is it meant to convey?

"This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant (diatheke) in My blood." (Luke 22:20)

"It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant (diatheke) which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.'" (Acts 3:25)

"THIS IS MY COVENANT (diatheke) WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS." (Rom. 11:27)

"But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant (diatheke), which has been enacted on better promises." (Heb. 8:6)

The Septuagint, which is the ancient rabbis' Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, uses the word diatheke to translate the Hebrew word berîth.

With the possible exception of Heb. 9:16,17., nowhere can it be demonstrated from the New Testament that the word diatheke means something other than "covenant".

Context is the key to proper understanding.

'The very fact that the expression "the new covenant" is used indicates that the berith of the Old Scriptures is in mind and that the New Testament writers, when they used covenant, are thinking primarily of a disposition of God along the lines of Old Testament models, and not the conception of a will. Nevertheless, in view of the universal use of the word outside the Scriptures and of the place they assigned to the death of Christ in the making of the new covenant, it seems probable that in most cases where diatheke occurs there is the secondary thought of a death to be discerned with a corresponding benefit to those who were heirs." (Leon Morris)

"But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant (diatheke), which has been enacted on better promises." (Heb. 8:6)

I'll only use this one quote in this post. For once, I agree with topcat, this is a distinction without a difference. The major issue is that God covenanted with His People at least six times in the OT. Other than the covenant of Law, which is conditional, the rest are unconditional. Therefore we must rely on God's faithfulness to fulfill the covenants, and He will.

The New Covenant, or testament, became effective with the shed blood of Christ on His cross and this covenant started seeing fulfillment in early Acts until God's program with the Jew was set aside. Heb. 9:16 tells us when the New Covenant became effective: For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

The key to this covenant is the shed blood of Christ that takes away our sins. Therefore, while this covenant was not made with us and not given to us, we, as the Church, the Body of Christ, are beneficiaries of it. We do not, however, receive all the benefits covenanted with Israel that includes material, physical and spiritual blessings as our blessings are strictly spiritual. That is why Paul can make his comments on the Lord's Supper as a remembrance of the shed blood of Christ and what that accomplished for us. The shed blood of Christ is all that saves people in any dispensation. Ours is retrospective and for OT and Kingdom saints, it is prospective.

In a way, this is just like we are Abraham's "spiritual" seed by being adopted in Christ, who was a Jew, not because we are racial Jews. As a result of being Abraham's seed, we do benefit from some aspects of the covenants, but certainly not all of them. This is supremely confusing to Covenant theologians and amils, but this is what the Bible clearly teaches.

It is not called a New Covenant in the Bible, it is called a New Testament. This is a distinction without a difference. You're using English words to quibble over the original languages. The question is, what does the Greek word diatheke mean in Scripture? What is it meant to convey?

Really?

And when you open your Bible up,do you open up to the New and Old Covenants or the New and Old Testaments?

Since Heb.8:8 says a new Covenant not a New Testament the difference in the word used is crucial.

"This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant (diatheke) in My blood." (Luke 22:20)

It says New Testament not new covenant.

Hey, thanks for making my point.

The King James has covenant in that passage because it is referring to Israel, not the Church.

"THIS IS MY COVENANT (diatheke) WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS." (Rom. 11:27)

Once again, thank you.

The passage reads Covenant because it is referring to the Jewish covenant, not the New Testament church.

"But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant (diatheke), which has been enacted on better promises." (Heb. 8:6)

Again, Heb.8:6 refers to the Jewish Covenant, not the New Testament church and is translated that way in the King James.

The King James translates diatheke as New Testament and covenant based on its context, hence it accuracy in its translations (as well as Tyndale and the Geneva)

The Septuagint, which is the ancient rabbis' Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, uses the word diatheke to translate the Hebrew word berîth.

So, who is denying that the word can be translated covenant, it is translated that way in the King James also.

It is the context that determines how it is going to be translated.

With the possible exception of Heb. 9:16,17., nowhere can it be demonstrated from the New Testament that the word diatheke means something other than "covenant".

Well, that is a powerful exception, since we are talking about the New Testament vs the New Covenant.

They are not the same, one is for the church, and one is for Israel and that is why different words are used for both of them to show the difference.

And that is why Heb.9:16 is in the Bible, to show why we use the word Testament in our Bibles and not Covenants.

Context is the key to proper understanding. 'The very fact that the expression "the new covenant" is used indicates that the berith of the Old Scriptures is in mind and that the New Testament writers, when they used covenant, are thinking primarily of a disposition of God along the lines of Old Testament models, and not the conception of a will. Nevertheless, in view of the universal use of the word outside the Scriptures and of the place they assigned to the death of Christ in the making of the new covenant, it seems probable that in most cases where diatheke occurs there is the secondary thought of a death to be discerned with a corresponding benefit to those who were heirs." (Leon Morris)

It seems probable Nice double-talk.

The New Testament is not the New Covenant.

The New Covenant is not dealing with the death of Christ, it is dealing with a Kingdom that is going to be established.

Thus, New Testament is not New Covenant, and the Kingdom of God is not the Kingdom of Heaven.

Words do mean something.