Lord's Supper & New Covenant (4); Pentecost—The New Church: The Birth of the New Testament Church: Peter Prepared for the Gentiles - Feb 23, 2025

We finished our study on the New Covenant and the Lord's Supper. In the 2nd Service we picked up our progression through the book of Acts in our Pentecost--The New Church study.

Files

Notes

Transcript

Sunday, February 2, 2025

Happy Groundhog Day!!

What did Puxatany Phil Prognosticate?

Today is the first of the month, in which we take communion, so I want to take the occasion to look at a communion related topic for our growth.

The Lord’s Supper and the New Covenant

All three synoptic Gospels and the apostle Paul agree that Jesus referred to the New Covenant in establishing the Lord’s Supper. This observation, perhaps more than any other, has led many believers to assume that the Church has some connection to the New Covenant and is in some way either fulfilling or participating in the New Covenant.

In questioning whether or not the New Covenant has been “inaugurated,” we must address the references to the New Covenant in the Lord’s Supper

The historical background, contextual setting, and significant terminology used in these Scriptural references must be addressed to develop an understanding of how, if at all, the Church may be related to the New Covenant.

The Lord’s Supper is one of Christ’s two fundamental institutions given to the Church.

Assuming that the “New Covenant” to which Jesus referred in the Upper Room was the same as the “New Covenant” of Jeremiah 31, many interpreters have concluded that the Church must, therefore, be participating in some way in this New Covenant. This, however, poses significant questions both hermeneutically and theologically.

Using our normal, literal, grammatical, historical, and contextual interpretive methodology or hermeneutic, it is clear from Jeremiah 31:31 that the human parties to this covenant are “the house of Israel” and “the house of Judah.”

Jeremiah 31:31

Jeremiah 31:31 NKJV

31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—

In what sense can this language be understood to include others who are not of “the house of Israel” or of “the house of Judah”? Theologically, if God fulfills His covenant promises to Israel by carrying out either all or some of those promises on behalf of the Church, is there then some degree of continuity between Israel and the Church whereby the Church is not a distinct people, separate from Israel?

In other words, does not the assumed participation of the Church in Israel’s covenant strike at the very foundation of dispensational distinctions? What are the implications for such an important dispensational doctrine as the Pretribulational Rapture?

We will argue that the “New Covenant” of the Upper Room Discourse is indeed the same as the “New Covenant” of Jeremiah 31, but that the New Covenant has not yet been enacted, nor is the Church a participant in it.

The relevant texts relating the New Covenant to the Lord’s Supper are:

Matthew 26:27–29

Mark 14:23–25

Luke 22:20

1 Corinthians 11:25

Matthew 26:27-29

Matthew 26:27–29 NKJV

27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

Mark 14:23-25

Mark 14:23–25 NKJV

23 Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many. 25 Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Luke 22:20

Luke 22:20 NKJV

20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

1 Corinthians 11:25

1 Corinthians 11:25 NKJV

25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

Which new covenant?

Some early dispensational writers, namely Lewis Sperry Chafer in his Systematic Theology, Charles Ryrie in The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, and John Walvoord in Millennial Kingdom in an effort to distance the church from Israel’s covenant, espoused the theory that there were two “New Covenants”—one for Israel and another for the Church.

This two-covenant view held that the “New Covenant” to which Jesus referred in the upper room was the Church’s New Covenant, not Israel’s. This view has since been abandoned by most dispensational writers. Today, it is the nearly unanimously position held by dispensationalists that the New Covenant to which Jesus referred was the same as that revealed in Jeremiah 31. This appears to be an inescapable conclusion.

Covenant Terminology

Some confusion surrounding discussions of the New Covenant involves the problem of the definition of terms. Legal terminology pertaining to covenants, contracts, and testaments is highly developed in modern jurisprudence, and terms have specific meanings that have developed over the course of many centuries of legal history. Thus, when one says that the New Covenant has been “ratified,” “inaugurated,” or “enacted,” one might come to certain conclusions about the status of the New Covenant based on how these terms are understood in contemporary parlance. But such terminology belongs to our modern world, not to the world of the Bible.

The Biblical term for enforcing a covenant is “cut” (Hebrew. כָּרַת karat).

Once a covenant was cut, it was in full legal force, and its parties were bound to its terms. In Biblical times, there was no concept of a covenant that was partially in force or of one that was put in force with different parties than the signatories.

Some have recently used the term “inaugurate” to connote the idea that the New Covenant is in partial force, but its full force awaits a future day.

For example, Bruce Ware, a Progressive Dispensationalist, in their book, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, writes that the New Covenant “is inaugurated partially first and fulfilled in its entirety later.”

Ladd introduced the term “inaugurate” into the jargon of New Testament theology in the sense of “Inaugurated Eschatology” In his A Theology of the New Testament.

He explained the present church age as being “that of inaugurating a time of fulfillment in advance of an eschatological consummation, and … in a real sense the Kingdom of God in his mission invaded history.…”

Whether or not one subscribes to Ladd’s version of realized “already not yet” eschatology, one must wonder whether such a notion can legitimately be applied to the enactment of covenants.

George Eldon Ladd is seemingly from our camp, but he is not actually. He spent most of his academic career at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, USA. He taught New Testament studies and theology there for many years. Ladd also wrote and published extensively during his time at Gordon-Conwell, contributing significantly to evangelical theology and biblical studies. He was a historic premillennialist who critiqued dispensationalism and maintained a distinct separation between Israel and the Church. This is different but similar to Progressive dispensationalism, which emphasizes merging the church with the Davidic covenant and kingdom and allowing for New Testament developments of Old Testament revelation.

Ladd believed in a paradigm that asserts an “inaugurated eschatology,” encapsulated by the phrase “already and not yet.”:

• Already: The Kingdom of God was inaugurated with the first coming of Jesus Christ. Through His life, death, and resurrection, Jesus initiated the Kingdom, bringing its realities into the present age.

• Not Yet: The Kingdom will reach its consummation at Christ’s second coming. The fullness of God’s reign awaits future fulfillment when evil is ultimately defeated and a new creation is established.

It is unclear why Ladd chose the term “inaugurate” to describe his view. Perhaps it was due to the practice in America of inaugurating a president before he actually begins executing his office,

[The term “inaugurate” now means “to induct into an office with suitable ceremonies,” “to bring about the beginning of.” Etymologically, it comes from the Latin inauguratus/inaugurare, “to practice augury.” Inaugurāre =to take omens from the flight of birds, to consecrate or install after taking such omens or auguries. If Ladd had a classically influenced education as I did. In that case, he may have been aware of the practice of HARUSPEX or divination by inspection of the entrails of victims, or the dripping of blood, etc. ]

But as it is understood in our culture, it is an entirely contemporary connotation found neither in Biblical contexts involving the enactment of covenants nor in any extant literature from the Ancient Near East. Were it not for Ladd’s use of the term “inaugurate” to connote a realized eschatology, no one would have thought that the term could denote a partial enactment of a covenant. Those who do so impose a false dichotomy on the terms of the New Covenant by insisting that only the “spiritual” terms of the covenant are in force today. Robert Saucy does so in the Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, but this imposes a distinction that is not warranted in the text.

The text of Jeremiah 31 does not suggest a distinction between “spiritual” terms versus “temporal” terms. The attempt to distinguish between spiritual and temporal terms in the New Covenant is analogous to attempts to distinguish between “civil,” “ceremonial,” and “moral” terms of the Mosaic Covenant. Such distinctions cannot be made exegetically. When the covenant is enacted (i.e., “cut”), it is enacted fully, and it is enacted with the contracted parties.

The Blood of the Covenant

A. The Relationship of the Blood to the Cutting of the Covenant

What did Jesus mean when He referred to the “blood of the covenant”?

What relationship does this blood have to the cutting of the New Covenant?

Fairly typical among Christian commentators is the view of Charles Hodge:

“The blood of the covenant” means in 1 Cor. 11:25, as in Ex. 24, 8, the blood by which the covenant was ratified and its blessings secured. The passage referred to in Exodus shows the manner in which covenants were anciently ratified in the East. A victim was slain and the blood sprinkled upon the contracting parties, by which they were solemnly bound to their mutual engagements … This covenant is called new in reference to the Mosaic covenant. The latter was ratified by the blood of animals; the new, by the blood of the eternal Son of God.”

Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980 reprint), 227.

A central assumption in the argument for the church’s participation in the New Covenant is that the shedding of the blood of the covenant on the cross was the vehicle for enacting the covenant. However, based on both a survey of Biblical covenants, and on what is known of Ancient Near Eastern covenants, such would not be the assumption of one who lived in the Ancient Near East.

Instead, the vehicle of covenant enactment (“cutting”) was the swearing of the oath; the blood served a different purpose. The function of oath swearing as the means for covenant enactment is seen in the Old Testament in Ezekiel 17:13 and Hosea 10:4.

Ezekiel 17:13

Ezekiel 17:11–24 discusses the appointment of Zedekiah to the position of governorship in Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. This appointment was made according to the established conventions of Ancient Near Eastern covenants.

Verse 13 states that Nebuchadnezzar “made a covenant with him [Zedekiah], putting him under oath.”

Ezekiel 17:13 NKJV

13 And he took the king’s offspring, made a covenant with him, and put him under oath. He also took away the mighty of the land,

The expression “putting him under oath” (בְּאָלָה) renders the Hebrew preposition בְּ, used here to express the instrument [For the instrumental use of בְּ, see Ronald J. Williams, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax 3rd edition (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 98.] of the covenant enactment. There is no indication that any sacrifice accompanied this covenant enactment, and there is no reason to suspect that such was the case.

Hosea 10:4

Hosea 10:4 describes the unfaithful northern kingdom of Israel who “with worthless oaths make covenants,”

Hosea 10:4 NKJV

4 They have spoken words, Swearing falsely in making a covenant. Thus judgment springs up like hemlock in the furrows of the field.

Hosea 10:4 refers to agreements into which Israel entered with the surrounding nations. The expression “with worthless/false oaths” translates the infinitive absolute (אָלוֹת—ALOTH=turn sour, confuse, false) used to express the manner in which these covenants were enacted. Blood sacrifices may or may not have been ancillary parts of the covenant enactment ceremonies, but the instrument of enactment was considered to be the swearing of the oath.

The supposition that it was the shedding of blood that enacted the covenant is sometimes based on the proposed etymology of “cut” as coming from the act of dividing animal carcasses for the covenant ceremony, as in Genesis 15.

This etymology, however, is not certain, and clearly, there were covenants both in the Bible

e.g. the Davidic Covenant and the “Land” Covenant of Deut 29–30, as well as covenants between people such as Jacob and Laban, Gen 31:44.

Genesis 31:44

Genesis 31:44 NKJV

44 Now therefore, come, let us make a covenant, you and I, and let it be a witness between you and me.”

and elsewhere in the Ancient Near East that were “cut” without the attendant shedding of blood.

Weinfeld discusses this etymology, and, while admitting its possibility, states “it is equally possible that ‘to cut’ is figurative for ‘decide, decree,’ as in Akk[adian] parāsu, ‘to decide,’ Aram[aic] gzr, Lat. decider, German entscheiden, etc.” This latter etymology is a better explanation in light of those attested covenants that were “cut” without the shedding of blood.

The closest OT parallel to the expression “blood of the covenant” occurs in Exodus 24:8, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made (“cut” כָּרַת) with you in accordance with all these words.” This text needs to be examined carefully. After the recording of the Ten Commandments (20:1–17), instructions were given for an earthen or uncut stone altar (20:24–26), then various laws (21:1–23:13), and finally the three national feasts (23:14–19). The substance of the Sinai covenant was contained in Exodus chapters 20–23.

End of 1st Service 2/2/2025

Then, in chapter 24, the covenant was “cut” (i.e., enacted or put into force).

Beginning of 2nd Service 2/2/2025

We are picking back up in Exodus 24, where we left off at the end of last service and are going to look at verse 6-8.

Two actions accompanied the cutting of the covenant:

(1) the application of blood (verses 6, 8), and

(2) the swearing of the oath (verse 7).

The application of blood took place in two phases:

The altar was sprinkled with blood in the first phase (verse 6).

The people are sprinkled with blood in the second phase (verse 8).

It was between these two applications of blood that the covenant was cut by the swearing of the oath.

Exodus 24:7

Exodus 24:7 NKJV

7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has said we will do, and be obedient.”

When the blood was afterward applied to the people in verse 8, it is apparent that the covenant was already cut.

Exodus 24:8

Exodus 24:8 NKJV

8 And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you according to all these words.”

This observation makes it clear that, while the blood clearly had some relationship to the covenant, the swearing of the oath actually resulted in the cutting of the covenant. This corresponds exactly with what is known about Ancient Near Eastern covenants.

According to Weinfeld, [M. Weinfeld, “בְּתִית berith” in G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 11:259–63.] the swearing of the oath enacted the covenant.

Beacham is quite clear on this point:

That which immediately and legally placed a covenant in force was the oath. Although various symbolic conventions might attend ANE ratification ceremonies, the one component essential to all covenants was the swearing of the oath.

Only by this means was the covenant formally actuated, enacted, or ratified (“cut” כָּרַת).

A covenant ceremony might include a meal. It could incorporate some form of sacrifice. A token might be assigned, a libation or some other physical act performed. Nevertheless, there was no legal contract, no implementation of terms or benefits in part or in whole, and no obligatory force or factual realization until the moment when the party (unilateral) or parties (bilateral) officially swore to the terms of record.

In fact, the terms “covenant” (בְּרִית) and “oath” (אָלָה) are so closely related conceptually that they were used both in the Old Testament and in other Ancient Near Eastern literature as synonyms.

Other synonyms include dabhar, “word, promise,” and ’amanah, “firm covenant.”

In OT language one may “cut” a dabhar (Hag. 2:5),

cut an ’alah (Dt. 29:13-14),

or cut an ’amanah (Neh. 10:1, 9:38)

If the function of the blood was not to cut the covenant, then what was the purpose of the blood? Since the blood of the Sinaitic Covenant was applied both to the altar (Ex 24:6)

Exodus 24:6 NKJV

6 And Moses took half the blood and put it in basins, and half the blood he sprinkled on the altar.

and to the people (Ex 24:8)

Exodus 24:8 NKJV

8 And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you according to all these words.”

it would appear that the blood’s purpose was to sanctify the people (and the altar). Clearly, blood is not necessary for the cutting of a covenant. A number of OT covenants were cut without the shedding of blood (the Davidic Covenant, the “Land” Covenant of Deuteronomy 29–30, and likely the Noahic Covenant).

Gen. 8:20-21

Genesis 8:20–21 NKJV

20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma. Then the Lord said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.

Noah’s offering is described as a “burnt offering” (עֹלָה) with a sweet smelling savor that arose to God. This appears to be different from the blood offerings that were associated with covenants.

Even with the sacrifices of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 15:9–10), it appears that the significance of these had to do more with the death of these animals than with the application of their blood.

Genesis 15:9-10

Genesis 15:9–10 NKJV

9 So He said to him, “Bring Me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” 10 Then he brought all these to Him and cut them in two, down the middle, and placed each piece opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds in two.

Beacham describes a number of features that could accompany Ancient Near Eastern covenants. These ancillary features, sacrifices among them, he terms “Covenant Complements:”

In the ANE the term “cutting” a covenant referred to the formal act of ratification which occurred when the parties swore to the terms of the instrument. Numerous attendant ceremonial features or symbolic acts might accompany or complement the formal ratification of ANE covenants. Such complementary elements were optional for inclusion or non-inclusion in the ceremony. All of these features, despite their optional inclusion, were highly emblematic. None of them, however, were essential to covenant-making or officially enacted the contract.

If a covenant ceremony did include a sacrifice, the sacrifice was ancillary to formal ratification. It made the parties fit for a covenant relationship and symbolized their commit[ment] to covenant fulfillment, all to guarantee that the covenant could and would be actuated. The sacrifice and the sacrificial animals were, nonetheless, “subordinate to a fixed ritual procedure.” Covenants could be made without a sacrifice. Even when included, the sacrifice itself, like other covenant complements, did not constitute enactment or ratification of the covenant.

In defense of the notion that blood sacrifice might be the instrument by which a covenant was enacted, the appeal might be made to Psalm 50:5, which refers to “those who have made [lit. “cut”] a covenant with Me by sacrifice.”

Psalm 50:5

Psalm 50:5 NKJV

5 “Gather My saints together to Me, Those who have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice.”

The verse appears to suggest that sacrifice was the instrument by which the covenant was cut; however, this notion is based on how the Hebrew has been translated (or mistranslated).

The English “by” translates the Hebrew preposition [עַל – ALE = preposition; on the side of, opposite, in addition to] While “by” may carry an instrumental sense in English, this is not a legitimate sense for the Hebrew עַל ALE. The preposition עַל is probably used here in the sense of association. Thus, Psalm 50:5 may be understood as, “They made with me a covenant accompanied by sacrifice.” The Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament also translates “by sacrifice,” but it does not intend to convey the idea of instrument; the translation falls under the category of uses that mean “on the side of.”

[Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson and Johann Jakob Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1999), 826.]

By this reckoning, Psalm 50:5 means, “They made a covenant with me alongside the sacrifice.” In other words, the sacrifice to which Psalm 50:5 refers was ancillary to and accompanied by the cutting of the covenant.

Thus, though Jesus’ blood shed at Calvary bears a definite relationship to the New Covenant, its shedding was not the event that “cut” or enacted the New Covenant. The shedding of Jesus’ blood was ancillary to the covenant and made its cutting possible since, by it, Israel must be sanctified and made suitable for entrance into the covenant. But the actual cutting of the covenant awaits Israel’s swearing of the oath, an event that will accompany the Second Coming of Christ.

The Use of Blood Terminology

It is sometimes argued that Jesus’ reference to the “blood of the covenant” at the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24) as a description of His death on the cross must mean that the covenant was enacted at the cross.

Matthew 26:28

Matthew 26:28 NKJV

28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:24

Mark 14:24 NKJV

24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.

If the covenant was not cut by shedding His blood on the cross, why would Jesus refer to it as the “blood of the covenant”?

Why refer to the “covenant” if it was not to be cut at the cross?

On the face of it, this appears to be a forceful argument, at least from the contemporary believer’s perspective. But care must be taken not to read back into these words meaning that can only come from later revelation. Jesus’ words must be viewed from the perspective of what the disciples knew on the eve of Jesus’ crucifixion. The issue here is one of semantic reference. The believer of the twenty-first century is well aware of the fact that Israel has not come into the New Covenant. But the disciples on the eve of Jesus’ crucifixion could not have known, or even suspected, that Israel might be two thousand years away from entering into the covenant.

What language might Jesus have used to convey to His disciples the significance of the blood He would shed the following day? The choices were somewhat limited based on their knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures. If one were living in first-century Judea before the cross and wished to speak of the forgiveness of sins, a regenerated life, and the power of the Holy Spirit, to what Old Testament passage would he refer? Since the Church was an unrevealed mystery in the Old Testament, one’s choice of language to refer to redemption was necessarily limited. In fact, the only language in the Old Testament Scriptures that encompasses all the ideas of forgiveness of sins, a regenerated life, and the power of the Holy Spirit, is language that describes the New Covenant. For Jesus to say that the blood of His cross was the blood of the covenant was true, but it does not require that His reference be restricted to the New Covenant only. For the disciples, it was a meaningful reference. For the twenty-first-century believer, one might use different terminology to refer to the same blood. The New Testament Epistles and Revelation speak of Christ’s blood in relation to redemption, propitiation, justification, reconciliation, forgiveness, and sanctification.

One might legitimately refer to Jesus’ blood shed on the cross as the “blood of redemption” (Acts 20:28; Eph 1:7; 1 Pet 1:19; Rev 5:9),

Acts 20:28 NKJV

28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

Ephesians 1:7 NKJV

7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace

1 Peter 1:19 NKJV

19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

Revelation 5:9 NKJV

9 And they sang a new song, saying: “You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,

the “blood of propitiation” (Rom 3:15),

Romans 3:15 NKJV

15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;

the “blood of justification” (Rom 3:25; 5:9),

Romans 3:25 NKJV

25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,

Romans 5:9 NKJV

9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.

the “blood of reconciliation” (Col 1:20),

Colossians 1:20 NKJV

20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

the “blood of forgiveness” (Heb 9:22),

Hebrews 9:22 NKJV

22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

or the “blood of sanctification” (Heb 13:12; 1 John 1:7).

Hebrews 13:12 NKJV

12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.

1 John 1:7 NKJV

7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

These terms could make legitimate semantic references to the blood that Jesus shed on the cross. For that matter, even speaking proleptically [Employing the anticipation of counter-arguments in order to discount or discredit them] any time after Genesis 3:15, one might have referred to the “blood of the woman’s seed,” or after Isaiah 52–53 to the “blood of Yahweh’s Servant.” For Jesus to refer in the upper room to His cross work as the “blood of the New Covenant” was a meaningful semantic reference for the disciples at that time and at that stage of their understanding of God’s program. But it did not necessarily mean that the New Covenant was to be cut at the cross. Redemption was paid for by that blood, and thereby the cutting of the covenant made possible.

Paul’s Reference to a Largely Gentile Church

It is one thing for the Lord to use New Covenant language from the Old Testament with His pre-Pentecost Jewish disciples to describe His blood of redemption, but what about Paul’s language addressed to a predominantly Gentile church many years after Pentecost? While the institution of the Lord’s Supper preceded the beginning of the Church at Pentecost, it might be argued that Paul’s use of the same New Covenant language in 1 Corinthians 11:25 leads inevitably to the conclusion that the Church participates in the New Covenant.

1 Corinthians 11:25-26

1 Corinthians 11:25–26 NKJV

25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

The Lord Jesus, in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the New Covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” (1 Cor. 11:25–26)

Why should Jesus refer to the cup as “the New Covenant in My blood” if the church was not in some way participating in the New Covenant? In answering this question, it is essential to recognize that the Lord’s Supper has past, present, and future orientations.

Past—“My body,” “My blood,” “the Lord’s death,” “in remembrance of Me”

Present—“do this,” “as often as you drink it,” “you proclaim”

Future—“the New Covenant,” “until He comes”

There is a significant distinction in the text in that while the “body” of Christ (μού … σῶμα) is said to be for the believers (ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν), the New Covenant is not said to be ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. Apart from this omission, Paul’s language is almost identical to Luke’s (Luke 22:20).

Luke 22:20

Luke 22:20 NKJV

20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

But whereas Luke describes Jesus’ words to His pre-Pentecost Jewish disciples, Paul has omitted a reference to the covenant’s direct application to believers of the Church Age.

That the cup should be given a separate focus from the bread is in keeping with the way that the Supper was originally instituted. Jesus’ word and action with the bread was independent from the word spoken over the cup.

The two sayings were originally separated from each other by the sharing of the main body of the meal, and they must be expounded separately.”

Following the main meal (cf. 1 Cor. 11:25)

1 Corinthians 11:25 NKJV

25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

… the third cup of red wine mixed with water, and with his eyes on the cup pronounced the prayer of thanksgiving on behalf of all, with the concluding words:

“May the All-merciful One make us worthy of the days of the Messiah and of the life of the world to come. He brings the salvation of his king. He shows covenant-faithfulness to his Anointed, to David and to his seed forever. He makes peace in his heavenly places. May he secure peace for us and for all Israel. And say you, Amen.”

Thus, the elements appear to have two-fold significance: one looks back (the body represents His death, looking back to the cross work), and the other looks to the future (the blood represents His return to fulfill the New Covenant).

The bread has a definite historical reference, the cross; the cup has a futuristic reference, the fulfillment of the New Covenant in the kingdom. This two-fold temporal reference in the elements is consistent with what Jesus had said to His disciples in the upper room.

Jesus had spoken of His next partaking of the cup “in the kingdom of God” (Mark 14:25)

Mark 14:25

Mark 14:25 NKJV

25 Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

and had concluded the supper by singing the eschatological Psalm 118 (Mark 14:26).

Mark 14:26

Mark 14:26 NKJV

26 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 11, there is both a historical reference (“you proclaim the death of the Lord”) and a future reference (“until He come,” verse 26). Believers of the Church Age, while remembering the cross, must not forget that Jesus is coming again.

Foreswearing feasting and wine, Jesus dedicated himself with a resolute will to accept the bitter cup of wrath offered to him by the Father. Yet there is a clear anticipation of the messianic banquet when the Passover fellowship with his followers will be renewed in the Kingdom of God.… The reference to “that day” envisions the parousia and the triumph of the Son of Man.… The cup from which Jesus abstained was the fourth, which ordinarily concluded the Passover fellowship.… He refused the cup of consummation, associated with the promise that God will take his people to be with him. This is the cup that Jesus will drink with his own in the messianic banquet, which inaugurates the saving age to come.

Thus, Paul’s future pointing reference to the New Covenant meant neither that the covenant had been cut nor that the church was participating in that covenant. The blood of that covenant had been shed, making possible its future enactment. In the meantime, that same blood, the blood of the New Covenant, was also the blood of redemption for the church.

End of 2nd Service - 2/2/2025

Sunday, February 9, 2025

REVIEW

Last week we looked at the issue of the New Covenant and the Lord’s Supper.

We reviewed some of the problematic views that come from those who think that the New Covenant has been enacted by the Lord.

In questioning whether or not the New Covenant has been “inaugurated,” we addressed the references to the New Covenant in the Lord’s Supper

Jeremiah 31:31

Jeremiah 31:31 NKJV

31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—

In what sense can this language be understood to include others who are not of “the house of Israel” or of “the house of Judah”?

Theologically, if God fulfills His covenant promises to Israel by carrying out either all or some of those promises on behalf of the Church, is there then some degree of continuity between Israel and the Church whereby the Church is not a distinct people, separate from Israel?

In other words, the assumption that the Church participates in Israel’s covenant strikes at the very foundation of dispensational distinctions between the two.

What then are the implications for such an important dispensational doctrine as the Pretribulational Rapture?

There would be no need for a rapture then, would there.

So you can begin to see why so many problematic views begin to creep in with a view that the Church is participating in the New Covenant.

The relevant texts relating the New Covenant to the Lord’s Supper are:

Matthew 26:27–29

Mark 14:23–25

Luke 22:20

1 Corinthians 11:25

A major point of discussion surrounded the idea of correct terminology as used by scripture vs. what has been supplied by theologians.

The Biblical term for enforcing a covenant is “cut” (Hebrew. כָּרַת karat).

Terms like inaugurate that were inserted into the debates and analysis are just simply not supportable by the text, as we discussed and proved.

Part of the problem comes from those who read a non OT view into this OT setting prior to the cross.

We also took at look at the the relationship between the shed blood and the New Covenant

The Blood of the Covenant

A. The Relationship of the Blood to the Cutting of the Covenant

What did Jesus mean when He referred to the “blood of the covenant”?

What relationship does this blood have to the cutting of the New Covenant?

While it is assumed that the blood shed on the cross was the vehicle for enacting the covenant, we showed that the vehicle of covenant enactment, aka “cutting” was the swearing of the oath; the blood served a different purpose.

Putting under oath is actually a matter of swearing.

We saw this in Ezekiel 17:13

Ezekiel 17:13

Ezekiel 17:13 NKJV

13 And he took the king’s offspring, made a covenant with him, and put him under oath. He also took away the mighty of the land,

The expression “putting him under oath”בְּרִ֑ית--BENETH is not about a sacrifice to accompany the oath — it is just the oath.

This etymology, however, is not certain, and clearly, there were covenants both in the Bible

e.g. the Davidic Covenant and the “Land” Covenant of Deut 29–30, as well as covenants between people such as Jacob and Laban, Gen 31:44.

Genesis 31:44

Genesis 31:44 NKJV

44 Now therefore, come, let us make a covenant, you and I, and let it be a witness between you and me.”

We noted that the closest we find in the Old Testament to the idea the Blood of the Covenant is found in Exodus 24-7-8 where it was between the two

Two actions accompanied the cutting of the covenant:

(1) the application of blood (verses 6, 8), and

(2) the swearing of the oath (verse 7).

The application of blood took place in two phases:

The altar was sprinkled with blood in the first phase (verse 6).

The people are sprinkled with blood in the second phase (verse 8).

It was between these two applications of blood that the covenant was cut by the swearing of the oath.

Exodus 24:7

Exodus 24:7 NKJV

7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has said we will do, and be obedient.”

When the blood was afterward applied to the people in verse 8, it is apparent that the covenant was already cut.

Exodus 24:8

Exodus 24:8 NKJV

8 And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you according to all these words.”

This observation makes it clear that, while the blood clearly had some relationship to the covenant, the swearing of the oath actually resulted in the cutting of the covenant.

If the function of the blood was not to cut the covenant, then what was the purpose of the blood? Since the blood of the Sinaitic Covenant was applied both to the altar (Ex 24:6)

Exodus 24:6 NKJV

6 And Moses took half the blood and put it in basins, and half the blood he sprinkled on the altar.

and to the people (Ex 24:8)

Exodus 24:8 NKJV

8 And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you according to all these words.”

Gen. 8:20-21

Genesis 8:20–21 NKJV

If the function of the blood was not to cut the covenant, then what was the purpose of the blood? Since the blood of the Sinaitic Covenant was applied both to the altar (Ex 24:6)

Exodus 24:6 NKJV

6 And Moses took half the blood and put it in basins, and half the blood he sprinkled on the altar.

and to the people (Ex 24:8)

Exodus 24:8 NKJV

8 And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you according to all these words.”

Gen. 8:20-21

Genesis 8:20–21 NKJV

We looked at Noah’s sacrifice and we should note that If a covenant ceremony did include a sacrifice, the sacrifice was secondary in function to formal ratification.

It made the parties fit for a covenant relationship and symbolized their commit[ment] to covenant fulfillment, all to guarantee that the covenant could and would be actuated.

The sacrifice and the sacrificial animals were, nonetheless, “subordinate to a fixed ritual procedure.” Covenants could be made without a sacrifice.

Even when included, the sacrifice itself, like other covenant complements, did not constitute enactment or ratification of the covenant.

We also noted that in Psalm 50:5, where the argument is made that a covenant is made by means of a sacrifice, that the Hebrew actually means “accompanied by sacrifice.”

End of First Service 2/9/2025

Beginning of Second Service 2/9/2025

We return to the Noahic covenant.

Gen. 8:20-21

Genesis 8:20–21 NKJV

We looked at Noah’s sacrifice and we should note that If a covenant ceremony did include a sacrifice, the sacrifice was secondary in function to formal ratification.

It made the parties fit for a covenant relationship and symbolized their commit[ment] to covenant fulfillment, all to guarantee that the covenant could and would be actuated.

The sacrifice and the sacrificial animals were, nonetheless, “subordinate to a fixed ritual procedure.” Covenants could be made without a sacrifice.

Even when included, the sacrifice itself, like other covenant complements, did not constitute enactment or ratification of the covenant.

We also noted that in Psalm 50:5, where the argument is made that a covenant is made by means of a sacrifice, that the Hebrew actually means “accompanied by sacrifice.”

Psalm 50:5

Psalm 50:5 NKJV

5 “Gather My saints together to Me, Those who have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice.”

The only language in the Old Testament Scriptures that encompasses all the ideas of forgiveness of sins, a regenerated life, and the power of the Holy Spirit, is language that describes the New Covenant. For Jesus to say that the blood of His cross was the blood of the covenant was true, but it does not require that His reference be restricted to the New Covenant only. For the disciples, it was a meaningful reference. For the twenty-first-century believer, one might use different terminology to refer to the same blood. The New Testament Epistles and Revelation speak of Christ’s blood in relation to redemption, propitiation, justification, reconciliation, forgiveness, and sanctification.

In the NT we have references to the blood of redemption, the blood of propitiation, the blood of justification, the blood of reconciliation, the blood of forgiveness, the blood of sanctification.

But Jesus used a meaningful reference for the disciples at that time and stage of their understanding of God’s program

But it did not mean that the New Covenant was to be cut at the cross.

Redemption was paid for by that blood, and thereby the cutting of the covenant made possible.

This is all well and good, but there is one final point necessary to understand.

Jesus spoke looking forward, but Paul teaches us of Communion looking back. Now the Language used by Paul is almost identical to Luke’s, but is different.

Luke describes Jesus’ words to His pre-Pentecost Jewish disciples

Luke 22:20

Luke 22:20 NKJV

20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

But Paul has omitted a reference to the covenant’s direct application to believers of the Church Age. It does not say “shed for you.”

1 Corinthians 11:25-26

1 Corinthians 11:25–26 NKJV

The bread has a definite historical reference in the cross; the cup has a futuristic reference in the fulfillment of the New Covenant in the kingdom. T

his two-fold temporal reference in the elements is consistent with what Jesus had said to His disciples in the upper room.

Jesus had spoken of His next partaking of the cup “in the kingdom of God” (Mark 14:25)

Mark 14:25

Mark 14:25 NKJV

25 Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

and had concluded the supper by singing the eschatological Psalm 118 (Mark 14:26).

Mark 14:26

Mark 14:26 NKJV

26 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

By swearing not to partake in feasting and wine, Jesus dedicated himself resolutely to accept the bitter cup of wrath offered to him by the Father.

There is a clear anticipation of the messianic banquet when the Passover fellowship with his followers will be renewed in the Kingdom of God.…

The reference to “that day” envisions the parousia, the 2nd advent and the triumph of the Son of Man.…

The cup from which Jesus abstained was the fourth, which ordinarily concluded the Passover fellowship.…

He refused this cup of consummation, associated with the promise that God will take his people to be with him. This is the cup that Jesus will drink with his own in the messianic banquet, which inaugurates the saving age to come.

So we find that Paul’s future pointing reference to the New Covenant meant neither that the covenant had been cut nor that the church was participating in that covenant. The blood of that covenant had been shed, making possible its future enactment. In the meantime, that same blood, the blood of the New Covenant, was also the blood of redemption for the church.

The Early Church’s View of Their Relationship to Israel’s Covenants

Early church history suggests there may have been a conscious effort to disassociate the church from Israel’s covenants in the observance of the Lord’s Supper. One of the contentious issues that separated the Eastern Byzantine church from the Western Roman church concerned whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Lord’s Supper. When Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, it was at a Passover meal using unleavened bread. It appears, however, historian Philip Schaff documents that before the seventh century, with the exception of the Ebionites, the common elements in the Lord’s Supper were leavened bread and wine mingled with water.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, documents that sometime after the seventh century, it became customary in the Western church to use unleavened bread. By the eleventh century the controversy between east and west over leavened versus unleavened bread became quite heated, and in 1053 Cerularius, along with Leo of Achrida, wrote to John, bishop of Trani, that the churches of the west were “following the practice of the Jews … contrary to the usage of Christ [in that] they employ in the eucharist unleavened bread; that they fast on Saturday in Lent; that they eat blood and things strangled in violation of the decree of the Council of Jerusalem; and that during the fast they do not sing the hallelujah.” This letter is quite interesting because it does not appear to be motivated by any anti-Semitic attitude.

The positive references both to the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 and to the singing of the hallelujah—the Hallel (Psalms 113–118) sung at the Passover meal—show that there is no bias against the Jews per se at this time.

Nevertheless, the criticism for using unleavened bread as something “contrary to the usage of Christ” is suggestive. It appears to have been important to Cerularius that the Lord’s Supper be disassociated from its connection to the Passover. Indeed, his criticism of the Western church in this matter led him to coin a new term, Azymites, to describe those involved in the heresy of using unleavened bread (enzyme from ἄζυμος, “unleavened”) instead of common bread. [In response, the Latins called the Greeks Fermentarei!]

Schaff explains, “The Greeks insist that our Lord in instituting the eucharist after the Passover-meal used true, nourishing bread (ἄρτος from αἴρω), as the sign of the new dispensation of joy and gladness; while the lifeless, unleavened bread (ἄζυμον) belongs to the Jewish dispensation.”

What does all this mean relative to the Church’s participation or non-participation in the New Covenant?

It may mean nothing at all. Like many issues in history, it can be challenging to assign motives to the actions of men.

But this controversy does suggest that the early church, by its use of leavened bread, sought to disassociate the Lord’s Supper from the covenants of Israel. And if that is the case, then it is likely that the early church did not view the cup of the Lord’s Supper as signifying the Church’s participation in Israel’s New Covenant.

Conclusion

In the institution of the Lord’s Supper and in Paul’s reference to Christ’s words in his instructions to the Corinthian church about the Lord’s Supper, reference is made to the New Covenant. This has led many believers to conclude that the church is in some way participating in the New Covenant. This appears to be a problem because God clearly stated through the prophet Jeremiah that the New Covenant was to be made with “the house of Israel and the house of Judah.”

We have shown how the language used by Christ and Paul in reference to the New Covenant in the Lord’s Supper does not teach that the Church participates in Israel’s New Covenant.

First, we established that the reference to the “New Covenant” in the Lord’s Supper was to the same covenant as that to which Jeremiah 31 refers.

Second, attention was given to the definition of terms. In particular, focus was placed on the Biblical term “to cut” (כָּרַת), which means to enact and fully enforce the terms of a covenant. Problems introduced by added semantic baggage attached to the term “inaugurate” were evaluated regarding their impact on this discussion.

Third, the role of Christ’s blood in relation to the “cutting” of the New Covenant was explored. It was established that the shedding of Christ’s blood was not the instrument by which the covenant was cut; rather, the cutting of the covenant will be effected by the swearing of the oath of the covenant by Israel at Christ’s Second Coming. The blood, on the other hand, makes the future cutting of the covenant a possibility, and the expression “blood of the covenant” is a reasonable and adequate reference to Christ’s blood of redemption when used in a pre-Pentecost setting among Jewish disciples.

Fourth, Paul’s use of New Covenant language was examined when addressing the Corinthian church. It was seen that Paul’s omission of the phrase “for you” in connection to the cup made a separation between the church and the New Covenant; furthermore, the two-fold temporal reference in the two elements of the Lord’s Supper (the bread looking back in time to Christ’s death, the cup looking forward in time to Christ’s Second Coming) argues for a non-involvement by the Church in the New Covenant.

Finally, the controversy in the early church over whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Lord’s Supper was examined, and the hypothesis made that the early church’s use of leavened bread may be due to their unwillingness to be associated with Israel’s covenants.

End of 2/9/2025 Second Service

Sunday, February 16, 2025

REVIEW

We now return to our study in Acts

Review

The last two weeks we took an excursion from our Sunday study on Pentecost The New Church to deal with the topic of the New Covenant. The New Covenant comes up as it is referenced in connection to the Pesach or Passover Supper.

We have shown how the language used by Christ and Paul in reference to the New Covenant in the Lord’s Supper does not teach that the Church participates in Israel’s New Covenant.

First, we established that the reference to the “New Covenant” in the Lord’s Supper was to the same covenant as that to which Jeremiah 31 refers.

We read through the 4 gospel accounts which record the Lord overseeing His final Pesach with His Apostles.

Here is Tintoretto’s Last Supper Painting, crated 1592-1594

Here is Peter Paul Rubens’ Painting Created 1630-1631.

It is interesting that much of our modern references to the communion table come from non-Bible sources.

The phrase “communion” is found nowhere in the Bible.

The term "communion" itself isn't found in the Bible, but the concept is rooted in the New Testament accounts of the Last Supper, where Jesus instituted the practice. Over time, early Christians developed various terms to describe this sacred ritual:

Eucharist: Derived from the Greek word "eucharistia," meaning "thanksgiving." This term became widely used in the early church to describe the Lord's Supper.

Breaking of Bread: This phrase is used in Acts 2:42 and Acts 20:7 to describe the early Christian practice of sharing bread and wine.

Lord's Supper: This term emphasizes the meal Jesus shared with his disciples during the Last Supper.

Holy Communion: This term highlights the sacred and communal nature of the practice.

The term "communion" began to be used more frequently in the English-speaking world during the Reformation and post-Reformation periods. It reflects the idea of fellowship and unity among believers as they partake in the bread and wine.

The terms "Eucharist," "Lord's Supper," and "Holy Communion" are indeed not explicitly found in the Bible. They are terms that have evolved in Christian tradition to describe the practice instituted by Jesus during the Pasach Dinner on the eve prior to his Passover Sacrifice on the Cross.

The early church developed these terms to encapsulate the significance and practice of this ritual, reflecting the theological and liturgical understanding that has grown over centuries.

"breaking of bread" is used in Acts, but it can refer to a general meal or fellowship and not necessarily the sacrament. Acts 2:42 and Acts 20:7.

Acts 2:42 NKJV

42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Acts 20:7 NKJV

7 Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.

Paul makes a statement in 1 Corinthians 11 that may actually name the celebration for us and seems to be a reference to our communion table.

1 Corinthians 11:20

1 Corinthians 11:20 NKJV

20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.

The use of Lord as an adjective only occurs twice in the New Testament, here and in Revelation 1:10.

Revelation 1:10

Revelation 1:10 NKJV

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet,

1 Corinthians 11:20

1 Corinthians 11:20 NKJV

20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.

It seems that the Corinthians entirely missed the theology and truth in the feast, and instead turned it into a feast of pleasure giving preference to the rich, neglecting the poor.

1 Corinthians 11:27

1 Corinthians 11:27 NKJV

27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

In terms of the discipline that is related to taking the Lord’s Feast/Meal/Banquet/Supper unworthily, it is not because of a mystical quality to this meal, that something is imparted from it, as those from the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Lutheran traditions have taught. Rather, it is about what the THEREFORE references. We find it in verse 26.

1 Corinthians 11:26

1 Corinthians 11:26 NKJV

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

The issue is what is being proclaimed in the supper. It is in itself a proclamation of the Lord’s death till He comes. This is the core of the proclamation made by eating of the bread and drinking of the cup: the substitutionary atonement provision that breaks the way through the barrier of sin, the penalty for sin, spiritual death of man, relative righteousness and position in Adam.

1 Corinthians 11:26 NKJV

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

The for is a logical explanatory conjunction that ties us back even further.

1 Corinthian 11:23-25

1 Corinthians 11:23–25 NKJV

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

Now something I wanted to add onto the information we reviewed last week and two weeks ago, is that the four cups are not part of the Sader as established by God in Exodus.

It turns out that the Rabbis added to, augmented, and explained the Sader meal in their time after the exhile, that we call the post-exhilic period..

The addition of the Four Cups of Wine to the Passover Seder is indeed rooted in Jewish tradition and rabbinic literature. The practice of drinking four cups of wine during the Seder is based on the four expressions of redemption found in Exodus 6:6-7:

Exodus 6:6-7

Exodus 6:6–7 NKJV

6 Therefore say to the children of Israel: ‘I am the Lord; I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, I will rescue you from their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. 7 I will take you as My people, and I will be your God. Then you shall know that I am the Lord your God who brings you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

"I will bring you out..." — Cup of Blessing

"I will deliver you..." — Cup of Plagues

"I will redeem you..." — Cup of Redemption

"I will take you as a nation..." — Cup of Consumation

These expressions are linked to the four cups of wine drunk during the Seder, symbolizing the different stages of the Israelites' liberation from Egypt. This tradition is well-documented in the Mishnah, which was written down about 200 AD, but documents that very Rabbinic tradition developed by the Rabbis, which Christ endorsed.

This is spectacular to me, that the Messiah of Israel not only endorsed the non-biblical and apocryphal feast of Hanukkah, but He honored the Rabbinic tradition and wove it into what we know as the Lord’s Supper or Communion.

Now we had some confusion on what the New Covenant is and is about, that we need to clarify, so before we return to Acts, we are going to address this with 18 points about the New Covenant.

I also want to address another passage that deals with the New Covenant, in Hebrews:

Hebrews 8:7-13

Hebrews 8:7–13 NKJV

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

End of 1st Service, 2/16/2022

Beginning of 2nd Service 2/16/2022

1— The covenant was made with the nation Israel.

It’s made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It is not made with the church. It is not made with the Gentiles. It is a covenant specifically said to be made only with Israel. Jeremiah 31:31 is the main passage.

Jeremiah 31:31 NKJV

31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—

It’s quoted the same way in Hebrews 8:8.

Hebrews 8:8 NKJV

8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—

Other passages that confirm this are in Isaiah 59:20-21 Isaiah 61:8-9, Jeremiah 32:37-40, 50:4-5, and Ezekiel 16:60-63. It is a covenant that is with Israel and Judah.

Isaiah 59:20–21 NKJV

20 “The Redeemer will come to Zion, And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,” Says the Lord. 21 “As for Me,” says the Lord, “this is My covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants, nor from the mouth of your descendants’ descendants,” says the Lord, “from this time and forevermore.”

Isaiah 61:8–9 NKJV

8 “For I, the Lord, love justice; I hate robbery for burnt offering; I will direct their work in truth, And will make with them an everlasting covenant. 9 Their descendants shall be known among the Gentiles, And their offspring among the people. All who see them shall acknowledge them, That they are the posterity whom the Lord has blessed.”

Jeremiah 32:37–40 NKJV

37 Behold, I will gather them out of all countries where I have driven them in My anger, in My fury, and in great wrath; I will bring them back to this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely. 38 They shall be My people, and I will be their God; 39 then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children after them. 40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me.

Jeremiah 50:4–5 NKJV

4 “In those days and in that time,” says the Lord, “The children of Israel shall come, They and the children of Judah together; With continual weeping they shall come, And seek the Lord their God. 5 They shall ask the way to Zion, With their faces toward it, saying, ‘Come and let us join ourselves to the Lord In a perpetual covenant That will not be forgotten.’

Ezekiel 16:60–63 NKJV

60 “Nevertheless I will remember My covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. 61 Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed, when you receive your older and your younger sisters; for I will give them to you for daughters, but not because of My covenant with you. 62 And I will establish My covenant with you. Then you shall know that I am the Lord, 63 that you may remember and be ashamed, and never open your mouth anymore because of your shame, when I provide you an atonement for all you have done,” says the Lord God.’ ”

2— This covenant is in contrast to the Mosaic Covenant.

This is the main point of the writer’s quotation in Hebrews it replaces the old covenant. Because it is called the New Covenant, the point is that the old Covenant has been replaced. It always seemed to be a temporary covenant. It wasn’t a long-term or internal covenant. So, the covenant is in contrast to the Mosaic Covenant, which depended on the obedience of Israel for fulfillment. The point is that Israel could not fulfill that. They could not be obedient. So God is going to give them a new heart and a new mind with this covenant that will enable them to be obedient finally. Only as obedient people can they enjoy the blessings that God had promised them in the Mosaic Covenant.

3— The covenant will be fulfilled after the Great Tribulation.

It doesn’t come into effect until Jesus Christ returns and delivers the people, and they are established. Genesis 30:7.

Genesis 30:7 NKJV

7 And Rachel’s maid Bilhah conceived again and bore Jacob a second son.

It’s not in effect now. The New Covenant with Israel and Judah does not go into effect until the end of the Tribulation. But, if you have it in effect now, then you to have kingdom realities operational in the Church Age. That’s what really separates our view from the progressive dispensational view because they see this already-not-yet view of the kingdom. It’s sort of partially here and partially not, so we have certain manifestations of the kingdom today. It’s progressively coming in. That is where they got the term progressive dispensationalism - or a-millennialism, which says we’re in a spiritual form of the kingdom. Well, if we’re in the Millennial Kingdom in any way, shape, or form, then I don’t know about you, but I haven’t seen too many lions lying down with lambs or too many children putting their hands into cobra’s dens or anything of that nature.

4— The New Covenant necessitates a restoration of the Jews to the land.

In Jeremiah 32:37, 33:11, Ezekiel 11: 17, 36:37.

Jeremiah 32:37 NKJV

37 Behold, I will gather them out of all countries where I have driven them in My anger, in My fury, and in great wrath; I will bring them back to this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely.

Jeremiah 33:11 NKJV

11 the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the voice of those who will say: “Praise the Lord of hosts, For the Lord is good, For His mercy endures forever”— and of those who will bring the sacrifice of praise into the house of the Lord. For I will cause the captives of the land to return as at the first,’ says the Lord.

Ezekiel 11:17 NKJV

17 Therefore say, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “I will gather you from the peoples, assemble you from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.” ’

Ezekiel 36:37 NKJV

37 ‘Thus says the Lord God: “I will also let the house of Israel inquire of Me to do this for them: I will increase their men like a flock.

All these passages point to Israel being back in the land at the time the New Covenant goes into effect. It is a permanent return to the land in obedience. So they will be restored to the land and not as an apostate nation but as an obedient nation. Therefore, none of these passages that talk about a return could relate to that return from Babylon that occurred around 538-537 BC.

5. During the Tribulation many Jews will be saved.

including the 144,000 and those in Jerusalem that are saved in Revelation 11:11.

Revelation 11:11

Revelation 11:11 NKJV

11 Now after the three-and-a-half days the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them.

Now that is an interesting passage. There is an earthquake that occurs after the two witnesses go up to heaven. There is an earthquake, and it says:

Revelation 11:13

Revelation 11:13 NKJV

13 In the same hour there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell. In the earthquake seven thousand people were killed, and the rest were afraid and gave glory to the God of heaven.

That’s a lot of “all the rest” people. The view that most people have of the Tribulation is this is a time when massive numbers of unbelievers die. The caricature that you get from the covenant camp and the caricature you get from anybody who is anti-dispensational is we just want to kill everybody. God is this harsh, evil God killing all of humanity in the tribulation period. But what you find is that an enormous number of people were saved during the period of the Tribulation. For example ( in the seal judgments in the fifth seal judgment in Revelation 6, there is this picture that John has of an altar in heaven and underneath the altar, all these souls that have been slain for the Word of God.

Revelation 6:9-10

Revelation 6:9–10 NKJV

9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?”

And God basically says, “You got to wait awhile.”

In chapter 7, after the 144,000 are saved, the events in chapter 7 occur in heaven at the same time as the seal judgments are going on upon the earth. This answers the question—how can anybody survive these seal judgments?

There is a fascinating passage in Revelation 7:9 where John writes:

Revelation 7:9

Revelation 7:9 NKJV

9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,

How many are there? These are the martyrs. These are not Church Age believers or believers of all time because Old Testament saints haven’t been resurrected yet. Church Age believers are already raptured and rewarded. These are the ones who come out from the Tribulation. These are the martyrs.

How many are there? They’re without number. Now, that doesn’t mean a big, big number because if you look a couple of chapters later in Revelation 9, when you come to the 6th trumpet judgment, there is a 200 million demon army that is released from under the Euphrates. Now 200 million is a whole lot, but it’s not a number that no one can count because you can count up to 200 million. So we know that 200 million is a number that is smaller contextually than those who are saved, who are so many that you can’t count the number. So that tells you, just by the way John uses numbers in Revelation, that the number of martyrs that get saved out of the Tribulation is beyond 200 million. That’s a whole lot of folks who are going to receive God’s grace and benefit from God’s mercy during the tribulation period. So, during the Tribulation, many, many Jews are going to be saved, not just the 144,000 and not just those in Jerusalem but among the millions, if not billions, that are saved on the planet during the tribulation period.

6. These Jews (that are alive and remain in the land and are believers) will flee to the desert and the mountains around Petra when they see the abomination of desolation.

So this takes us back to the chronology of the tribulation period, the halfway point when the abomination of desolation occurs and the Antichrist sets himself up to be worshipped in the Temple at that point, Jesus warned the believers in Matthew 24:14-15 to flee.

Matthew 24:14-15

Matthew 24:14–15 NKJV

14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. 15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand),

In Revelation 12 it confirms that the woman flees to the wilderness because of the testimony of Jesus. They follow His orders, and so they flee. So that puts us into that chronological period. So, all these Jews were saved in the tribulation period. Those in the land escape to Petra, where God protects them supernaturally during the second half of the tribulation period.

7. National cleansing and restoration.

This comes at the end in the last two or three days before Jesus returns as a corporate entity. They turn and call upon Jesus, and there will be a period of national cleansing that takes place for the nation. Remember, they are already saved, but this is a national cleansing and restoration. It’s necessary because God the Son will once again take up His residence in the land and in the Millennial Temple. This is when the New Covenant gets established.

8. Israel could not remain obedient to God in the past.

Again and again and again, the writers of the prophets say that they couldn’t be obedient. They couldn’t fulfill the law. They couldn’t follow the Law. They were disobedient. So because they had to be obedient in order to enjoy the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant, the blessing of the land covenant, and the blessings of the Davidic Covenant, God had to do everything for them, including giving them a new mind and new disposition. That comes with the giving of the New Covenant.

9. The New Covenant will replace the Mosaic Covenant and will be written: “in their hearts.”

We understand that the heart is not to be the physical organ but to be in their minds and souls. So the Word of God and doctrine are just going to be implanted in their thinking instead of tablets of stone.

Jeremiah 31:33.

Jeremiah 31:33 NKJV

33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

We see the same thing in Ezekiel 36 as well as Ezekiel 37.

10. God gives them a new ability. He gives them a new heart, and He puts His Spirit in them to enable them to fulfill all of these conditions.

So with that new mind, every Jew… this applies to Jews, not to Gentiles because in Isaiah 2. When it talks about the fact all the nations will come to worship God to the mountain of God in Jerusalem, they’re coming to learn about God. Still, Jews won’t need to learn about God according to Jeremiah 31 because God is going to put His Word in them and it’s no longer going to be necessary for a man to teach his neighbor. “Learning” and “teaching” in Hebrew are cognates of the same basic word form.

11. Israel will see what they have done throughout their disobedience in the Old Testament.

They will see, when this happens at the end of the tribulation period, and the New Covenant is established. God gives them a new heart and puts His Spirit within them - at this point, they will see what they have done throughout their disobedience in the Old Testament, their idolatry, how they continuously (as Jesus points out at the end of Matthew 23) put to death all the prophets.

They constantly reject God’s revelation. They are constantly hostile to Him. They will see all of that all the way up through to Jesus, who is the Son of God, the Messiah sent to them, and they crucify Him. They will suddenly see this, and in all of its horror, they will break down and weep over what they have done – weep and sorrow. That’s when they are getting saved, and there are many who say this. They are already saved. We’ve seen that in the Scripture. This is now there with this new capacity. They suddenly see the horror of all they have done, and they weep and sorrow. So they have the understanding of that. Zechariah 12:10 says:

Zechariah 12:10

Zechariah 12:10 NKJV

10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.

They will understand what it is that they have done.

12. The New Covenant will feature tremendous spiritual blessings for the people of Israel, not for the Gentiles.

Now, the Gentiles get blessings through association as they have all the way through from Abraham. But the thrust of the New Covenant is to provide these incredible spiritual blessings and to bring to fulfillment at the end of the Tribulation all the promises and all the covenants that God had given to Israel - Romans 9:3-4 that the covenants and the promises belong to Israel.

Romans 9:3-4

Romans 9:3–4 NKJV

3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;

Paul writes that in the Church Age. They have not been overthrown; they have not been changed; they have not been abrogated because of Israel’s disobedience. So, the New Covenant will feature these great spiritual blessings for the people of Israel.

13. The New Covenant will reveal the glory of God so that it will no longer be necessary to witness to others.

Now, this is within Israel. This is the Jewish dimension. There is still a need to witness to the Gentiles. So, there is a distinction between Church Age believers and unbelievers in the Church Age. If a Jew becomes saved in the Church Age, he’s no longer...his Jewishness isn’t a factor. I have a problem. I have a bit of a problem with the so-called Messianic Jewish movement because there are a number of saved Jews who make an issue out of the fact that they are completed Jews, as if that makes them somehow different from the Gentiles that get saved. But the emphasis in the Scripture is that there is neither Jew nor Gentile, bond or slave, male or female, but we are all one in the body of Christ. Ethnicity, especially Jewish ethnicity, is not an issue in terms of spiritual blessing in the Church Age because they get their blessing not because they’re Jewish but because of their relationship to Jesus Christ and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. However, in the Millennial Kingdom, we go back to an aspect that is similar to the Old Testament period. There are Jews, and then there are Gentiles. The Gentiles receive blessing by association only in terms of their faith in the Messiah. Now there will be saved Gentiles that come out of the Tribulation who survive and go into the Millennial Kingdom. They will get married and they will have children and those children will have a sin nature and they’ll have volition and they’ll have to make decisions as to whether or not they are going to trust in Jesus if they’re going to believe the gospel or not. This is why they have to learn about God and learn about Jesus and this is why all the nations will go to Israel. So if they don’t make it before then, they will make it to Jerusalem and Israel in the Millennial Kingdom.

14. The New Covenant will feature forgiveness, grace, and blessing.

Jeremiah 31:34.

Jeremiah 31:34 NKJV

34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

It’s forgiveness for the national sins of Israel in terms of both idolatry and the rejection of the Messiah – the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit when the Pharisees as the corporate representatives of the nation when the Pharisees accuse Jesus of performing His miracles in the power of Satan. This is why Jesus makes His statement and when He makes His statement about the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is not something that can be done by people today. It was a historically conditioned sin. It was a sin of Israel rejecting her Messiah and claiming that He was really the devil. So that was the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and the result of that was the national discipline in 70 AD. There is forgiveness for that, which is applied nationally as part of the New Covenant.

15. In the New Covenant, God promised the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which is not part of the spiritual life in the Tribulation. Ezekiel 36 says:

Ezekiel 36:27

Ezekiel 36:27 NKJV

27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

And Joel 2:28-29 the pouring forth of the new Spirit at the end of the Tribulation:

Joel 2:28-29

Joel 2:28–29 NKJV

28 “And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions. 29 And also on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.

There is one other passage we really didn’t look at in any kind of detail. I just want to allude to it very briefly. It’s in II Thessalonians 2. II Thessalonians 2 is one of the great chapters on The Rider of the white horse, depicts God’s revealing the Antichrist and enabling him to take power. Then you get into II Thessalonians 2 and an interesting chronology is given. One of the things that occurs is that we read in verse 3:

2 Thessalonians 2:3

2 Thessalonians 2:3 NKJV

3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

…which is the Day of the Lord.

will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

Most English translations translate this word “the falling away.” The word that is used there, “for the falling away,” is the Greek word apostosia, which is often understood to be apostasy. That’s why they translate it “falling away”. The core semantic meaning for apostosia is to depart. It refers to a departure. When applied to doctrine it is a departure for truth, i.e. apostasy. But, it’s used in other examples, such as a ship departing from a port. So it has been argued by numerous scholars that the more accurate interpretation or translation here should be “Let no one deceive you by any means for that day will not come unless the departure comes first.”

See if it’s falling that must come first, then we have a sign of the rapture that there must be a great end times apostasy before the Lord can come back at the rapture. That would violate the doctrine of immanency. But we have the departure coming first. That departure is the departure of the church which is the rapture. So the departure comes first and then the man of sin is revealed. So you and I may see someone who will become the Antichrist, but we won’t know it because he won’t be revealed as such until after the departure takes place which is the rapture. The man of sin which is just another title of the Antichrist is one who opposes and exalts himself above all.

2 Thessalonians 2:4-6

2 Thessalonians 2:4–6 NKJV

4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time.

Key word – restraining.

that he may be revealed in his own time.

“That he may be revealed” in talking about the revealing of the Antichrist.

Paul says in verse 7:

2 Thessalonians 2:7

2 Thessalonians 2:7 NKJV

7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.

The one who now restrains is the Holy Spirit. He is the restrainer of evil. As long as the Church Age is here (as long as Church Age believers are on the planet), there is the presence of the Holy Spirit who is restraining evil and holding things back until He is taken out of the way. But once the restrainer is removed (once the Holy Spirit is removed because of the rapture) when the rapture occurs, believers who are here in the tribulation period won’t be indwelt with the Holy Spirit (won’t be baptized by the Holy Spirit) because that is a characteristic of the Church Age. They’re not going to be in Christ because there is no baptism of the Holy Spirit; there is no filling of the Holy Spirit. It goes back to an Old Testament type of dynamic in relationship to the Holy Spirit so that Tribulation believers don’t have the Holy Spirit. That is why this remarkable transformation will take place at the end of the Tribulation when Jesus returns and the Holy Spirit is poured out on Israel. That’s part of why they suddenly realize what they have done. They will receive the Holy Spirit and He will immediately make these things clear to them. So in the New Covenant promises future indwelling of the Holy Spirit…it’s not part of the spiritual life of the Tribulation. It will be part of the spiritual life of the millennium and the manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the Millennial Kingdom are going to be greater than they are in the spiritual life of the Church Age believer.

16. The New Covenant promises that Israel will obey God and have a right attitude toward Him forever.

All Israel will be saved. Now, some people raise (I think a legitimate question) saying, “Well, what about their volition?” Well, I can’t answer that. But, I can make it clear that again and again and again and again and again, as we’ve seen in Scripture God says that He’s going to implant this new life and implant an irreversible obedience among Israelites. So, all Israel will be saved. That is part of his teaching in the Millennial Kingdom.

17. The New Covenant includes rebuilding the city of Jerusalem and reviving the temple.

Now, the third temple will be the Tribulation Temple, and that is an apostate temple. The first temple is the Solomonic Temple, which we are studying in our study of I Kings with the dedication of the Solomonic Temple. The second temple is the post-exilic temple. It really has two stages, but it is all referred to as the Second Temple period. Zerubbabel initially rebuilds it. This is described in the book of Ezra, and it’s also dealt with in the book of Haggai. It is the rebuilding of that second Temple. It is very modest during that period of time until Herod comes along and decides that he wants to build and redo the temple and make it greater than the temple under Solomon. That temple was still under construction during Jesus’ ministry, and it wasn’t completed until the mid-40s. I’m not sure of the exact date, but it’s around 45 to 50 AD. So, the New Covenant will include a rebuilding of the city and the fourth temple, which is the Millennial Temple.

Sunday, February 23, 2025

REVIEW

We took a pause to review the relationship of the New Covenant to the Lord’s final Pesach Supper with the Apostles the night before His crucifixion and the instructions given for their future taking of the supper, and what the Apostle Paul has instructed us for observation by the church.

In reality there isn’t that much new information that we reviewed, unless you are new to either of the topics.

We went through 18 points on what is unique about the New Covenant.

Which we pulled from Hebrews 8:7-13

Hebrews 8:7–13 NKJV

- 11 - They will see what they have done throughout their disobedience in the Old Testament, their idolatry, putting to death all the prophets.

- 12 The New Covenant will feature tremendous spiritual blessings for the people of Israel, not for the Gentiles.

- 13 - The New Covenant will reveal the glory of God so that it will no longer be necessary to witness to others.

- 14 - The New Covenant will feature forgiveness, grace, and blessing.

- 15 - In the New Covenant, God promised the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which is not part of the spiritual life in the Tribulation.

- 16 - The New Covenant promises that Israel will obey God and have a right attitude toward Him forever.

- 17 - The New Covenant includes rebuilding the city of Jerusalem and reviving the temple.

- 18 - When the New Covenant is fulfilled, Israel will not only be in the land as a regenerated people with a new temple but will also receive the full blessings of the Davidic Covenant.

Let’s work though our final point.

18. When the New Covenant is fulfilled, Israel will not only be in the land as a regenerated people with a new temple but will also receive the full blessings of the Davidic Covenant.

David (we have seen in our Ezekiel Study would rule over them as their prince forever. So that pulls it all together.

All of that summarizes the New Covenant, all the teachings in the Old Testament that this is very, very Jewish in its orientation. There is nothing, not one thing, in Hebrews 8 , to indicate that it is anything other than this particular Jewish covenant from Jeremiah 31:31 for the people of Israel.

It is that New Covenant that will go into effect in the future Messianic era, and the sacrifice on the cross that establishes it. It doesn’t go into effect until Jesus comes back. But, the sacrifice that establishes it is the work of Christ on the cross. This is what becomes clear in the statements of Jesus in the Upper Room in Luke 22:20 when he says in the Passover meal as He is redefining the elements:

Luke 22:20

Luke 22:20 NKJV

20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

All you can get from that verse is that His death on the cross is establishing, is laying the foundation you might say, for His new covenant – for the new covenant that is in His blood

I Corinthians 11:25 is when Paul’s explanation of this to the Corinthians. He quotes from the Luke passage. He says:

1 Corinthians 11:25

1 Corinthians 11:25 NKJV

25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

So those are two of the references in the New Testament to the New Covenant.

Now in Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24 – those are the parallel synoptic gospel passages for the Lord’s Table. The statement is recorded in a slightly different form. In those two accounts, the statement is recorded.

Matthew 26:28

Matthew 26:28 NKJV

28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Now, sometimes in the reading of the gospels in parallel passages, you will read, and it looks like a discrepancy.

Did He say, “This is My blood which is given for you?”

Did He say, “This cup is the new covenant of my blood.”

Or did He say, “This is my blood of the new covenant.”?

Which did He say?

Well, he could have said both. See, Jesus didn’t say everything in these quick little sentences.

You see the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, and you see the same sermon given in Luke, but He is giving it on the plain. There are differences.

It’s just like the Doctrine of Salvation. Every time you share it or hear it, it may be 90% the same and then 10% different.

Jesus did the same thing. He didn’t just teach one thing one time. He taught one thing many times, in many places.

So, the writers of Scripture could draw from different times when He taught it. So these aren’t contradictions.

They are - sometimes from when Jesus said five sentences. When One author quotes him, they quote two of the sentences, and the other quotes another two sentences. Jesus used a lot of repetition, which any good teacher would do.

So, in the Matthew passage and the Mark passages that are recorded about the reference to the cup and the blood of the covenant, the emphasis is placed on the soteriological aspects of the covenant.

This is found in the structure of the sentence.

Matthew 26:28 NKJV

28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

…emphasizing the soteriological aspect necessary for the forgiveness of sins where as in the Luke 22 passage and the I Corinthians 11 passage there is an emphasis on the eschatological or the prophetic part of it. Remember, before this Jesus says:

End of

Matthew 26:29

Matthew 26:29 NKJV

29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

So He is saying that as He drinks of the cup, the next time He drinks wine (drinks the cup) with His disciples it will be when the kingdom is established. So there is that prophetic aspect to it that causes us, …not just in the Matthew passages … cause us to look back to the cross when the covenant is established.

But the Luke quotation and Paul’s statement in I Corinthians 11 force us to think in terms of a future fulfillment of that new covenant.

The same thing happened with the Exodus. The Exodus event was a memorial to God’s deliverance in the past in 1446 BC. But at the same time, the elements – the Passover lamb, the unleavened bread those elements looked forward to and were types of the future Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world. So there is a past and a future element to the Passover and a past and a future element to the New Covenant. So the New Covenant was understood there in Luke and 1 Corinthians to be a future fulfillment.

Now, the next passage that people go to that seems to be the one that everybody has trouble with is II Corinthians 3:6. Paul in II Corinthians has to deal with this attack on his personal credentials and his apostolic ministry that he is a true and genuine apostle. He says:

2 Corinthians 3:1

2 Corinthians 3:1 NKJV

1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or do we need, as some others, epistles of commendation to you or letters of commendation from you?

In II Corinthians 12 where we hear of the thorn of the flesh, you have the use of the word boasting, καύχημα — KAUCHEMA about…12, 13, 14 times. It is heavily used in those two chapters because Paul will finally give some credentials.

But the reason he is pressured into that is because these Judaizers (these false teachers) are following him around, and they say, “Look at all we’ve done. We’ve had all these miracles, and we’ve had all these signs and wonders, and that establishes us. We’ve done this, and we’ve done that, so you need to follow us. What has Paul done? He doesn’t have any letters of commendation. Where did he go to seminary? Where is his resume?” That is essentially what they’re asking. Paul never focused on what he had done or what he had accomplished because he made the focus on Jesus Christ and the cross. So that is what he is referring to here.

He says, “I don’t need to commend myself or my ministry. That’s not the focal point.” He says, “If you want validation, look at the ministry and the effect of my ministry on your life.”

This brings us to

2 Corinthians 3:2-6

2 Corinthians 3:2–6 NKJV

2 You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3 clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart. 4 And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

So, he talks about the fact that he is a minister of the New Covenant. Then, he goes on to talk about this in these subsequent verses.

But the point that he is making is that as an apostle, what he is doing is applying to those who become believers in this age, the gospel that comes from the sacrifice that is made on the cross.

That sacrifice is what is the basis for the New Covenant. The New Covenant is established and enacted with Israel. By virtue of that covenant, though, there is a blessing by association to Gentiles and to all the world.

That is what God had promised to Abraham - that all the world would be blessed through him. So that blessing comes through Christ, who is the other party of the New Covenant, and we, as Church Age believers, are in Him, and by virtue of our position in Him and in relationship to Him, we partake of certain New Covenant blessings. That’s exactly what the writer of Hebrews does.

In the first part of Hebrews 8, the writer of Hebrews (We don’t know who it was; it wasn’t Paul.) says

Hebrews 8:1

Hebrews 8:1 NKJV

1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,

He has made the point in chapter 7 that when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the covenant.

The covenant is the legal structure that establishes the spiritual life aspects of a particular dispensation.

So what the writer has been arguing is that the priesthood related to the old covenant was related to a physical qualification - being genetically related to Aaron and being a Levitical priest. But, that priesthood was limited in time because the old covenant was limited in time.

Now You will want to pay close attention here, because what follows is not something you have ever been taught before by John, or RB Thieme. You might have heard it from some of our other categorical Bible Teachers like Dr. Dean.

Now, there had to be a new covenant that would establish a new priesthood (a Melchizedekean-based high priesthood.) That is the basis for Jesus Christ’s high priestly ministry. So He is a high priest based on the New Covenant, and we, as Church Age believers, have a priesthood. Our believer priesthood is related to Jesus Christ’s high priesthood. So that’s how we connect to the New Covenant, not because there’s a New Covenant with the church, but because the Church Age believers have a unique position in Christ.

In Him, Paul says in Ephesians 1:3:

Ephesians 1:3

Ephesians 1:3 NKJV

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,

So this is connected not to a direct covenant with us but in terms of our position being in Christ. Then back in Hebrews 8:6 we read:

Hebrews 8:6

Hebrews 8:6 NKJV

6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

This brings up his thinking about the fact that the New Covenant is what’s in effect and leads him to quote from Jeremiah 31. His whole point is to show that the New Covenant implies that the Old Covenant was temporary. Now we looked at verse 8, and verse 7 says:

Hebrews 8:7

Hebrews 8:7 NKJV

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

It wasn’t a faultless covenant.

otherwise no place would have been sought for a second.

That begins the quote at the beginning of verse 8.

Hebrews 8:8

Hebrews 8:8 NKJV

8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—

This is the quote from Jeremiah 31:31-34.

If you look in your Bible, like in my Bible, the normal study and referenc the quotations from the Old Testament are in italics.

So Jeremiah 31:31-34 is quoted verbatim word-for-word all the way down through verse 12 of Hebrews 8.

So, the writer of Hebrews quotes the whole - all four verses from the Old Testament. Then he makes his point.

Notice what he does in verse 13. He says:

Hebrews 8:13

Hebrews 8:13 NKJV

13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

He doesn’t exegete anything else in the passage. He says:

He has made the first obsolete.

That’s all he’s saying. He’s not saying that anything else in that passage applies. He’s saying, “The only thing I want you to pay attention to is that he calls it a new covenant.” The terminology “new” means that the covenant it replaces was never intended to be permanent.

Now, what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Disappear.

…the whole Levitical priesthood, the entire temple ministry, all of that that is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. When is it going to vanish away? When the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, which is just a short time from when this was written. This was probably written in the early 60s. So that pulls all this together on the New Covenant, and this establishes our foundation from the Old Testament to understand why he is going to go into the things he is going to go into in chapter 9.

This is what we are in the middle of reviewing in our Names of God Bible Study as we are going through what is shown as being lessor from that first covenant.

Hebrews 9:1

Hebrews 9:1 NKJV

1 Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary.

We are studying the details of the first … covenant, as we look at the furniture.

We have one final mention of the New Covenant in the New Testament that I want to mention, but not study deeply. I just want to make a few pointers that I hope will help to allay any misconceptions or concerns about how someone might use the passage or what they might misunderstand.

Like a teller at a bank … it isn’t by showing them lots of fake money that they learn to identify the counterfeit money. It is actually by handling lots and lots of real money that you learn what it looks and feels and even smells like. So that when you suddenly have a counterfeit bill in your hands, you just … stop, and stare, and turn it over. Something isn’t right.

So we will rightly handle the next passage and then you will be prepared for when it is something counterfeit that is put in front of you.

Hebrews 9:11-15

Hebrews 9:11–15 NKJV

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

We need to connect three things here – 1) the covenant, 2) the promise and 3) the inheritance.

Those three things go together.

We see them linked together in numerous passages that tell us that the promises are guaranteed by a covenant and they have a future orientation in terms of inheritance.

“Those who are called,” without taking a long time to describe the doctrine of the called, here simply stands for those who have responded to that invitation that they may receive the promise of that eternal inheritance.

Now in Verse 15, it says “for this reason”

For that reason mentioned in verse 14 — because Christ’s death has such infinite value that He has done everything for us. He has provided everything for us. For that reason, because of the value of His death on the cross, He is the mediator of the New Covenant.

Now that word mediator is the idea that He is the one who stands between God and man. He is the one who provides the link so that man can have a relationship with God. And, this is based on the New Covenant and the sacrifice for the New Covenant is what He performed on the cross when He initiated the Lord’s Table and said, This is the New Covenant of My blood.”

So for this reason (because of the value of His death)…

We may receive the promise of inheritance

That inheritance is really two-fold as we have studied in the past that there is an inheritance that is common to all believers. There is an inheritance that is unique to some. In the Old Testament if you had numerous sons, each would receive an inheritance but the eldest son, the first born, would receive a double portion. So it’s not that everybody gets the same thing and everybody is going to look the same in heaven. God is not a Marxist-Leninist. God is going to reward some believers for obedience and there are some believers who are going to lose reward which comparable to inheritance.

Now we return to our study in Acts

Acts

Now Peter has healed Aeneas in Lydda, and all who dwelt at Lydda and Sharon saw him and turned to the Lord.

Then Peter was called to Joppa where he was used by the Holy Spirit to raise Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 9:42–43 NKJV

42 And it became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed on the Lord. 43 So it was that he stayed many days in Joppa with Simon, a tanner.

Now Peter is staying with Simon the Tanner in Joppa.

It is fascinating that Peter is staying with Simon, the Tanner because being a Tanner was not a well-respected occupation among the observant Jews. A tanner was someone who dealt with the dead, with the skin of dead animals, and he was constantly in contact with the dead and with that which had been in contact with the dead, and this was prohibited and rendered a person ritually unclean. He would be unclean until nightfall. That would mean that he would not always be unclean, but during the day, Simon the tanner was ritually unclean. This is stated in the Torah in Leviticus 11:39, 40

Leviticus 11:39-40

Leviticus 11:39–40 NKJV

39 ‘And if any animal which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until evening. 40 He who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. He also who carries its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.

You can’t skin an animal without touching it. Is it a sin to touch it? Absolutely not, because you can wear the clothes; you are supposed to wear the clothes. God did this in the garden. It didn’t make Him ceremonially unclean because the Law wasn’t in effect then. It wasn’t a universal absolute but part of the Mosaic ritual system.

“… becomes unclean until evening [not overnight, but just until evening]. He, too, who eats some of its carcasses shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening, and the one who picks up its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.”

In Jewish culture, therefore, tanning was an unclean occupation because the tanner was constantly in contact with the dead bodies of animals, and it rendered them ritually impure. Tanners usually worked very close to their homes, and because of the ritual uncleanness and the odor, the homes were required to be at least 25 yards outside the border of a city or town. They couldn’t live in the city limits. They were socially unacceptable and were ranked alongside some of the socially unacceptable careers such as prostitution, dung collecting, donkey driving, and gamblers. So, an orthodox Jew would never accept the hospitality of a tanner. But Peter is, indicating that Peter is already shifting his thinking. He still has problems, however. It took him a while to implement the lesson.

Now, we are introduced to the next individual, Cornelius, a centurion.

Acts 10:1

Acts 10:1 NKJV

1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment,

Caesarea is also mentioned in Acts 8:40; 21:8, 9; 12:19-24; 9:30; 18:22; 21:8-16; 23:33.

It was the most significant port in the western Mediterranean. This is where Paul would have met with Festus and Herod Agrippa II. It was initially a Phoenician site, a small fortified harbor built in the third century BC.

In the 2nd century BC it was conquered by the Hasmonean leader Alexander Jannaeus and made a part of Judah. At that time, Jews began to live there. A strong, thriving Jewish community was there during the first century, but it was primarily a Gentile town. When the Roman general Pompey conquered Judea in 63 BC, the city became a non-Jewish city (or Gentile) again. Augustus gave the city to King Herod the Great (37-4 BC), and he rebuilt the city between 22-10 BC. He renamed the city Caesarea in honor of Caesar Augustus.

By 40 AD, this was the seat of the government of Herod Agrippa I, and one of the significant things here is that Pontius Pilate would have gone there; this was his seat, and he just went to Jerusalem for Passover. An inscription referring to Pontius Pilate was discovered there, and it documents and validates the biblical record that he was indeed the procurator of Judea.

The legions stationed in Caesarea proclaimed Vespasian to be emperor after Nero died during the time of the Jewish revolt, and he conferred the status of a colony upon the city. Then, in 70 AD, Titus forced 2500 POWs to fight wild animals in the Colosseum.

The Bar Kochba revolt is related to this. It occurred in 132-135 AD. Caesarea became a major supply port for the Romans. During and after the revolt was over, the Romans killed some 700-800,000 Jews. Afterward, rabbi Kiva, who was the spiritual leader of the revolt, was executed here in Caesarea.

It was later the home to church fathers Origen and Eusebius, and they taught at a Christian school in Caesarea and developed a world-famous Christian library there. By AD 195, an ecclesiastical council met in Caesarea, where they decided to observe Easter on a Sunday every year instead of three days after Passover. Origen lived there and translated a Bible called the Hexapla because it had six columns and six different versions. Eusebius became the Bishop of Caesarea and wrote a book called Ecclesiastical History, a source of understanding of church history in the first three centuries of Christianity.

Its great heyday came in the fourth to the sixth centuries during the Byzantine period. It continued to decline through the Muslim period, and then it was captured by the Crusader King Baldwin during the Crusader period. He massacred all of the inhabitants.

Saladin recaptured the city in 1187, and he killed or enslaved all of the Christians who lived there.

Cornelius must have been a remarkable individual. He was a non-commissioned officer in the Roman army, a centurion. A centurion was in command of 100 soldiers. It would take a centurion about fifteen years to advance through the ranks to achieve his position. He was considered to be an excellent leader. The Roman Army was composed of a core unit of the centuries, 100 soldiers, and six centuries combined to form a cohort (600 men), and a tribune commanded a cohort. A Roman legion then had ten cohorts commanded by an imperial legate. Caesarea had five cohorts stationed there—3000 men.

Cornelius is described in this chapter as a devout worshipper of God.

Acts 10:2

Acts 10:2 NKJV

2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always.

The word for “devout” is eusebes [εὐσεβὴς]. But he is not a believer and Old Testament saint. He becomes a believer only in this chapter. He fears God, though; he has great positive volition and is very kind and good. He “gave many alms to the people,” i.e., supported the poor and the sick among the Jewish people and prayed to God. He was a God-fearer, not a proselyte. He is an uncircumcised Gentile who had not submitted himself to the Mosaic Law or Jewish customs.

Acts 10:3

Acts 10:3 NKJV

3 About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, “Cornelius!”

This would be three o’clock in the afternoon, the time of the afternoon prayers according to the Jewish daily ritual calendar. This is the first scene. If we consider this chapter a dramatic play, there are five scenes in it. He is not in what we think of today as a mystical state. The difference between a vision and a dream is that a dream occurs at night when asleep, and a vision occurs in the daytime when wide awake. But they are the same dynamic; the same thing happens.

Acts 10:4

Acts 10:4 NKJV

4 And when he observed him, he was afraid, and said, “What is it, lord?” So he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have come up for a memorial before God.

He was afraid—emphobeo [ἔμφοβος], meaning he was startled, a little bit terrified. It really shook him up because he has truly had a vision. He responds, “What is it, Lord [Κύριε; /kurie]?” Is he recognising the Lordship of the angel?

Cf. Acts 9:5

Acts 9:5

Acts 9:5 NKJV

5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”

And people who are into Lordship salvation, like John MacArthur and many others, want to impose upon the use of the word kurios here the recognition of Jesus’ deity and of Jesus’ authority. But the word kurie is used in many ancient social contexts that were similar to our word “sir.” It is just a polite term of address for someone in authority. It is suggested that if Paul is saying, “Who are you Lord?” and that means he is recognizing the deity and Lordship of Jesus, then what in the world are we going to do when Cornelius shows up and says, “What is it, Lord”? Same word. Cornelius doesn’t recognize the Lordship, the deity, or the sovereignty of the angel. He is simply addressing someone he recognizes as superior. He addresses with the appropriate term because he is a soldier.

“And he said to him, ‘Your prayers and alms have ascended as a memorial before God.’”

This is the way, under Mosiac Law and Judaism, Cornelius expresses his positive volition. He is not saved yet, but he wants to be and is curious. He is going to the synagogue, learning about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; he knows that is the truth, but he hasn’t become saved yet. He hasn’t understood the gospel in the Old Testament sense or in the New Testament sense, but because he has engaged in this activity, God has taken notice.

He is given a directive.

Acts 10:5

Acts 10:5 NKJV

5 Now send men to Joppa, and send for Simon whose surname is Peter.

Two Simons were living in the same house, Simon the Tanner and Simon Peter.

Acts 10:6-8

Acts 10:6–8 NKJV

6 He is lodging with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea. He will tell you what you must do.” 7 And when the angel who spoke to him had departed, Cornelius called two of his household servants and a devout soldier from among those who waited on him continually. 8 So when he had explained all these things to them, he sent them to Joppa.

In God’s timing, He doesn’t give Peter the vision at the same time. He waits until the next day, when this delegation is just about there, and then Peter will have a vision.

Notice:

Acts 10:10

Acts 10:10 NKJV

10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance

He is still hungry, but God gives him a vision. Peter doesn’t have the means to kill, and he gets all caught up in the theological conundrum. Three times, God has to tell him to kill and eat, and he won’t do it, and the tablecloth is taken to heaven. Peter is so entranced by what he has seen that he is trying to figure it all out, but he forgets that he is hungry. Then somebody knocks at the door. When does Peter eat?

Jews and Gentiles Saved by Faith. Acts 10:9-43

Sometimes we just don’t grasp how remarkable this is because we are coming at it from the situation as it existed in the first century where the church up to this point has been primarily Jewish, and if you were Jewish you were somewhat secluded. You were separated from the Gentile culture and society around you. You could have Gentiles under certain circumstances have Gentiles in your home as guests but you could not go to the home of a Gentile. There was a very strict observance of this separation between the Jewish community and the Gentile community, and the grace of God was for the Jews, not really for the Gentiles even though a Gentile could come into the synagogue as a God-fearer, like Cornelius. Early Judaism, after the fall of the temple in the first century and in the first two or three centuries preceding Christ, was a religion that reached out and sought to bring in converts. It was involved in missionary activity, not in the same way that the church is or to the degree and intensity of the church, but it was nevertheless a part of Judaism. This is why they had three or four different levels of converts, because they were seeking converts to Judaism. This was part of the Abrahamic covenant, that the Jews understood that the promise of God to Abraham was that they should be a blessing to all peoples. They understood that within the Old Testament context of bringing people into the Jewish fold, as it were.

So when we look at this chapter we have to put ourselves in the place of the first century apostles and first century Christians, who even though they had some sort of theoretical understanding of reaching out to Gentiles that Christ had died for all, including Gentiles, it was still very strange for them. Even though Peter goes through these events in Acts chapter ten it is not long before the events in Galatians chapter one occur when he goes to Antioch and instead of going to dinner with the Gentiles and eating, for example, lobster and fried catfish for dinner he isolated himself and only ate with the Jews and stayed among the Jews. He sort of fell back into his former manner of life. It was the habit pattern and it was difficult for them to break. It was cultural and habitual, it wasn’t just a matter of a spiritual issue, and so they were having to learn this transition. What occurs here in Acts chapter ten is revolutionary from their perspective.

We look at the description of what takes place in chapter ten as God coordinates Hs revelation to Cornelius and to Peter. Here is a principle that is so important to understand. When God revealed anything in private in the Scriptures, to a prophet or anyone else, there is always external objective confirmatory evidence. You never have people saying “God appeared to me” and you just take their word for it. There is confirmation of it, a validation of the claim. There are qualifications given in the Old Testament for anyone who claimed to speak for God or who claimed to be a prophet. All of his predictions had to be one hundred per cent true. If it was not one hundred per cent true they faced the death penalty because they had misrepresented God and that would mislead people away from the truth. The visitations, whether they were a theophany where God appears to speak to an individual or whether it was a Christophany such as when Christ appeared to Paul in Acts chapter nine, or whether it was a dream or a vision, there is an objective aspect to it in that what is revealed can be validated or verified.

Here we have a situation where Cornelius has a very specifically described vision in terms of its time and the circumstances during the ninth hour, which is about the time of prayer, an angels calls to him and informs him that his prayers had been heard, and instructs him to send a delegation down to Joppa to find Simon Peter. Simon would then come back and they were to bring him back to Caesarea. That happened late in the afternoon and so they probably didn’t leave until the next day, and it would have taken most of that day to travel down to Caesarea.

Acts 10:9-10

Acts 10:9–10 NKJV

9 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance

Peter’s vision was timed to fit with the arrival of this delegation from the north. The sixth hour is about noon, and he is getting hungry. He falls into a trance. This is the Greek noun [ἔκστασις--EKSTASIS] from which we get our English word ecstasy. It does not describe the sort of out-of-body experience experienced in some kinds of meditation techniques; neither does it describe the ecstatic experience that mystic religions would induce by various artificial means. The pagan and human viewpoint thought is not the same kind of thing that happens when God reveals Himself in Scripture. Throughout Scripture, we see that the way God does things is always different from the way the world’s religions do things. So this is a term for simply having a vision, as opposed to a dream, because Peter would be wide awake and conscious during this part of the day.

The text makes the point that while he is in a state of advanced hunger, God lowers the sheet, which contains all manner of beasts, and God addresses him.

Acts 10:13

Acts 10:13 NASB “A voice came to him, ‘Get up, Peter, kill and eat!’”

Acts 10:13 NKJV

13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”

the word for “kill” is thuo [θύω--THUO], which is more frequently used to mean to make a sacrificial slaughter. It is not typically a word simply for butchering an animal to eat, so there is a particular ceremonial overtone to the word that God uses here. It reinforces that many of the beasts, animals, and birds on the tablecloth are identified as unclean in the Old Testament. And yet the word that God is using is a word that implies making a sacrifice; and yet, you would never sacrifice an unclean animal in the Old Testament. So, God is making a point that what is going on here is a significant shift in what God requires of His people. Under the Mosaic Law, there was a specific dietary requirement.

We frequently run into people today who are on various forms of diet, and there is always someone who comes along every few years and has a biblically based diet. They try to argue that the diet in the Mosaic Law is the healthiest of all diets and that if we only follow that diet, we would live longer, be healthier, and do all these other things. What they are assuming is that the diet that is there is given for health reasons. There may have been a health benefit or secondary consequence to the diet, but physical health benefits had nothing whatsoever to do with that diet. We know that because when we get to Acts chapter 10 here, God declares all of these animals to be clean. Nothing has happened agriculturally, biologically, ontologically, genetically, or culinarily to change anything. They have not suddenly learned to cook pork, so the meat is well done to kill off bacteria. It is a decree from God that it is now clean. Why? The lesson taught in the Old Testament through the diet was that sin impacted everything, and some animals are associated in some way with the curse and death, so animals were scavengers and unclean. That was the penalty for sin, so you didn’t eat catfish, lobsters, and shrimp because they feed off of carrion and what was on the bottom of the ocean, off the consequence of the penalty of sin. So there was to be this separation from sin, and anything touched or affected by sin. This is why a woman, after she gave birth, indeed not an immoral act, was considered ceremonially unclean for a specific period of time. It had nothing to do with the fact that it was unhealthy or any other factor. It was simply that part of the curse of Genesis 3 was that a woman would experience increased pain and suffering in childbirth. So, the act of childbirth has been impacted by the judgment of sin in Genesis 3, and people need to have a little visual aid to remind them of these things. The diet was the same thing. The animals considered to be unclean were unclean because, in some way, something about them, their eating habits, whatever they might be, were somehow affected related to the impact of sin.

So, Peter, as an observant Jew, is beginning to wake up to grace in the sense of realization of the dispensational distinctives—that the law is no longer in effect because he is living with Simon the Tanner. This man would be unclean every day until sunset because of his work. He is somewhat prepared for this, but it still comes as a surprise and a shock. We don’t always capture things right away when we learn them or are exposed to correct ideas, and it doesn’t mean we are slow or dense, it just means we are human, and we have to assess what we are learning and integrate it with what we have already learned and what is in our background. Peter is told to rise, kill, and eat.

Acts 10:14

Acts 10:14 NKJV

14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”

The word “unholy” there is the Greek noun koinos [κοινός—KOINOS] in the accusative singular feminine here, and it means that which is common, not in the pejorative sense but in what is just an everyday, ordinary contrast to that which was set apart to the service of God. That which was set apart to the service of God is distinguished from that which was common or for everyday use. This was true of eating utensils in the home; it was true of all of the utensils used in the Tabernacle or the temple; they were sanctified and set apart for the service of God. This is why the land of Israel is called the holy land. Holy doesn’t mean pure; holy means set apart. That is the only piece of real estate in the world that God has set apart for His use and for His people, and Israel will belong to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob for all eternity. That is why it is called the holy land. It is a special land because God has decreed that it is to be set apart for the Jewish people, for a temple, and for a place where, in the future, once again, all worship will be restored to Israel. All the nations will come to the Millennial temple and worship there. That is not true today. Jesus clarified to the woman at the well in John chapter four that there would be this period when people would not focus on one spot as the center of worship. We also know that there is a clear indication in Scripture that that is for a temporary period when the church is here during the church age, the present age.

Peter struggles with this concept of what is profane versus what is holy, set apart from God, and cleansed as opposed to unclean. God instructs him three times to eat, and then we are not told that he ate; we are told that the tablecloth with all these animals ascends to heaven. Peter is left there to contemplate and think about what he has just seen. The third scene in this episode describes the arrival of the delegation Cornelius sent.

Acts 10:17-19

Acts 10:17–19 NKJV

17 Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant, behold, the men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate. 18 And they called and asked whether Simon, whose surname was Peter, was lodging there. 19 While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are seeking you.

The point has been made that whenever God does something in private, He always has confirmatory evidence. Cornelius’ original vision was to send these men down to Joppa up in Caesarea. When they arrive, God gives a corollary vision to Peter, telling Peter that these men will arrive and they want Peter to go with them. So, there is confirmatory evidence on both sides. How the Spirit told him, we don’t know. Was it audible? Was it just inside of his head? We don’t know.

Acts 10:20-22

Acts 10:20–22 NKJV

20 Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them.” 21 Then Peter went down to the men who had been sent to him from Cornelius, and said, “Yes, I am he whom you seek. For what reason have you come?” 22 And they said, “Cornelius the centurion, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews, was divinely instructed by a holy angel to summon you to his house, and to hear words from you.”

Here, he uses the term dikaios [δίκαιος--DIKAIOS], which is the same term as for righteous or righteousness in Romans. Still, here, it doesn’t mean righteous in a divine sense, in the sense of imputed righteousness, because that would indicate that he was already saved. He is just in that he is living his life as much as possible in accordance with the stipulations of Judaism, a just life in relative human justice, and he fears God. Remember, fearing God is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 1:4).

Proverbs 1:4

Proverbs 1:4 NKJV

4 To give prudence to the simple, To the young man knowledge and discretion—

Fear of the Lord is a term that does not necessarily mean that a person is a believer yet. It expresses, though, and identifies his positive volition. Positive volition is a term used to describe the unbeliever’s (it can describe the believer, too) desire to know God, to know more about God. And because the unbeliever, through general revelation, through his conscience, has come to understand that there is something greater than himself, he wants to know more about that. So, God will give him more revelation, and this is what has happened with Cornelius. God is in the process of giving Cornelius that increased revelation so that he can come to the knowledge of the truth as he so desires.

Acts 10:22 NKJV

22 And they said, “Cornelius the centurion, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews, was divinely instructed by a holy angel to summon you to his house, and to hear words from you.”

He is well respected. He takes that which he has made and uses that to aid the poor among the Jews, and he has a great reputation.

Acts 10:22 NKJV

Acts 10:23

Acts 10:23 NKJV

23 Then he invited them in and lodged them. On the next day Peter went away with them, and some brethren from Joppa accompanied him.

So he has this group of observant Jews who are curious at this point because they are getting ready to go to the home of a Gentile, which they have never done. They have never been inside a Gentile’s house because that has been completely prohibited in the past.

Acts 10:24

Acts 10:24 NKJV

24 And the following day they entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them, and had called together his relatives and close friends.

Remember that we read in verse 2 that Cornelius was “a devout man and one who feared God with all his household.” So he brought all of his family and all of his servants together to hear what Peter had to say.

Acts 10:25

Acts 10:25 NKJV

25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him.

What Cornelius is doing isn’t an act of worship per se. This was a typical way in which a Roman would prostrate himself before someone of great respect, but it was not necessarily an act of worship towards God. The word for worship means to bow the knee or to bend down.

Acts 10:26

Acts 10:26 NKJV

26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”

This is an excellent verse for those who wish to affirm that those who have descended from Peter are the vicars of Christ and are due special honor and respect—speaking of the popes of the Roman Catholic Church who claim to have a direct lineage through apostolic descent from Peter. But Peter shows tremendous humility here and does not wish any special distinction or honor.

Acts 10:27-28

Acts 10:27–28 NKJV

27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many who had come together. 28 Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Peter began to talk to him, and everybody crowded around, wanting to hear what Peter and Cornelius were discussing. One of the things that Peter points out is that it is entirely out of line and unlawful for a Jewish man to come into the house to enjoy the hospitality of a Gentile. The term “foreigner” [NASB] is [ἀλλόφυλος--ALLOPHULOS] is a term for Gentiles or national ethnicities, and here it would be more clearly translated as “not to go into the home of someone who is a Gentile.”

Acts 10:28 NKJV

28 Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

He is using this in a technical, ritual sense because the Mosaic Law distinguished the Jews from everybody else. The Jews were hagios, set apart; they were not common. They were set apart to God, while the Gentiles were common in the sense that they were not set apart to God and had not been placed in a unique or distinct relationship with God with a distinct covenant. Only Israel has a specific covenant with God.

Acts 10:29

Acts 10:29 NKJV

29 Therefore I came without objection as soon as I was sent for. I ask, then, for what reason have you sent for me?”

Notice he is completely oriented to God’s authority, he follows God’s command.

Acts 10:30-31

Acts 10:30–31 NKJV

30 So Cornelius said, “Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, 31 and said, ‘Cornelius, your prayer has been heard, and your alms are remembered in the sight of God.

He describes his vision as the angel appeared to him and how the angel instructed him to send a delegation to reach Peter.

Notice that verses 30-32 are pretty much repetitive of what we found initially described in vv. 3-6.

When Peter goes back to the Gentiles in chapter eleven, vv. 1-16, he describes in detail what has already been covered in the last part of chapter ten. If we read through this and read the story as it happens, then we read the individuals involved and recount all the story’s details again. It is one of the most repetitive sections in Scripture.

We really should ask the question: Why does God repeat Himself so much in these two chapters?

Because, this is so foundational to the transition from Israel to the church and understanding its importance. We find no other event in all of Scripture with this degree of redundancy and repetitiveness. So, we should pay attention because there must be a reason that God the Holy Spirit wants us to realize how important this is.

Then we have the next scene.

Acts 10:34

Acts 10:34 NKJV

34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.

He is saying God has no favorites among men. He is not making a distinction in terms of salvation. There never was in the Old Testament. A number of Gentiles were saved in the Old Testament; there is nothing special about Gentile salvation. Ruth, the Moabitess, was a Gentile. Naaman, the Syrian General at the time of Elisha, became a believer, and the most outstanding example of God’s blessing to the Gentiles in the Old Testament is when God sent Jonah to the Assyrians to warn them that while they were so reprobate that there was always hope if there was spiritual change. Political change is just window dressing. If there is no cultural change, it is just a change of window dressing from one cosmic viewpoint to another.

What we have here is just the continued blessing to the Gentiles, but now it is on steroids; it expands out to the whole world.

Acts 10:35

Acts 10:35 NKJV

35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

This verse is a problem for some people because they think that this is stating that on the basis of works righteousness, someone is accepted by God. That ignores the context. The context is talking about a man with positive volition. Cornelius was described as a just man who feared God and had a good reputation. But he wasn’t saved yet. We know that because he hasn’t believed. It is clear that in verse 43, Peter is saying that there is only one way to have forgiveness of sins: by believing in Jesus, not by works of righteousness. But those who fear God and are trying to live for God before they are saved are expressing positive volition, and God will honor that and bring someone to them who will explain the gospel. In Acts chapter eleven, as Peter recounts this episode to the Jews back home, he says, v. 15:

Acts 11:15-17

Acts 11:15–17 NKJV

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”

What is the key verb?

They believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, Peter recounts the coming of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius and his family and indicates that this comes when they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. So, “believe” is still central to salvation.

Acts 10:35 doesn’t talk about justification and regeneration. Peter is just saying that in every generation, God has brought the gospel to those who want to know about him, those who are positive.

Acts 10:36

Acts 10:36 NKJV

36 The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all—

He is connecting this back to Israel and the prophecies related to the Messiah, but he doesn’t go into detail; he is not talking to Jews. If we go back to when Peter was talking to the Jews in Acts chapters two and three, we see that he goes into more detail; he cites Old Testament passages and talks about how Jesus fulfilled those prophecies specifically. But now he is talking to Gentiles who don’t have the frame of reference of Torah knowledge that a Jewish audience would have. So, he summarizes the information rather than quoting the verses and dealing with the details.

Acts 10:37

Acts 10:37 NKJV

37 that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached:

He assumes they know something about Jesus’s life because the word has spread all over for one reason or another during the previous six or seven years, but it has been about four or five years since the crucifixion.

Acts 10:38

Acts 10:38 NKJV

38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

He doesn’t go into the specifics of why, which are given in the Gospels, that this was part of the prophesied credentials for the Messiah that would give indication to the Jews as to who the Messiah was.

Acts 10:39

Acts 10:39 NKJV

39 And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree.

Luke connects this event to the mandate of Acts 1:8.

Acts 1:8

Acts 1:8 NKJV

8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

Acts 10:40

Acts 10:40 NKJV

40 Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly,

Notice that Peter describes many details here that aren’t necessary to believe to be saved. He describes everything related to Jesus and His death, burial, and resurrection; he does not give just a narrow gospel presentation. He talks about all the historical events that confirmed Jesus in terms of His person and His work, including the resurrection. He appeared to many people but didn’t appear to everybody; God was selective in who Jesus would appear to. God chose those who would be effective witnesses.

Acts 10:41

Acts 10:41 NKJV

41 not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.

This is saying that out of all the believers Jesus only appeared to a select few, and those God selected were those who would indeed carry their witness forward in terms of the Acts 1:8 mandate.

Acts 10:42

Acts 10:42 NKJV

42 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead.

NASB “And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify [διαμαρτύρομαι--DIAMARTUROMAI] that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead.”

John 5 tells us that the Father will delegate all judgment to Him.

Acts 10:43

Acts 10:43 NKJV

43 To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.”

That is the narrow gospel presentation. The instant a person believes—no invitation to walk the aisle, invite Jesus into your life, etc.- the people listening to him are saying in their minds, “This is true.” So instantly, there is a reaction.

Acts 10:44-45

Acts 10:44–45 NKJV

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

The Jews there who were listening were amazed that the same thing that had happened to them at Pentecost was now happening in front of them, and the Holy Spirit was coming upon these Gentiles. The word “pouring out” is also used in 1 Corinthians 12 to describe baptism by the Holy Spirit, which connects these events. This is the same as what happens to any person now at the instant they trust in Christ. The reason there is a delayed reaction here with these Gentiles is that it is a transition period. In Acts, each different ethnic group is being brought into the body of Christ through the baptism by the Holy Spirit in the presence of an apostle, showing the apostolic foundation and unity of the church.

Acts 10:46

Acts 10:46 NKJV

46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul, the purpose of tongues is to be a sign of judgment upon the Jews. This goes back to Isaiah chapter twenty-eight, talking about the fact that a sign of judgment on Israel would be that they would hear Gentile languages in the temple. Many people get confused and think that tongues were for evangelism. It never says that. It is not for evangelism here; they are already saved because of Peter’s evangelistic message. It wasn’t for evangelism on the day of Pentecost because there it says they described the miraculous works of God. There are always people who say that would include the gospel. Well, it is a generic term. Every generic general phrase will include the gospel if you want to push it like that, but that is inane! The only purpose the Scripture says for tongues is a sign of judgment. Why? Let’s think biblically. God restricted His work to Jews from Genesis chapter twelve on. That means God is giving His revelation through the Jewish language, through the Jewish people, because they are the people He has determined to work with. But what happens when they reject the Messiah? They are going to come under divine discipline. And so God as a sign or warning of judgment is that they are going to start hearing the message of God in a non-Jewish language. They are going to hear it in a Gentile language. That is the sign that God is not working directly through them anymore. That is the whole point. It is not what they said; it is that it was said in a Gentile language. Because that is an indication that there is a shift away from God’s focus on Israel and blessing the world through the Jews. He is shifting to the church.

So, the focus of these passages is never on what they say. Both here and in Acts chapter two, it uses the most general phrase possible: they just praised God; they spoke of the wonderful works of God. If the Holy Spirit had wanted us to read and say they were witnessing, He would have said that. He is very good at being precise when He needs to be precise, but when He doesn’t want us to narrow the focus, He uses more generic terminology because this goes to the very purpose of tongues. Now Gentiles are speaking in tongues (Gentile languages), there are Jews present, and so this astonishes them, and within 48 hours, this is going to be traveling all over Israel. God is giving this revelation through Gentiles, not Jews. Those who had a clue as to what was going on would understand that this was a fulfillment of the Isaiah 28 prophecy, an indication of judgment.

Peter answers. Notice he doesn’t wait and says to wait until everybody really gets it clear.

Acts 10:47

Acts 10:47 NKJV

47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

Receiving the Holy Spirit resulted from something else—belief in Christ. Because they believed in Christ, they should be baptized immediately, and so they were. They are baptized in the name of the Lord. The language goes right back to Matthew 28:19, 20.

Matthew 28:19-20

Matthew 28:19–20 NKJV

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Acts 10:48

Acts 10:48 NKJV

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

Then, in the next chapter, we see that Peter goes back to Judea and has to explain himself when he gets home.

Earn an accredited degree from Redemption Seminary with Logos.