Why Sunday

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Where did Paul EXPLAIN this interpretation?

You misunderstood my point. I meant to say that when Paul wrote ...

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

...he was explaining that when a Covenant is compared to another covenant that is NEW, that first covenant is then immiedately considered to be OLD. What else can it be if it's compared to a NEW COVENANT? When you talk to someobody about any given object, and explain that you are getting a NEW one, then that object first referenced is automatically considered to be OLD. And when people from that point on consider it to be old, they know it's soon going to be gone.

Likewise, when Jeremiah wrote that a new covenant was coming, all of his readers at THAT MOMENT of reading understood the Covenant from Sinai as an OLD one, and one that would soon be gone. When would it be gone? When the NEW one arrived.

Like this explaination:


JAMIESON,FAUSSET AND BROWN

made ... old — “hath (at the time of speaking the prophecy) antiquated the first covenant.” From the time of God’s mention of a NEW covenant (since God’s words are all realities) the first covenant might be regarded as ever dwindling away, until its complete abolition on the actual introduction of the Gospel. Both covenants cannot exist side by side. Mark how verbal inspiration is proved in Paul’s argument turning wholly on the one word “NEW” (covenant), occurring but once in the Old Testament.

that which decayeth — Greek, “that which is being antiquated,” namely, at the time when Jeremiah spake. For in Paul’s time, according to his view, the new had absolutely set aside the old covenant. The Greek for (Kaine) New (Testament) implies that it is of a different kind and supersedes the old: not merely recent (Greek, “nea”). Compare Hos 3:4, Hos 3:5.