Prophecy Biblical

Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?

Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?

Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?

Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?

Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? 

Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?  Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again.

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9Not 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 continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? 

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9Not 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 continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Ezequiel 4:18, Hebreus 9:12, Apocalipse 22:10.

Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? 

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9Not 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 continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense? 

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9Not 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 continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Why would "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (the new covenant) replace the faulty first (old) covenant only to revert back to the faulty old covenant again? That simply makes no sense whatsoever. Plus, it says the first covenant was made old/obsolete and it has vanished away. Only to be brought back again? How can that possibly make any sense?

1. JESUS OF BETHLEHEM, GOD'S CHOSEN PERSON

David Chilton
The Restoration of Israel - "In His sovereign grace God has chosen to save some out of Israel, even as He has condemned Israel as a whole, so that "Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were hardened" in their unbelief, like the ungodly Pharaoh of Egypt (v. 7; cf. 9:14-18). For the majority of ethnic Israel, "God has given them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, to this very day" (v. 8; cf Acts 28:25-28). Upon those excommunicated from the covenant will come the curses of the Old Testament: "Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a recompense to them; let their eyes be darkened that they may not see, and bend their backs forever" (v. 9-10). Nevertheless, God still had His elect among ethnic Israel. Like Paul, they would be saved. God's rejection of Israel was not total."
 
Holman Bible Dictionary
THE NEW COVENANT CHURCH IS THE TRUE ISRAEL  - "Christ claimed His servant-messiahship, for He is the Son of David, fulfilling the promise of God in the Old Testament. Jesus is the King but rejected every political interpretation of His messianic vocation. His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). "

Philip Mauro
The Hope Of Israel, What Is It? - "There are certain Prophetic passages in the Old Testament, which, apart from the light afforded by the New, might be taken as relating to "Israel after the flesh," and as foretelling the restoration, at some future day, of their national greatness. The erroneous doctrine of the teachers of Israel was based upon an unspiritual interpretation of their own Scriptures; for "they know not the voices of their prophets which were read every sabbath day."

Guido Deimel
Judaism and Jewish Apologetics   - "In view of the fact that in most of history the Jewish people and Jews have been severely persecuted and harassed, first and foremost by Christians and persons raised as Christians – who often justified their actions with the same Bible revered by their victims –, it is almost surprising how much Jewish apologetics resemble those promoted by Christian theologians."

James B. Jordan
The Future of Israel Re-examined   - "Just as the fullness of the Gentiles eventually led to the fullness of Israel, so the fullness of faithful Churches today can and will lead to the fullness of unfaithful liberal and dead orthodox Christian communities."

Samuel Lee
"I have but just returned from the morning service at the Cathedral, where I had much comfort in delivering a sermon on the Divinity of our Lord, showing that He was the Jehovah of the Mosaic and patriarchal dispensations incarnate. This consideration I find a most edifying and instructive one; it seems to open to me the doctrines of the prophetic Scriptures in a most encouraging point of view, and to ascribe positively to Christ all that has been said in the Psalms and Prophets of the right, etc., of the Lord, i.e., of Jehovah. I think my next must be an expansion of this consideration to show how intimately the doctrines of Scripture are connected with the true interpretation of prophecy. I have occasionally mentioned this to you generally. I now feel more particularly its value; and, as it will enable me to throw an immense amount of light on the Old Testament, and hence make the reading of it very profitable, and connect it closely with the New Testament, I cannot help thinking the endeavour will have great good both with myself and others, especially as it will have the effect of dispelling some of the Jewish--may I not say Egyptian--darkness under which it labours with the many. I got leave yesterday for *[ * Pupil at Blind Asylum.] Miss W. to come to the Cathedral today. She was "much gratified" and hopes to come again. So it always is with the things or persons we love; we no sooner have the pleasure of seeing them but we want to see them again. Well, I suppose I must ask leave again for her. The housekeeper at the asylum (for the blind) spoke very highly of her, particularly as exerting a very good influence upon those about her. This "liked me much." . . . Just returned from church. Mr C. preached a very good and really evangelical sermon. Some parts of it were echoes of mine this morning.' " ('41 PARK STREET, BRISTOL,  'Aug. 31, 1851.)