Talk:New Covenant

Disambiguation needed

Biblical use and US political use probably need disambiguation. dab (ᛏ) 12:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

See New Covenant (disambiguation).    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 08:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Jewish(?) View

Who had(has?) this view? This is what was writen by a rabbi or was a view that a pastor said in a church that was a jewish one?

Asher Sasson

Asher has a very valid point. I took the time to look at the section entitled "3.1 Different Views on the Covenant Recipients", and... wow. It's hard to know where to start.

The section starts by saying that the main difference between Jews and non-Jews when it comes to the idea of the phrase "new covenant" revolves around different definitions of "the nature of Israel". This is a pure invention on the part of whoever wrote it. It continues by saying that the Jewish view of Israel is those descended from Jacob. This is patently untrue, as Judaism views the nation of Israel as coming into being with the Revelation at Sinai. Up until this point, every individual descendent of Abraham (or Isaac or Jacob) had to take commitment to God upon himself willingly, and was to all intents and purposes a convert. Thus Isaac opted in and Ishmael opted out. Jacob opted in and Esau opted out. Those descended from Jacob who didn't stay part of the tribe in Israel simply opted out. It wasn't until the Revelation that God transformed us into a nation, so that we are born Jewish. This is the traditional Jewish view of the matter, and stands in clear contradiction to the strange ideas put forth in the article.

As a side point, the section says that Jacob wrestled with "an unknown wrestler". Jewish tradition says he wrestled with an angel. What particular axe the author was trying to grind, I couldn't even guess, but it was odd.

The section attempted to imply that converts are not considered real Jews, and that it is only in the future that they will be considered as such: "the prophets speak of the time as coming when the proselytes shall share in all the privileges of Israel". This is simply untrue. A convert is a Jew, period.

Even the part of the section stating the Christian view of who Israel is was strange. In the first place, the entire section was extraneous, at least as it appeared, because it was predicated on the thesis of the section, which is that a difference of opinion as to who Israel is was at the root of the difference regarding the term "new covenant". Since that's untrue, even the Christian part of that subsection makes little sense.

But beyond that, it contained the following sentence: "The New Covenant is not like the covenant made with Abraham which Israel broke." Had it said "which Christians claim that Israel broke", that might have been acceptable. As it stands, however, it is pure POV. And offensive, to boot.

I have replaced that section with a shorter, but more cogent, explanation. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Jeremiah 31:32 the New Covenant is unlike the covenant out of Egypt Israel broke, it doesn't mention the covenant with Abraham. So both statements here are inaccurate. And it is true that a primary concept of the Christian NC is that Israel are those who accept the NC as offered by Christ, including Gentiles grafted into Israel. The Gentile "grafting" is also referenced in Jeremiah 31:27 but it is not really a concept taught in Judaism. I don't think the sections need to be gutted as such but they still need some work. -Bikinibomb (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Also a big piece of the NT New Covenant puzzle is missing which I'll also be adding soon. In NT Hebrews the covenant with Levi priesthood jumps back to Melchizedek who ministered to Abraham, Messiah is a Melchizedek priest (Psalms 110:4, Ezekiel 45:17) who makes atonement not only for Jews but also for Gentiles which Abraham was. This helps answer the common Jewish question of why in Christianity Messiah is not just a king but also a priest who makes atonement for Gentiles as well as Jews. -Bikinibomb (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As Asher Sasson pointed out in his original (undated) comment, the putative "Jewish view" in this section is no Jewish view at all. At best, it might be the view that some Christians attribute to Jews.

Bottom line, Jews do not read the phrase "new covenant" as meaning the same thing Christians do, and the identity of who the Abrahamic or Sinaitic covenants apply to has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Consider. If a new television station starts broadcasting, it's a new station. It may be similar to older stations or it may not. But it is something new. That's one meaning of the word. If a breakfast cereal comes out with a "new and improved" product, generally it's the same product as before. That's another meaning. And that's really the difference between Jewish and Christian takes on "new covenant". To Jews, it means that Jews will have a renewed commitment. To Christians, it means there will be a covenant that didn't previously exist.

If someone wants to write about Christian beliefs pertaining to who covenants are made with, that's fine. But it doesn't belong in a section purporting to state the difference between what Jews and Christians think about the phrase "new covenant". -LisaLiel (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand, if differences about who the NC is made with don't belong in the differences section where else would it go? Anyway...most of the learned here probably understand that the primary differences between views of the NC is that Jews believe it is a renewal for Jews only not administered by Jesus, Christians believe it is a new type of covenant for both Jews and Gentiles administered by Jesus. That's it in a nutshell, however it is explained doesn't matter. When I get around to making contributions after vacation that's about what will be stated. -Bikinibomb (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's what "most of the learned here" think, then they are mistaken. It isn't a question of who it is for. It's a question, first and foremost, of what it is. Is it a renewal, or something new? Jews think the former. Christians think the latter. Jews think that there's no difference whatsoever in content. Christians think otherwise. The question of who it will apply to... well, we don't even get to that question, because it's moot.

To make it as clear as possible, Jews can't even ask the question of who the "new covenant" applies to, because that question implies that the "new covenant" is in some way different from their current covenant with God. Attributing a view to Jews about who it applies to requires misrepresenting the Jewish view of what it is. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is a question of who the NC is for, that's one of the major differences between views of what the NC is. Christians believe it is for Jews and Gentiles who accept Christ, Jews believe it is for Jews only because it is a renewal of the Jews-only covenant they had before. When I get around to actually contributing in this article and providing sources for both there's not going to be any misrepresentation.

I mean, you can add sources for the position you stated too, that some Jews can't answer the question of who the NC is for, though I'm not sure it really adds anything or can sincerely exist with the clear position of many Jews that it's not coming by way of Jesus for Christians only, no one has to be very "learned" to know that to be fact. -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Bikinibomb, no. When discussing the nature of a thing, first you determine what it is. Only after that is it relevant to determine its relations to others. For example, if we were to try and determine whether the vehicle outside my house is my car or your bicycle, it would be appropriate first to determine whether it's a car or a bicycle. Only after that would it make sense to say whose it is. Because if it's a bicycle... well, then, I don't even care whose it is. I don't own a bicycle, so I have no dog in that fight.

The first question that needs to be asked about the term "new covenant" is "what is it?" Not "who is it for?" If you think there's such a thing as a "new covenant", and that it is a new thing, and that pertains to non-Jews, that's fine. Jews won't dispute that at all. Because once you get to it being a new thing, Jews are already not on the same page with you. Jews can't disagree with you about who this new thing is about, because Jews don't recognize the existence of a "new covenant" which is a new thing in the first place. Capische?

It is only if you start with Christian theology, which identifies the "new covenant" as a new thing, that you can then ask who this new thing is for. It isn't fair or accurate to attribute that position to Jews. -LisaLiel (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, I don't really understand your point or where you get the "rule" that what it is and who it's for need to be discussed in any particular order. Someone could leave a wrapped present in your driveway and in that case you'd want to know whose it was before you unwrapped it to see what it was. Primarily with the NC of Jeremiah Jews believe it is a renewal just for Jews, Christians believe it is a new deal delivered by Jesus for anyone who wants it, that much is common knowledge to anyone with a remote understanding of theology so I don't know what the argument is about. And I'll leave it at that. -Bikinibomb (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would like to try this approach. Lisa, welcome to the article, I hope you can make some contributions, however, I think right now you need to calm down a bit and consider first what you are writing. For example, you claim above: "Jews don't recognize the existence of a "new covenant" which is a new thing in the first place. Capische?". Of course Jews recognize the existence of a "new covenant", they have to because it's in the Masoretic Text: Jer 31:30. The debate is not whether or not the phrase is valid in Judaism and Christianity, it is valid in both; the debate is over the interpretation. 75.0.8.164 (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Calm down"? <grin> I'm sorry if I've given you the impression that I'm not calm, or something. In any event, Jews don't read the Masoretic text the way you apparently do. Perhaps Karaites, or other sects which are purely text-based, might do so, but this is not how Judaism reads that passage. If you want to attribute to Jews and Judaism a belief that God said He is going to make a new covenant, you're going to have to substantiate that claim. And you can't do it here, because that'd be original research. You're going to have to cite Jewish sources. And you won't find any, because that is not the Jewish view.

I think the problem here is that some people may have an ideological need to attribute certain views to Jews which don't actually exist. Wikipedia is not the place to do that. You can create a website or a blog and make all the claims about Jewish belief that you might like to. It's a free Internet. But Wikipedia is about fact, and the article as it stood was misstating the facts. Moreover, it seems to me that it was doing so for ideological reasons.

Furthermore, even if we were to suppose -- incorrectly -- that Jews accept the Christian concept that God is going to make a brand new covenant -- with anyone --, the text of the section I replaced was rife with errors about what Judaism and Jews consider to be the identity of Israel. For one thing, Israel, as a nation, begins not with Jacob the patriarch, but with the revelation at Sinai. Instead of me repeating all of the problems with the former section, I suggest you start at the top of this section and read what I wrote up there. It was inaccurate material in any case. The only reason I'm not just fixing all of the many errors in it is that the premise of the subsection was wrong from the get-go. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Most Jews I know and have read believe it is just a renewal of Torah written into their hearts so I have no problem with stating that as the Jewish view, and if you don't want to say Jews believe Jeremiah which says it is a New Covenant, leave it out since it will be addressed as a difference in the Christian view anyway.

However Jewish view as it differs from the Christian one also needs to say Jews believe the New Covenant of Jeremiah is just for Jews, not Gentiles too. That seems to be the point of contention here, who it's for, though I don't understand why. If Torah is just for Jews and NC is no more than a renewal of that, who else could Jews think the NC is for, space aliens? So I'm entirely lost on the desire to avoid stating that difference. -Bikinibomb (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The replacement text that I had did say that Christians view the "new covenant" as applying to all people, and not just Jews. So this information was already provided. But I've added a little to the Jewish section in order to make it as blatantly clear as possible.

I don't have any problem with anyone editing the Christian half of that subsection. But I think the Jewish half should state the Jewish view, and not the Christian view of the Jewish view. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's clearer. A few things I would add for the Jewish view is who implements it and how does it come about if not through Jesus, still Moshiach? When will it happen? What happens to atheist Jews, are they included in the NC and will they be automatically converted over to belief when Torah is written in their hearts? If it is just a renewal of the same Torah and everyone follows it thus becoming sinless, what happens to annual sin sacrifices and atonement, if they are no longer needed does that have any impact on status as a renewed covenant versus a brand new one? There are still a lot of questions to be answered for both views, chabad.org and torah.org are two sources that may help. Like I said I'll be delving into actual editing after vacation. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not important to Jewish theology. It's not a separate thing that needs to be implemented. It's just something that will happen at some point. Will there be a big, grass-roots movement to return to better observance? Maybe. Will there be a leader like the Messiah (and Jews would not consider JC a candidate for that position under any circumstances) who convinces people to return? Could be. Will God wave His figurative hand and make all Jews change their minds from one moment to the next? Highly doubtful, as that would go against the whole idea of free will, which is very important in Jewish thought.

As far as sacrifices are concerned, Judaism sees sins as being categorizable in a number of ways. One of these ways is level of intent. There are three categories in this case: meizid (or zadon), shogeg (or 'shegaga') and oness (or anoos). A sin committed by meizid is one done with full intent. A sin committed by shogog is one done without intent, but where the individual could have avoided it had he been more careful. It can be seen as a form of negligence. And oness means completely by accident, where no culpability pertains.

Sacrifices are brought for the first two categories, but not for the third. And even if no one ever makes another meizid transgression, shogog is still something that's liable to happen. Human beings aren't angels, after all. Mistakes happen.

Jewish sources reject the idea that any of the laws will be different in the messianic era. While Jews may not have a clear picture of that period of time, that's not considered to be a problem. We'll all find out eventually. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The nature of the Covenant

Hello, I am a student with Miami University and am enrolled in a Hebrew bible class.

Biblical laws are set forth and considered "oath's." These oaths have a standing in scripture similar to what laws hold to modern society. He mentions that oaths are known in many other cultures and even other languages meaning most understand the complexity of this concept. The history of the covenant and oath go back a long time to before Babylonia and Assyria. The international covenants can be linked with the Hittite empire and some religious material using three specific facts. The first is that the Hittite empire did not discover the covenant but merely got it from mesoptamian sources. The second was the people of Syria were made by the covenants and that there was a similar form used for the treaty with Egypt. The last was that other ideas linking between the Hittite empire and religious material have already been discovered.Adrugby (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Adrugby, hi. Did you look at the content of this New Covenant article? This isn't suitable for our course, is it? ProfGray (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

References

False statements about Jews and Proselytes

I have removed the following:

"Because of the debated status of proselytes in Judaism, it is a different question to ask about the nature of Israel (the question at hand) than to ask "Who is a Jew?" Someone can be considered a proselyte Jew, and not be considered a part of the nation of Israel. Indeed, this is a common view of proselytes."

Perhaps some Christians may believe this to be the case, but it is not. Lisa Liel 13:36, 30 January 2007 (CST)

I could say, perhaps you believe it not to be, but yet it is? Qualify your assertions please. Zombie81 21:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This topic is probably too complicated and too controversial for wikipedia. There are two kinds of Proselyte, the Ger tzedek and the Ger toshav. The Ger tzedek is a convert to Judaism and is considered a Jew. The Ger toshav is the gate proselyte and it is debated whether or not such is a Jew, or perhaps that such will be true in the future but not yet currently. A good overview is here: [1]. 75.0.8.164 (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's an awful overview. It isn't true that the term ger and the term nokhri are equivalent. A nokhri is always a non-Jew. No exceptions. Whereas a ger tzedek or unqualified ger is a convert. A ger toshav is also always a non-Jew. Again, no exceptions. There are no Jewish opinions whatsoever in traditional Judaism that suggest a ger toshav is now or ever will be considered a Jew. A ger toshav could convert, becoming a ger tzedek, but without that, he remains a non-Jew.

If you want a good overview, I suggest you look at the Ger Toshav and Conversion to Judaism articles here on Wikipedia. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not citeable as Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, on the other hand, the Jewish Encyclopedia, which you above call an "awful overview" (your opinion) is a Wikipedia:Reliable source. 75.15.192.126 (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that the Jewish Encyclopedia is necessarily, in all cases, awful. I said that article is. It makes several demonstrably false statements, some of which were being cited on this page. I offered the Wikipedia entries not as source material to be used on Wikipedia, but for their informational value, because they happen to be correct. -LisaLiel (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation (External Links)

There are no external links to alternative points of view regarding the New Covenant. There are two Christian links, and a Jewish link, but no Messianic links - who are neither Jewish nor Christian. I have placed an external Messianic link in addition to the other three for fairness and perspective. Yahshammah 22:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Jewish vs. Judaism

Throughout, the article is biased in referring to some concepts as Jewish and others as Christian. It is more accurate to say that some concepts are more widely held in Judaism and others in Christianity, since both the Tanach and NT are purported to be of Jewish origin within the texts, thus making them both "Jewish views" in that regard. Additionally it is biased against Messianic Jews who accept the NT, regardless if some POVs do not consider them to be real Jews (that can be explained here or addressed elsewhere, it's not an immediate concern to me). Therefore I'll be considering some corrections to the wording here which won't attempt to categorize texts as either Jewish or non-Jewish, but rather geared more to either Christianity or Judaism, the latter still not being quite as fair to Messianics who call their practices "Judaism" but somewhat better than excluding their Jewishness entirely from stated positions. An even more neutral solution than this would be ideal. -Bikinibomb (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Words mean what they mean. Someone can't get up and say, "I hold by a form of Judaism that says Muhammed was a prophet of God and that the Qur'an is what God originally gave the Jews before they corrupted it -- I call it Islamic Judaism". Or rather, they can, but I'd hope they'd be laughed at. Attempts to win arguments by redefining terms are nothing new in the world; Christianity is based on such techniques. But pretending that so-called "Messianic Jews" have anything to do with Judaism is dishonest.

While I may tend to agree regarding Christians who act like they are Jews in order to win Jewish converts, there are Jews -- those with orthodox conversions or born to Jewish mothers -- who practice Judaism yet with belief in Jesus as Messiah. But my personal opinion is neither here nor there, the issue is that a Wikipedia article such as this covering general subject matter requires NPOV. You would still of course be free to relate your views in Who is a Jew? or other pertinent article dealing with those issues. -Bikinibomb (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I would maintain that accepting the claim of a Christian sect to be practicing a form of Judaism is itself POV. There are Jews who are atheists (far more than Jews who believe in JC, I expect), but to claim that they "practice Judaism yet with a belief that there is no God" is rhetoric at best. Not everything a Jew does is "Judaism". The burden of proof falls first and foremost on anyone claiming that something which has been deemed as antithetical to Judaism from time immemorial is "Judaism". They cannot merely make the claim and then say that anyone disputing their claim is being POV. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's necessarily not the wiki editor making the claim that Messianics are really Jews or not, but rather reporting what they as a notable religious group say they are, as well as what their critics say they are, and not structuring an article to make a general implication one way or the other. Take for example Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity). It doesn't matter if "I" think he is a "good" or "real" entertainer or not, it matters that he has gained notability as an entertainer, so then as a contributor I should go on to report good, bad, or indifferent views of others -- not my own views -- in an article about him. That's NPOV and NOR. -Bikinibomb (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Mormonism New Covenants

Fellowships of the remnants Year of 2019

Based on Joseph Smith’s last personally-updated 1840 version, with revisions per Denver Snuffer Jr. Distributed jointly with the New Testament, in a volume called the "New Covenants". Link: link Doremon764 (talk) 04:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

References