Mediator of a new Covenant

[B-A-C]

Way back in Job's time, he saw the advantage to having a mediator.

Job 9:33; If only there were a mediator between us, someone who could bring us together.
Job 9:34; The mediator could make God stop beating me, and I would no longer live in terror of His punishment.

So God sent us one.
1 Tim 2:5; For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
Heb 8:6; But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
Heb 9:15; For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Heb 12:24; and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

What exactly is a mediator anyway?
A "go between" two parties who are in disagreement, a delegate between two groups at variance with each other, a negotiator between two (or more) factions who are at odds with one another.
an intercessor, an intermediary, a middleman, a peacemaker, arbitrator, reconciler, even an umpire in a ball game is a mediator. An attorney in a court room is a mediator. A divorce attorney would be a mediator.

So who is Jesus mediating for? 1 Tim 2:5;says Jesus is between God and man.
Rom 8:34; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

Remember the ultimate goal is not to get to Jesus, but to get to the Father.
John 14:6; Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

"through me". We have to go through the mediator, through the interceder. Jesus is the one who reconciles us to God the father.

Eventually after everything is restored, Jesus gives the kingdom back to the Father.
1 Cor 15:24; then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
1 Cor 15:25; For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
1 Cor 15:26; The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
1 Cor 15:27; For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
1 Cor 15:28; When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

So Jesus isn't the goal, he is a mediator between man and God, and he eventually gives the kingdom back to the father.
Even Jesus told us to pray to the father. ( Matt 6:9; Luke 11:2; ) Of course there is nothing wrong with praying through Jesus ( he is our mediator after all )
But eventually even the son will be subjected to the Father. That's kind of an on-going theme Jesus emphasized.
Count how many verses Jesus said he "did the will of his father", or did something to "give glory to the Father". Even to the point of being obedient unto death. Php 2:8;

So I have to wonder, is Jesus our mediator before we believe in him? I don't think so. The Bible says we have to believe in Jesus to be saved.
So then, if it's after we are saved, what exactly is he mediating between us and God?

 

[NetChaplain]

So then, if it's after we are saved, what exactly is he mediating between us and God?

Hi BAC - What does your initials represent? Just wanted to know. The New Covenant Jesus is mediator of now, and forever, is the "Everlasting Covenant (Heb 13:20). This is why the believer is not under any covenant, but is the recipient of this one, which is not between God and man but between God and His Son. I think I showed this to you before but it's okay if I did because it take a long time to understand its implications.

The Father covenanted with His Son that He would raise Him from the grave when He died for man.

 

[B-A-C]

Hi BAC - What does your initials represent? Just wanted to know. The New Covenant Jesus is mediator of now, and forever, is the "Everlasting Covenant (Heb 13:20). This is why the believer is not under any covenant, but is the recipient of this one, which is not between God and man but between God and His Son. I think I showed this to you before but it's okay if I did because it take a long time to understand its implications.

Born Again Christian.

Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant, OK, but this like saying a referee is a mediator of a basketball game. This is true, but HOW does he do it?
A referee does it by calling fouls, deciding if a ball is out of bounds, or if someone was out of bounds, or who touched the ball last. A divorce attorney helps decide who gets the house, the car, and the dog.

I notice it says Jesus intercedes (as in present tense) for us. Not interceded, and he mediates for us, not mediated (as in past tense) and he is our advocate, not he advocated for us in the past.
So yes you are correct, his the mediator, and yes he mediates the New Covenant, but how exactly does he do this? What do his duties include?

 

[spirit1st]

He already did it . Though His blood and it goes on forever more .
He will always be there His blood and body for us .

But He did die for all mankind sins .

But in order too be reborn , made a new creature ? We must accept what He did as truth and Him from our heart [Spirit] as LORD . Then He gives us a new heart [Spirit] that is perfect and cannot sin .

Still He is advocate for the sins we do knowingly or unknowingly in our flesh as we live in these bodies for a short time .

He being the loving Father He is and knowing our flesh is a great problem for us . He does not want us even suffering because of the weak flesh .

1Jn_2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

He always concerned about us in every way .

1Jn_3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Some cannot understand how one part of us can sin and another part cannot ?

Many wonderful brothers and sisters suffer and do not need to . If they only obeyed God Word on how to be healed .

We can suffer lots in many ways by just not knowing the truth ?

Joh_8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.


Joh_8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

1Jn_2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

He died that we All could be made new creatures . It sad satan tricked so many too reject this FREE GIFT of eternal life .
Which is a relationship He as Father and Friend we as His perfect child .

then it starts a learning process ,

 

[spirit1st]

His righteousness God sees , Not our
So many are trying to say we must be righteous in our own selves or we lose or fall away or are not worthy ! None of us are worthy in our selves ! He did it and He gets the glory and honor.

Rom_3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Rom_4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom_5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

We need Him in our lives up at the top . us on our knees looking up too Him in all things .

He really hates it when we think we are better than others or we are looking down on others as if we are more and the are less or nothing .

It a very big mistake .

 

[Stan53]

So Jesus isn't the goal, he is a mediator between man and God, and he eventually gives the kingdom back to the father.
Even Jesus told us to pray to the father. ( Matt 6:9; Luke 11:2; ) Of course there is nothing wrong with praying through Jesus ( he is our mediator after all )
But eventually even the son will be subjected to the Father. That's kind of an on-going theme Jesus emphasized.
Count how many verses Jesus said he "did the will of his father", or did something to "give glory to the Father". Even to the point of being obedient unto death. Php 2:8;
So I have to wonder, is Jesus our mediator before we believe in him? I don't think so. The Bible says we have to believe in Jesus to be saved.
So then, if it's after we are saved, what exactly is he mediating between us and God?

Jesus is OUR goal/savior/mediator. What he definitely ISN'T, is uni-dimensional.

Although He is the mediator of a new covenant, that doesn't mean God changed the way He has always interacted with us. In the OT/OC, He had High Priests who accessed the Holy of Holies in the temple to offer blood sacrifices for the people for the year or season. Jesus, ONCE and for all as our High Priest, offered His own blood as the ultimate/perfect blood sacrifice.
He became OUR one and only High Priest in the Order of Melchizedek. Our mediator.
Jesus' status as both Savior and Mediator are not conditional on each other. He is BOTH. One is NOT dependent on the other.
The key to 1 Tim 2:5 is to read and understand verses 1-4.

First of all, then, I urge you to make requests, prayers, petitions, and expressions of thanksgiving on behalf of all people—on behalf of kings and all who are in positions of authority—so that we might live out our lives in tranquility and calmness with complete reverence and godly dignity. This is good and pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who wishes all people to be saved and to come into a knowledge of the truth.

 

[DHC]

Hello all.

There exists a crucial difference between a covenant and a testament as described
in the Old and New Testaments.

At Mt Sinai God established a covenant with the nation of Israel. Moses was the
mediator of this agreement between God and Israel. It is called a covenant of works
since Israel agreed to follow the laws prescribed by God. Please note that this is
an agreement, between two parties God and Israel. This covenant never was established
between God and any other nation! Moses was the mediator, the physical third party
between God and Israel.

If Israel abided by the specified terms of the agreement, Israel would recieve the
promised land. There are some very important points in the Mosaic covenant that
must be understood.

Mosaic Covenant (old covenant)

1) The parties involved, physical Israel and God.
2) The blood of goats and calves was sufficient for a temporary covering of sin.
3) This was a temporary reconciliation for sin not eternal.
4) Membership of this national covenant was by physical circumcision.
5) Strict obedience to the commandments, a physical compliance or works of the law.
6) Mediation was ongoing due to failure by Israel to honor the covenant.

The New Testament (a testament is different to a covenant)

1) The parties involved, Jesus the Son and His Father.
2) A permanent, eternal covering for sin, guaranteed by Christ Himself.
3) This is a testament signed in the blood of Christ, not an agreement or covenant.
4) Membership is on the basis of belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
5) Not a works based conditional agreement but granted by Grace.
6) Members of this divine testament are heirs, they inherit eternal reward.
7) Christ is the mediator on behalf of mankind, we have not contributed to this covenant.

 

[Stan53]

Sorry, but the NT brings in the New Covenant. The Old Testament was where God established the Old Covenant. The reason we call them the OT and NT IS because of the 'covenant' involved in each one.

Jesus said it very clearly in Luke 22:20, where He said; “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which on your behalf is being poured out."

Luke also has more to say about the "New Covenant" in Hebrews.
Heb 8:8; For finding fault, God says to them, “Behold, days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

Heb 8:13: In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Heb 9:15; And for this reason he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under that first covenant.

Heb 12:24; and to Jesus, mediator of a new covenant, and to sprinkled blood speaking more effectively than the blood of Abel.

 

[DHC]

Sorry, but the NT brings in the New Covenant. The Old Testament was where God established the Old Covenant. The reason we call them the OT and NT IS because of the 'covenant' involved in each one.

Jesus said it very clearly in Luke 22:20, where He said; “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which on your behalf is being poured out."

Luke also has more to say about the "New Covenant" in Hebrews.
Heb 8:8; For finding fault, God says to them, “Behold, days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

Heb 8:13: In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Heb 9:15; And for this reason he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under that first covenant.

Heb 12:24; and to Jesus, mediator of a new covenant, and to sprinkled blood speaking more effectively than the blood of Abel.

Hello Stan53.

The word diatheke appears thirty-three times in the Greek New Testament.
In the King James Version it is rendered by “covenant” twenty times,
and by “testament” thirteen times. The word can convey a twofold sense
depending upon the context in which it is found. First, it may signify a “covenant,”
or, as we might express it more commonly, a “contract.” Second, it can carry the
meaning of a “last will and testament” by which one’s possessions are distributed
after his death (see Danker, et al., 228).

 

[B-A-C]

Although He is the mediator of a new covenant, that doesn't mean God changed the way He has always interacted with us. In the OT/OC, He had High Priests who accessed the Holy of Holies in the temple to offer blood sacrifices for the people for the year or season. Jesus, ONCE and for all as our High Priest, offered His own blood as the ultimate/perfect blood sacrifice.
He became OUR one and only High Priest in the Order of Melchizedek. Our mediator.
Jesus' status as both Savior and Mediator are not conditional on each other. He is BOTH. One is NOT dependent on the other.
The key to 1 Tim 2:5 is to read and understand verses 1-4.

Bingo, so if the priests in the OT were who we confessed our sins to, this must be part of the new covenant as well?
NetChaplain starts off by saying we aren't under any law, so I asked him how we can sin. His answer was Adam sinned, so it's not our sins.
Therefore we don't need to confess anything.

 

[Stan53]

Hello Stan53.

The word diatheke appears thirty-three times in the Greek New Testament.
In the King James Version it is rendered by “covenant” twenty times,
and by “testament” thirteen times. The word can convey a twofold sense
depending upon the context in which it is found. First, it may signify a “covenant,”
or, as we might express it more commonly, a “contract.” Second, it can carry the
meaning of a “last will and testament” by which one’s possessions are distributed
after his death (see Danker, et al., 228).

Hi DHC,

From what I can see, this word is used 33 times in the NASB NT, 36 times in the NIV NT, 32 times in the NRSV NT and 34 times in the MOUNCE NT. EVERY time, it is translated as "covenant".
No offense, but I tend to have faith in the credentialed scholars that have translated the modern English versions. Clearly they know what English word should be used.
In any event I'm not a KJV fan and prefer to use MODERN English translations as I have indicated above.

Bottom line, I don't agree with your assessment in post #7, as I don't see this IN the scripture.

 

[Stan53]

Bingo, so if the priests in the OT were who we confessed our sins to, this must be part of the new covenant as well?
NetChaplain starts off by saying we aren't under any law, so I asked him how we can sin. His answer was Adam sinned, so it's not our sins.
Therefore we don't need to confess anything.

Confession to priests did NOT happen in the OT/OC. This started with the RCC who improperly use John 20:23 as their rational for confession.
I don't agree with NC's statement in post #2 about the New Covenant. The NEW covenant IS between God and man and Jesus is the mediator to that covenant. Under this NEW covenant, their is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave or free, man or woman, as per Gal 3:28.
Rom 3:23 is VERY clear; "For there is no distinction,since all have sinned and continue to fall short of the glory of God."
We must ALWAYS be ready to confess our sins. 1 John 1:9 and 1 John 2:1.

 

[DHC]

Hi DHC,

From what I can see, this word is used 33 times in the NASB NT, 36 times in the NIV NT, 32 times in the NRSV NT and 34 times in the MOUNCE NT. EVERY time, it is translated as "covenant".
No offense, but I tend to have faith in the credentialed scholars that have translated the modern English versions. Clearly they know what English word should be used.
In any event I'm not a KJV fan and prefer to use MODERN English translations as I have indicated above.

Bottom line, I don't agree with your assessment in post #7, as I don't see this IN the scripture.

Hello Stan53.

Credited scholars?

Please read the following;

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, 1949), pp. 262-3.


2. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. In the Septuagint the word berith is rendered diatheke in every passage where it occurs with the exception of Deut. 9:15 (marturion) and I Kings 11:11 (entole). The word diatheke is confined to this usage, except in four passages. This use of the word seems rather peculiar in view of the fact that it is not the usual Greek word for covenant, but really denotes a disposition, and consequently also a testament. The ordinary word for covenant is suntheke. Did the translators intend to substitute another idea for the covenant idea? Evidently not, for in Isa. 28:15 they use the two words synonymously, and there diatheke evidently means a pact or an agreement. Hence there is no doubt about it that they ascribe this meaning to diatheke. But the question remains, Why did they so generally avoid the use of suntheke and substitute for it a word which denotes a disposition rather than an agreement? In all probability the reason lies in the fact that in the Greek world the covenant idea expressed by suntheke was based to such an extent on the legal equality of the parties, that it could not, without considerable modification, be incorporated in the Scriptural system of thought. The idea that the priority belongs to God in the establishment of the covenant, and that He sovereignly imposes His covenant on man was absent from the usual Greek word. Hence the substitution of the word in which this was very prominent. The word diatheke thus, like many other words, received a new meaning, when it became the vehicle of divine thought. This change is important in connection with the New Testament use of the word. There has been considerable difference of opinion respecting the proper translation of the word. In about half of the passages in which it occurs the Holland and the Authorized Versions render the word “covenant,” while in the other half they render it “testament.” The American Revised Version, however, renders it “covenant” throughout, except in Heb. 9:16,17. It is but natural, therefore, that the question should be raised, What is the New Testament meaning of the word? Some claim that it has its classical meaning of disposition or testament, wherever it is found in the New Testament, while others maintain that it means testament in some places, but that in the great majority of passages the covenant idea is prominently in the foreground. This is undoubtedly the correct view. We would expect a priorily that the New Testament usage would be in general agreement with that of the Septuagint; and a careful study of the relevant passages shows that the American Revised Version is undoubtedly on the right track, when it translates diatheke by “testament” only in Heb. 9:16,17. In all probability there is not a single other passage where this rendering would be correct, not even II Cor. 3:6,14. The fact that several translations of the New Testament substituted “testament” for “covenant” in so many places is probably due to three causes: (a) the desire to emphasize the priority of God in the transaction; (b) the assumption that the word had to be rendered as much as possible in harmony with Heb. 9:16,17; and (c) the influence of the Latin translation, which uniformly rendered diatheke by “testamentum.”

 

[spirit1st]

Our Place under Jesus and In Jesus is a very high place.

Joh_20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Mat_16:19 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.
Mat_18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Mat_10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.


Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Joh_5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
Joh_14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

It really Not us doing them . But it is the POWER of [Holy Ghost] doing it by the name of our LORD JESUS CHRIST .

But we do need to hear the Holy Ghost and obey Him by faith , when He tells us something to do .

We need to be in a good hearing relationship with Him . Other wise we not going to be able to do much ?

You know , I have done some things that are 100% impossible, But at that moment , I was 1005 sure I could do it and it was done . No way I understand it or how I knew at that moment . Except I know The Lord revealed it and I was in unity with Him to do it !


I know this sounds nuts ? I know we could pick up anything or fly or anything else Past normal . But it has to be by faith and in His Will .

I sure there is lots I do not know and do not understand very well ?

But i am sure nothing is impossible for us , if we are in perfect unity with our Father God though Jesus Christ .

I know I am NO more than the least in His body and true unseen church .

But i have testimonies I am sure no one would believe . so I never tell those .

Mat_17:20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

We are programmed to only believe so much ?

I know any of us can go far beyond what mankind might think we can ? but it has too be in His will and for only His glory .

Rom_8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Of course this is only talking about our New spirit being He has made the few willing that follow only HIM .

Gal_3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Listen the only reason I tell any of this type stuff is so others will know they are able to do anything the LORD calls them to do .

We all equal in Him .
Act_10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Listen I know no matter what I do in life or how I mess up ? He never going to leave me or dump me or anything like that . That gives me Great trust and even greater Love knowing how much He really love me . It does not make me want to sin . We makes not want to hurt Him by sinning.
The world looks at it wrong . Love makes us want to go farther and please Him more , not less.
It hurts Him when we hurt ourselves and that what sin does . It hurts us and others many times . It so evil .

 

[brakelite]

Our Place under Jesus and In Jesus is a very high place.

Amen spirit1st, this is very true. And if we could all truly believe this and accept it, as you said, there would be no limit to what we could accomplish in Him.

 

[brakelite]

Hello Stan53.

Credited scholars?

Please read the following;

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, 1949), pp. 262-3.


2. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. In the Septuagint the word berith is rendered diatheke in every passage where it occurs with the exception of Deut. 9:15 (marturion) and I Kings 11:11 (entole). The word diatheke is confined to this usage, except in four passages. This use of the word seems rather peculiar in view of the fact that it is not the usual Greek word for covenant, but really denotes a disposition, and consequently also a testament. The ordinary word for covenant is suntheke. Did the translators intend to substitute another idea for the covenant idea? Evidently not, for in Isa. 28:15 they use the two words synonymously, and there diatheke evidently means a pact or an agreement. Hence there is no doubt about it that they ascribe this meaning to diatheke. But the question remains, Why did they so generally avoid the use of suntheke and substitute for it a word which denotes a disposition rather than an agreement? In all probability the reason lies in the fact that in the Greek world the covenant idea expressed by suntheke was based to such an extent on the legal equality of the parties, that it could not, without considerable modification, be incorporated in the Scriptural system of thought. The idea that the priority belongs to God in the establishment of the covenant, and that He sovereignly imposes His covenant on man was absent from the usual Greek word. Hence the substitution of the word in which this was very prominent. The word diatheke thus, like many other words, received a new meaning, when it became the vehicle of divine thought. This change is important in connection with the New Testament use of the word. There has been considerable difference of opinion respecting the proper translation of the word. In about half of the passages in which it occurs the Holland and the Authorized Versions render the word “covenant,” while in the other half they render it “testament.” The American Revised Version, however, renders it “covenant” throughout, except in Heb. 9:16,17. It is but natural, therefore, that the question should be raised, What is the New Testament meaning of the word? Some claim that it has its classical meaning of disposition or testament, wherever it is found in the New Testament, while others maintain that it means testament in some places, but that in the great majority of passages the covenant idea is prominently in the foreground. This is undoubtedly the correct view. We would expect a priorily that the New Testament usage would be in general agreement with that of the Septuagint; and a careful study of the relevant passages shows that the American Revised Version is undoubtedly on the right track, when it translates diatheke by “testament” only in Heb. 9:16,17. In all probability there is not a single other passage where this rendering would be correct, not even II Cor. 3:6,14. The fact that several translations of the New Testament substituted “testament” for “covenant” in so many places is probably due to three causes: (a) the desire to emphasize the priority of God in the transaction; (b) the assumption that the word had to be rendered as much as possible in harmony with Heb. 9:16,17; and (c) the influence of the Latin translation, which uniformly rendered diatheke by “testamentum.”

Thanks for that DHC, very interesting.
I have always had the idea that the old covenant was in the form of a promise from God to do as He said. Establish Israel as a nation and bless them as His special people as a testimony to the world. Then when the time was right, provide a Saviour for all mankind through them (as it turned out through Judah and the lineage of David). Nowhere does God ask Israel to promise anything in return. The covenant was a one direction promise. I disagree wth your summary before. God did not ask them to obey as a part of the covenant. All He asked of them was the same as He asks us. To believe and trust in His promises. In the OT as in the new, "the just shall live by his faith".

 

[Stan53]

Hello Stan53.
Credited scholars?
Please read the following;
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, 1949), pp. 262-3.
2. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. In the Septuagint the word berith is rendered diatheke in every passage where it occurs with the exception of Deut. 9:15 (marturion) and I Kings 11:11 (entole). The word diatheke is confined to this usage, except in four passages. This use of the word seems rather peculiar in view of the fact that it is not the usual Greek word for covenant, but really denotes a disposition, and consequently also a testament. The ordinary word for covenant is suntheke. Did the translators intend to substitute another idea for the covenant idea? Evidently not, for in Isa. 28:15 they use the two words synonymously, and there diatheke evidently means a pact or an agreement. Hence there is no doubt about it that they ascribe this meaning to diatheke. But the question remains, Why did they so generally avoid the use of suntheke and substitute for it a word which denotes a disposition rather than an agreement? In all probability the reason lies in the fact that in the Greek world the covenant idea expressed by suntheke was based to such an extent on the legal equality of the parties, that it could not, without considerable modification, be incorporated in the Scriptural system of thought. The idea that the priority belongs to God in the establishment of the covenant, and that He sovereignly imposes His covenant on man was absent from the usual Greek word. Hence the substitution of the word in which this was very prominent. The word diatheke thus, like many other words, received a new meaning, when it became the vehicle of divine thought. This change is important in connection with the New Testament use of the word. There has been considerable difference of opinion respecting the proper translation of the word. In about half of the passages in which it occurs the Holland and the Authorized Versions render the word “covenant,” while in the other half they render it “testament.” The American Revised Version, however, renders it “covenant” throughout, except in Heb. 9:16,17. It is but natural, therefore, that the question should be raised, What is the New Testament meaning of the word? Some claim that it has its classical meaning of disposition or testament, wherever it is found in the New Testament, while others maintain that it means testament in some places, but that in the great majority of passages the covenant idea is prominently in the foreground. This is undoubtedly the correct view. We would expect a priorily that the New Testament usage would be in general agreement with that of the Septuagint; and a careful study of the relevant passages shows that the American Revised Version is undoubtedly on the right track, when it translates diatheke by “testament” only in Heb. 9:16,17. In all probability there is not a single other passage where this rendering would be correct, not even II Cor. 3:6,14. The fact that several translations of the New Testament substituted “testament” for “covenant” in so many places is probably due to three causes: (a) the desire to emphasize the priority of God in the transaction; (b) the assumption that the word had to be rendered as much as possible in harmony with Heb. 9:16,17; and (c) the influence of the Latin translation, which uniformly rendered diatheke by “testamentum.”

Well I see a couple of issues here. One is the age of this article. Sixty plus years and we have learned much since then about the LXX and the MT.
Second, Berkof's credentials were not, in my opinion, sufficient to give his position much credence. Deut 9:15 in the LXX does not make much sense using the word "testimonies". These were God's written laws. I don't see the word diatheke used in the LXX at all. I do see berı̂yth used in the BHS, and rendered "covenant". The fact is today ALL modern English versions render this as "covenant", in both the OT and NT.

 

[B-A-C]

Confession to priests did NOT happen in the OT/OC. This started with the RCC who improperly use John 20:23 as their rational for confession.

Lev 5:5 'So it shall be when he becomes guilty in one of these, that he shall confess that in which he has sinned.
Lev 5:6 'He shall also bring his guilt offering to the LORD for his sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement on his behalf for his sin.

Num 5:7 then he shall confess his sins which he has committed, and he shall make restitution in full for his wrong and add to it one-fifth of it, and give it to him whom he has wronged.
Num 5:8 'But if the man has no relative to whom restitution may be made for the wrong, the restitution which is made for the wrong must go to the LORD for the priest, besides the ram of atonement, by which atonement is made for him.

Those are just a few of dozens of similar verses.
Confession to priests is still practiced to this day amongst orthodox Jews. The problem with the RCC church (as well as the Mormons) is that they still have priests, and apparently don't recognize Jesus as our high priest. We are supposed to confess our sins to Jesus because he is our high priest.

 

[Stan53]

Lev 5:5 'So it shall be when he becomes guilty in one of these, that he shall confess that in which he has sinned.
Lev 5:6 'He shall also bring his guilt offering to the LORD for his sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement on his behalf for his sin.

Num 5:7 then he shall confess his sins which he has committed, and he shall make restitution in full for his wrong and add to it one-fifth of it, and give it to him whom he has wronged.
Num 5:8 'But if the man has no relative to whom restitution may be made for the wrong, the restitution which is made for the wrong must go to the LORD for the priest, besides the ram of atonement, by which atonement is made for him.

Those are just a few of dozens of similar verses.
Confession to priests is still practiced to this day amongst orthodox Jews. The problem with the RCC church (as well as the Mormons) is that they still have priests, and apparently don't recognize Jesus as our high priest. We are supposed to confess our sins to Jesus because he is our high priest.

Sorry, I see the word "confess" used 26 times in the NIV and at no time does it indicate that confess is made to a priest. The word 'confess' means to agree with God about what is sin in your life. Jesus' sacrifice eliminated the needs to have a blood sacrifice every time we confessed our sins. Lev 5:5 says WHEN they become aware they must confess in WHAT way they sinned. I doubt very much, that they ONLY became aware of their sin in the presence of a priest. Daniel 9:19 shows confession, and it is NOT to a priest.

Proper exegesis is to examine all these verses you purport do say confession is made to a priest, BEFORE you reject what someone says. Modern Jews do NOT confess to priests and they do not make sacrifices. They do however confess sins against one another to the offended person just as James instructs us (5:16) as Christians to do, so in that way they do the same thing we do.

 

[DHC]

Thanks for that DHC, very interesting.
Nowhere does God ask Israel to promise anything in return. The covenant was a one direction promise..

Hello Brakelite.

Your reply was not correct, God did ask Israel to sign the covenant. A legal transaction was conducted
between God and the nation of Israel. Please read the following;

A 'covenant' is an agreement between two parties.

A 'mediator' is the one who negotiates between the two parties.

The 'contract' is a written or spoken agreement, legally enforceable by law.

Was the covenant that God established with Israel at Mt Sinai a legal covenant or contract?

Exodus 19

5 Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be
My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine;
6 and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that
you shall speak to the sons of Israel.
7 So Moses came and called the elders of the people, and set before them all these words
which the Lord had commanded him.
8 All the people answered together and said, All that the Lord has spoken we will do!
And Moses brought back the words of the people to the Lord.

From the verses above there is a well defined contract between God and Israel.
The elders agreed to the terms of the covenant, "All that the Lord has spoken we will do!"
It is clear that the elders consented to the agreement with God. Then Moses returned to the Lord
with the people's consent. The contract or covenant has been established, Moses was the one who
conducted the negotiation.

All that remains now is to ratify the agreement between God and Israel.

God and Israel must sign the contract which will be enforceable in court.

Exodus 24
3 Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances;
and all the people answered with one voice and said, All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do!
4 Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord. Then he arose early in the morning, and built an altar at
the foot of the mountain with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel.
5 He sent young men of the sons of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as peace offerings to the Lord.
6 Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and the other half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.
7 Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!
8 So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.


The covenant is now legal, formal consent by both parties has been reached.
This is now a covenant signed in blood, sealed. Israel has agreed to obey the
laws or the book of the covenant. A covenant between God and Israel!

Gentile nations were not a party involved in this agreement. The terms of the agreement
do not apply to the Gentile nations. Scripture most clearly identifies physical Israel and God
as the parties legally bound by this contract.