Problem 8 - That the New Covenant w/blessings and salvation is for the Body

[Christine]

PROBLEM NO. 8 --THAT THE NEW COVENANT WITH ITS BLESSINGS AND SALVATION IS FOR THE CHURCH, THE BODY OF CHRIST

This is one of the main teachings of Acts 2 Theology. They teach that the New Covenant does belong to Israel, as is taught in Jer. 31:31, "Behold, the days are coming, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah."

But because of what our Lord taught about His death, that His blood is the blood of the New Covenant (or Testament - Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25), the New Covenant has a present application to the Church. (Covenant
Theology also believes this).

Acts 2 brethren believe that Paul ministered according to the New Covenant (2 Cor. 3:6), and therefore his writings are in accordance with New Covenant truth. When an Acts 2 author writes about Christian living, he will invariably bring in the New Covenant as the basis for Christian living.

Appeal is made to Hebrews 9:15-17 to show that the New Covenant is now in operation and is effective for believers today.

 

THE TRUTH

The New Covenant is a very confusing subject for all believers. Preachers and Bible teachers are to blame for this because the Bible is clear in its presentation of this truth.

The Christian church has formulated four viewpoints concerning the New Covenant:

1. That the church is a continuation of the Nation of Israel and so is fulfilling the New Covenant during this Age of grace. This is the view of Covenant Theology, and is the predominant view in Roman Catholic and Protestant churches today.

2. The view of John N. Darby (around 1850, a Brethren preacher) that there is only one New Covenant and it was made with the houses of Israel and Judah. It will be completely fulfilled in the Millennium and the Church has no relationship to it in any way. This is the correct view.

3. The view of C.I. Scofield, who agreed with Darby in its relationship to the Nation of Israel, but added the idea that there is a two-fold application of this Covenant: one to Israel in the future and one to the Church now. This is in respect to spiritual blessings, and is the more popular view of dispensationalists.

4. The view of L.S. Chafer, who believed and taught that there are two New Covenants: one for Israel and one for the Church. This is taught in his 8 volume Theology. His main passage of Scripture for this is 2 Cor. chapter 3. God has set forth three different standards of righteousness in the Bible.

These 'standards' were given to help believers live a life pleasing to God in their respective Dispensations, and to help them serve and worship God in the right way. They are:

1. The law that Jehovah gave to Moses on Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:1 and following).
The Bible calls it the Law of Moses. It contains three parts:
a. the Ten Commandments
b. the Ceremonial Law
c. the Civil Law
In the New Testament this Law is viewed as a unit - the word 'law' when referring to the Law of Moses is ALWAYS SINGULAR. This is how God wants us to view it. The only people to receive this law was the Nation of Israel. It is related only to the past, since the death of Christ on the cross completely took it out of the way forever (Col. 2:14).

2. The New Covenant that Jehovah said He will make with the house of Israel (10 tribes) and the house of Judah (2 tribes). The New Covenant will provide salvation and spiritual blessings for the Nation of Israel when the time comes for it to be instituted by God (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:24-38; Isaiah 61:8). The things mentioned in these three passages have not been fulfilled yet. This Covenant is still future.

3. The Revelation of the Mystery that the RISEN CHRIST gave to the Apostle Paul. It is a complete revelation from Almighty God. It contains the Gospel of the grace of God, salvation, redemption, rules and commands for Christian living
(Gal. 6:2 - the Law of Christ). The Mystery presents the risen Christ as the Son of God, Saviour and HEAD of the Body of Christ. And it tells about the wonderful, incredible future of the Church, the Body of Christ (1 Thess. 4:13-17; 2 Cor. 5:10-12; 1 Cor. 3:12-15; Eph. 2:7).

The problem in Christendom is that Bible scholars, preachers, teachers, and those in the pew have been neutralizing the Apostle Paul for ages. They refuse to give him the rightful place as THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES (Ran. 11:13), and consequently they are ignorant of the Mystery given to Paul. They substitute the New Covenant for the Mystery, not realizing that it is impossible for the New Covenant to be in operation today.

When Luke closed the book of Acts so abruptly, it was because God postponed His plans for the Nation of Israel. Everything associated with Israel was shut down at Acts 28 by God because of Israel's unbelief. This included the New Covenant as well as the Abrahamic Covenant. The Law of Moses also came to an everlasting end by the cross of Christ (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14). Let us notice some facts about the New Covenant as taught in the New Testament:

1. The 'New Covenant' is mentioned in Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; Ran. 11:27; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:8-13; 9:15; 10:16-18,29; 12:24; 13:20 - 12 times (it is really only 10 times because the two Corinthian verses refer to something else; the translations want to make it 12 times; see point #5 below for explanation). You can see from these references that the Apostle Paul is the one who explains the facts about this Covenant. And that is the way it should be, because he closed out the New Testament with the writing of 2 Timothy.

2. The three verses in the Gospels relate the New Covenant to Israel's Kingdom of God. Notice:

Matthew 26:28-29, "For this is My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. [29] But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's Kingdom. "

Mark 14:24-25, "And He said unto them, This is My blood of the New Testament which is shed for many. [25] Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until that day that I drink it new in the Kingdom of God."

Luke 22:18,20, "For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God shall come... [20] Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New Testament in My blood, which is shed for you."

The language used by our Lord indicates that this Kingdom of God is a material, physical Kingdom that is going to be on earth. There will be plenty of vines to supply the grapes needed for this celebration. The Kingdom of God is MORE than just a spiritual kingdom that is supposed to be in some other sphere.

3. Three times the Apostle Paul refers to the New Covenant as being in the FUTURE:
Romans 11:26-27, "And so all Israel shall be saved, as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. [27] For this is my Covenant unto them when I shall take away their sins."
Hebrews 8:8, "For finding fault with them, He saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a New Covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah."
Hebrews 10:16, "This is the Covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord. I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them."

The New Covenant was still future at the time Hebrews and Romans were written. This is strong evidence that this Covenant is not for the Body of Christ nor had it been set up after the death and resurrection of Christ.

4. Hebrews 9:15-17 says: "And for this cause He is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. [16] For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. [17] For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator lives."

This passage teaches that Christ had to die first before the New Covenant could be instituted. But this does not mean that the New Covenant was instituted during the book of Acts. The REPENTANCE of the Nation of Israel had to take place FIRST (Joel 2:12-17) before the blessings of God could be poured out on Israel. Commentators have completely overlooked this very important fact. What the Lord did was to provide for the institution of the Covenant when it is set up at the beginning of the Millennium after the Second Coming of Christ (Ran. 11:26-27).

5. The two references in the Corinthian letters DO NOT refer to Israel's New Covenant. The meanings of 'testament' and 'covenant' are definitely the wrong ones to use in these two passages. the Greek word DIATHEKE basically means 'arrangement' and 'will.' The Greek scholar Kenneth S. Wuest recognized the validity of the meaning of 'arrangement' for DIATHEKE in his commentary on Hebrews 8:10 [page 147] and on Hebrews 9:16,17 [pages 164-165] ('Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Vol. 2; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co.). That is the meaning to use in 1 Cor. 11:25 and in 2 Cor. 3:6. Paul proclaimed Christ according to the Revelation of the Mystery (Ran. 16:25), NOT according to the New Covenant, as translators would have us believe. Christians need to realize this because it is so important in figuring out just what the Apostle of the Gentiles did preach in his ministry. There is no need to promote Covenant Theology in our ministry for the Lord.

6. Please notice one aspect of this Covenant when it is instituted by God for the peoples of the earth. This is found in Jer. 31:34, "And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD ." This is quoted in Heb. 8:11 and is a very strong proof that the New Covenant was not and never has been in operation during this Age of grace. There are still billions of people who have never heard of the Lord Jesus Christ in spite of all the missionaries, preaching done on the radio and television, and all the literature that has been printed since the printing press was invented in the 15th century. But TWICE it is stated that ALL will know the Loord. The Bible is to be believed rather than the interpretations of man.

7. Therefore, there is NO INDICATION in the New Testament that the New Covenant is in operation now. It is limited solely to the future of Israel at the Second Coming of Christ. Consistency should help us see that the New Covenant DOES NOT fit into God's plans for this present Dispensation of grace.

Where do our blessings come from if they don't come from the New Covenant? The answer is that our blessings come from the mystery revealed to Paul. We are blessed with every SPIRITUAL blessing in the heavenlies of the Fourth Dimension (Eph. 1:3), and they are found in Paul's letters TO the Body of Christ. The blessings of salvation stern from receiving the Gospel of thegrace of God, not from proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom. Sins are taken care of by the blood, not by the water (Eph. 1:7). Don't you agree?

By Robert C. Brock

[LookingUp]

…

1. The law that Jehovah gave to Moses on Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:1 and following).
The Bible calls it the Law of Moses. It contains three parts:
a. the Ten Commandments
b. the Ceremonial Law
c. the Civil Law
In the New Testament this Law is viewed as a unit - the word 'law' when referring to the Law of Moses is ALWAYS SINGULAR. This is how God wants us to view it. The only people to receive this law was the Nation of Israel. It is related only to the past, since the death of Christ on the cross completely took it out of the way forever (Col. 2:14).

2. The New Covenant that Jehovah said He will make with the house of Israel (10 tribes) and the house of Judah (2 tribes). The New Covenant will provide salvation and spiritual blessings for the Nation of Israel when the time comes for it to be instituted by God (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:24-38; Isaiah 61:. The things mentioned in these three passages have not been fulfilled yet. This Covenant is still future.

3. The Revelation of the Mystery that the RISEN CHRIST gave to the Apostle Paul. It is a complete revelation from Almighty God. It contains the Gospel of the grace of God, salvation, redemption, rules and commands for Christian living
(Gal. 6:2 - the Law of Christ). The Mystery presents the risen Christ as the Son of God, Saviour and HEAD of the Body of Christ. And it tells about the wonderful, incredible future of the Church, the Body of Christ (1 Thess. 4:13-17; 2 Cor. 5:10-12; 1 Cor. 3:12-15; Eph. 2:7).

I don’t see how the law of Moses can come back in the trib. and MK since the death of Christ on the cross completely took it out of the way forever (Col. 2:14).  Doesn’t forever mean forever?  Yet, I see in the OT that during the MK, ceremonial law of Moses (observing feasts, etc.) is intact.

5. The two references in the Corinthian letters DO NOT refer to Israel's New Covenant. The meanings of 'testament' and 'covenant' are definitely the wrong ones to use in these two passages. the Greek word DIATHEKE basically means 'arrangement' and 'will.' The Greek scholar Kenneth S. Wuest recognized the validity of the meaning of 'arrangement' for DIATHEKE in his commentary on Hebrews 8:10 [page 147] and on Hebrews 9:16,17 [pages 164-165] ('Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Vol. 2; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co.). That is the meaning to use in 1 Cor. 11:25 and in 2 Cor. 3:6. Paul proclaimed Christ according to the Revelation of the Mystery (Ran. 16:25), NOT according to the New Covenant, as translators would have us believe. Christians need to realize this because it is so important in figuring out just what the Apostle of the Gentiles did preach in his ministry. There is no need to promote Covenant Theology in our ministry for the Lord.

How can he say that this reference is not about the new covenant?

1 Corinthians 11:23-26

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.

Paul is describing what Jesus did.  Paul says we should partake in this tradition is remembrance of His death until He comes.

[Christine]

Part of understanding is in actually studying OUT what is being said. The author is correct. It is OUR thinking that needs to CHANGE. Words mean something and the NEW COVENANT is not WITH us, but with the Nation Israel. You need to sit down and study this out with the scriptures and information given you. Also...go thru ALL the problems with Covenant Theology, or Acts 2 theology, as this seems to be where your thinking needs to adjust itself to TRUTH.

We all had to face each of these issues at one time or another. You are still hanging onto Covenant, or Acts 2 theology. Acts 2 theology has us in Israels program as the church the Body of Christ didnt begin there at ALL. It was still a very jewish program and God was adding to a church that already existed. The KINGDOM church.

Study...compare the scriptures given...set your preconceived ideas ASIDE and simply read the verses IN CONTEXT.

[LookingUp]

Part of understanding is in actually studying OUT what is being said. The author is correct. It is OUR thinking that needs to CHANGE. Words mean something and the NEW COVENANT is not WITH us, but with the Nation Israel. You need to sit down and study this out with the scriptures and information given you. Also...go thru ALL the problems with Covenant Theology, or Acts 2 theology, as this seems to be where your thinking needs to adjust itself to TRUTH.

We all had to face each of these issues at one time or another. You are still hanging onto Covenant, or Acts 2 theology. Acts 2 theology has us in Israels program as the church the Body of Christ didnt begin there at ALL. It was still a very jewish program and God was adding to a church that already existed. The KINGDOM church.

Study...compare the scriptures given...set your preconceived ideas ASIDE and simply read the verses IN CONTEXT.

I read through the problems with Acts 2 theology.  These are the only questions I have at this time.  I didn't see "a problem" or confusion with the rest.  I completely understand the New Cov. is to be given to Israel for the MK.  BUT Paul does write that we are to partake in a tradition (what Jesus did with His disciples which is related to New Cov. & MK) which reminds us of His death.  I'm not saying that Paul asks us to partake in this tradition because we are a part of the New Cov. but it does seem to indicate that Paul doesn't want us to forget what God WILL do with Israel in the future with this New Cov.

Why else would Paul bring up what Jesus did with His disciples and then ask us to partake in the tradition?

[Christine]

Part of understanding is in actually studying OUT what is being said. The author is correct. It is OUR thinking that needs to CHANGE. Words mean something and the NEW COVENANT is not WITH us, but with the Nation Israel. You need to sit down and study this out with the scriptures and information given you. Also...go thru ALL the problems with Covenant Theology, or Acts 2 theology, as this seems to be where your thinking needs to adjust itself to TRUTH.

We all had to face each of these issues at one time or another. You are still hanging onto Covenant, or Acts 2 theology. Acts 2 theology has us in Israels program as the church the Body of Christ didnt begin there at ALL. It was still a very jewish program and God was adding to a church that already existed. The KINGDOM church.

Study...compare the scriptures given...set your preconceived ideas ASIDE and simply read the verses IN CONTEXT.

I read through the problems with Acts 2 theology.  These are the only questions I have at this time.  I didn't see "a problem" or confusion with the rest.  I completely understand the New Cov. is to be given to Israel for the MK.  BUT Paul does write that we are to partake in a tradition (what Jesus did with His disciples which is related to New Cov. & MK) which reminds us of His death.  I'm not saying that Paul asks us to partake in this tradition because we are a part of the New Cov. but it does seem to indicate that Paul doesn't want us to forget what God WILL do with Israel in the future with this New Cov.

Why else would Paul bring up what Jesus did with His disciples and then ask us to partake in the tradition?

Yikes...Please be more clear as to what you are referring to. What "tradition?"  Paul doesn't ask us to partake in any tradition that was part of Israels program at all!

If you are referring to Communion...this is something that some people do and some people don't. We are under no compulsion to obey any ordinances in this age of Grace. If communion is observed , it is in remembrance of what Christ accomplished on that Cross for ALL. Many grace believers don't observe this ordinance.

Paul is always mindful of Israels position, but he focuses us on the age of GRACE which we are NOW observing. Keep the two SEPARATE. ONLY one is in operation today. This is the "preaching of Jesus Christ ACCORDING to the REVELaTiON OF THE MYSTERY which was KEPT SECRET since the world began..."  Romans 16:25

Actually the NEW Covenant was the issue here, not so much the idea of communion.

[LookingUp]

Part of understanding is in actually studying OUT what is being said. The author is correct. It is OUR thinking that needs to CHANGE. Words mean something and the NEW COVENANT is not WITH us, but with the Nation Israel. You need to sit down and study this out with the scriptures and information given you. Also...go thru ALL the problems with Covenant Theology, or Acts 2 theology, as this seems to be where your thinking needs to adjust itself to TRUTH.

We all had to face each of these issues at one time or another. You are still hanging onto Covenant, or Acts 2 theology. Acts 2 theology has us in Israels program as the church the Body of Christ didnt begin there at ALL. It was still a very jewish program and God was adding to a church that already existed. The KINGDOM church.

Study...compare the scriptures given...set your preconceived ideas ASIDE and simply read the verses IN CONTEXT.

I read through the problems with Acts 2 theology.  These are the only questions I have at this time.  I didn't see "a problem" or confusion with the rest.  I completely understand the New Cov. is to be given to Israel for the MK.  BUT Paul does write that we are to partake in a tradition (what Jesus did with His disciples which is related to New Cov. & MK) which reminds us of His death.  I'm not saying that Paul asks us to partake in this tradition because we are a part of the New Cov. but it does seem to indicate that Paul doesn't want us to forget what God WILL do with Israel in the future with this New Cov.

Why else would Paul bring up what Jesus did with His disciples and then ask us to partake in the tradition?

Yikes...Please be more clear as to what you are referring to. What "tradition?"  Paul doesn't ask us to partake in any tradition that was part of Israels program at all!

If you are referring to Communion...this is something that some people do and some people don't. We are under no compulsion to obey any ordinances in this age of Grace. If communion is observed , it is in remembrance of what Christ accomplished on that Cross for ALL. Many grace believers don't observe this ordinance.

Paul is always mindful of Israels position, but he focuses us on the age of GRACE which we are NOW observing. Keep the two SEPARATE. ONLY one is in operation today. This is the "preaching of Jesus Christ ACCORDING to the REVELaTiON OF THE MYSTERY which was KEPT SECRET since the world began..."  Romans 16:25

Actually the NEW Covenant was the issue here, not so much the idea of communion.

By "tradition" I mean what was begun by Christ at what is now called "the Lord's Supper" and continues on.  Maybe you consider it to be more of a "command"?  Anyway, Christ asked His disciples (believing Israel at the time) to do it in remembrance of Him.  It looks forward to the new covenant according to Christ's words.  Paul says that for as often as we (Body) do this (tradition/command), we proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

[Christine]

By "tradition" I mean what was begun by Christ at what is now called "the Lord's Supper" and continues on.  Maybe you consider it to be more of a "command"?  Anyway, Christ asked His disciples (believing Israel at the time) to do it in remembrance of Him.  It looks forward to the new covenant according to Christ's words.  Paul says that for as often as we (Body) do this(tradition/command), we proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

If something was given to the KINGDOM saints, looking forward to a new covenant that God has with THEM... I , personally , see no reason for we who are the church which is His body to follow it, either as a tradition OR a command.

I still see the focus of the NEW COVENANT blessings and salvation as being addressed to the NATION Israel, and communion or the Lords Supper not an issue for we who are members of His Body. That is something where each individual, thru his or her own personal study, must come to their own personal conclusion. It is not a salvation issue, but one where we look at who the original tradition was given to and why.

Much of what churches use in their liturgy today is a carryover from Judaism and we don't even realize it. Baptism, the Lords Supper, washing of feet, confession, etc etc.

I see God wanting us to be clear in our minds what is for us and what is NOT...and to keep the two separate at all costs. We don't need to be fuzzying the lines anymore than they already ARE, if ya know what I mean, jellybean...LOL

 

[LookingUp]

By "tradition" I mean what was begun by Christ at what is now called "the Lord's Supper" and continues on.  Maybe you consider it to be more of a "command"?  Anyway, Christ asked His disciples (believing Israel at the time) to do it in remembrance of Him.  It looks forward to the new covenant according to Christ's words.  Paul says that for as often as we (Body) do this(tradition/command), we proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

If something was given to the KINGDOM saints, looking forward to a new covenant that God has with THEM... I , personally , see no reason for we who are the church which is His body to follow it, either as a tradition OR a command.

I still see the focus of the NEW COVENANT blessings and salvation as being addressed to the NATION Israel, and communion or the Lords Supper not an issue for we who are members of His Body. That is something where each individual, thru his or her own personal study, must come to their own personal conclusion. It is not a salvation issue, but one where we look at who the original tradition was given to and why.

Much of what churches use in their liturgy today is a carryover from Judaism and we don't even realize it. Baptism, the Lords Supper, washing of feet, confession, etc etc.

I see God wanting us to be clear in our minds what is for us and what is NOT...and to keep the two separate at all costs. We don't need to be fuzzying the lines anymore than they already ARE, if ya know what I mean, jellybean...LOL

 

I think I know what you mean.

Can you give me YOUR understanding of

2 Corinthians 3:6

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

[Christine]

By "tradition" I mean what was begun by Christ at what is now called "the Lord's Supper" and continues on.  Maybe you consider it to be more of a "command"?  Anyway, Christ asked His disciples (believing Israel at the time) to do it in remembrance of Him.  It looks forward to the new covenant according to Christ's words.  Paul says that for as often as we (Body) do this(tradition/command), we proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

If something was given to the KINGDOM saints, looking forward to a new covenant that God has with THEM... I , personally , see no reason for we who are the church which is His body to follow it, either as a tradition OR a command.

I still see the focus of the NEW COVENANT blessings and salvation as being addressed to the NATION Israel, and communion or the Lords Supper not an issue for we who are members of His Body. That is something where each individual, thru his or her own personal study, must come to their own personal conclusion. It is not a salvation issue, but one where we look at who the original tradition was given to and why.

Much of what churches use in their liturgy today is a carryover from Judaism and we don't even realize it. Baptism, the Lords Supper, washing of feet, confession, etc etc.

I see God wanting us to be clear in our minds what is for us and what is NOT...and to keep the two separate at all costs. We don't need to be fuzzying the lines anymore than they already ARE, if ya know what I mean, jellybean...LOL

 

I think I know what you mean.

Can you give me YOUR understanding of

2 Corinthians 3:6

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Yes, I can. But not today. I have already exceeded my time on the computer today and my back is tellin me about it.

That particular verse in context has to do with the SPIRIT, as the context explains. It is NOT referring to the NEW COVENANT of Jer. 31:31!

Someone else came in here with that question and I told him he must FIRST get the issue settled with regard to the differences between Peter and Pauls gospel BEFORE we would tackle this question. When I do explain it later, it WILL be clear as you will more readily understand reading CONTEXT and why it is so important to understand who is being addressed and why. Until then, I will leave this question in the "to be answered at a later date file."

Huuuuugs....have a good evening...I need to go lay on heat and get my back relaxed.  Its the pits gettin old...LOL

[Lu]

Bump to top of thread for Oasis

[Christine]

Brock covers it pretty well here. Jeremiah 31:31 tells us that the OLD and NEW "covenants" were with none other than the NATION Israel as well as plentious scripture dealing with Israels inheritance being "TEMPORAL" and "earthly" as in REAL ESTATE. Pauls epistles tell us that WE, who are the body of Christ "have BEEN blessed with All SPIRITUAL blessings in the heavenlies", which is quite different. Our blessings are in the here and NOW, but accomplished BY Christ on the Cross. They have mostly to do with the work of God in placing us INTO the NEW MAN, or NEW Creation, which IS the Body of Christ and includes those things which automatically occurred when this transformation took place.

The verse that speaks of we being able ministers of the new covenant can be taken one of two ways. We, the church the body of Christ ARE able ministers of the NEW COVENANT in that WE are the only ones who truly understand WHAT it is and to whom it applies. The NEW COVENANT has yet to be implemented as it has to do with the Nation of Israel when God resumes His program with THEM.

OR...we can look at it from the standpoint that we do when we see the word "church"  or "baptism" in the scriptures. Context will always dictate meaning for we who are right dividers, and we MUST admit that when we see the words church and baptism that they do NOT always refer to "the church the body of Christ" nor  do they always refer to "water."  In the context in which Paul uses it, I would say he is speaking of the dispensation of GRACE entrusted unto him, and NOT referring to the OLD/NEW covenant that we commonly think of when we hear the "word" covenant.

Discussion anyone?

[Lu]

I may be crazy, but I can see it a third way.
(no wisecracks from the peanut gallery, lol)

2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Made us able ministers (Paul and those with Paul)

The new testament (believing in the Son, Jesus Christ in contrast to the old testament believing in God. In the New Testament no one goes to the
Father for salvation except through believing in the Son)

Not of the letter (Not of the law.  Two ministries, Peter's Kingdom/Earthly Gospel and Paul's Spiritual/Heavenly Gospel. But in both ministries people were to believe in Jesus.  Peter's ministry was expecting Jesus to be their earthly King. In Paul's ministry people were to be in Christ.)

But of the Spirit (The Holy Spirit, being baptized by the Holy Spirit and sealed.  The one new man.
The Dispensation of Grace.)

Am I a little off?

YFIC,  Lu

[Christine]

I may be crazy, but I can see it a third way.
(no wisecracks from the peanut gallery, lol)

2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Made us able ministers (Paul and those with Paul)

The new testament (believing in the Son, Jesus Christ in contrast to the old testament believing in God. In the New Testament no one goes to the
Father for salvation except through believing in the Son)

Not of the letter (Not of the law.  Two ministries, Peter's Kingdom/Earthly Gospel and Paul's Spiritual/Heavenly Gospel. But in both ministries people were to believe in Jesus.  Peter's ministry was expecting Jesus to be their earthly King. In Paul's ministry people were to be in Christ.)

But of the Spirit (The Holy Spirit, being baptized by the Holy Spirit and sealed.  The one new man.
The Dispensation of Grace.)

Am I a little off?

YFIC,  Lu

Excellent job, Lu. Not off at all. THUMBS UP , girl!!!!!

[Oasis]

Thanks for the insight Lu and Christine.  I responded in the other thread.  I'm gonna go back and read #8 again.  Another thing that I've thought much about lately is the structure of the Bible itself, and how(imho)it causes much confusion to many. 

I believe the books of the Bible are divinely inspired, but those who later translated the original erred in choosing which  books should be placed in the OT and which should be placed in the NT.  If I'd been the dude doin' the placin' I would have made,

Genesis through Malachi the "Old Testament"
Mathew through Acts 8 "Jesus Christ's earthly ministry to the Nation of Israel"
Acts 9 through Philemon "The Gospel of the Grace of God"
...and I haven't given much thought to the rest.
Hey we'll be gone for the end part anyway.

ybiC,
Kab