Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Is the New Covenant Made Only With Israel?

The UMJC now promotes the teaching that Gentiles have no part in the New Covenant, that it was offered only to Jews.  But if the New Covenant is literally in His blood (1 Cor. 11:25) and one must have His blood to live and abide in Him (John 6:53-57), then where does the UMJC's proposition leave Gentiles?

The truth is that the UMJC has gone over to Satan and we must repudiate them as they have repudiated the Gospel.  The same is also true of First Fruits of Zion for this teaching is being taught by one of their very own teachers.

May all the Messianics out there rise up now to defend the Gospel of our L-rd and Savior, Yeshua the Messiah!

“53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me,” John 6:53-57 
 “25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me,” 1 Cor. 11:25 
 “13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ,” Ephesians 2:13


  1. In my opinion, saying they have gone over to Satan is too extreme... I still consider them brothers in the Messiah, but I definitely disagree with their doctrines and theological point of view. Their view does not sway or convince me... but they still seek the same Lord, despite being in error. I don't have the experiences you had with the UMJC, so I know that effects your opinion, but I still don't think that is a balanced accusation... just saying.

  2. What kind of brother or sister says "You have no part in the New Covenant"???

    I don't think they get together and say "Hey, let's be friends with Satan!" But when they preach against the Gospel then what else can we conclude, Zion?

  3. "
    Is the New Covenant Made Only With Israel?"

    And with Judah. I sent you a private e-mail on the subject. you are reading your agenda into Scripture. Yeshua said these things to Jews. get a hold of yourself.

  4. They don't teach against the Gospels. you do.

  5. What am I teaching against the Gospel?

  6. 1 Corinthians was written to both Jews and Gentiles as was Ephesians.

  7. So Paul certainly thought the New Covenant applied to Gentiles. Paul believed that (1) the New Covenant was in Yeshua's blood and that (2) both Jews and Gentiles were offered this blood.

    And you ask me in private email where is my evidence? How about the verses above? 1 Corinthians 11:25 and Ephesians 2:13 for a start.

    There's no way around the fact that Yeshua's blood IS the New Covenant.

  8. Peter, you are erring in thinking that the conclusions Paul draws in his Epistles are part of the Gospels. When the NC was prophecied in Jer. 31 there was no mention of Gentiles. It says: the House of Judah and house of Israel, it does not say: and for those who are grafted in.

  9. "So Paul certainly thought the New Covenant applied to Gentiles. Paul believed that (1) the New Covenant was in Yeshua's blood and that (2) both Jews and Gentiles were offered this blood."

    This is wishful thinking. where it true, then Paul did not have to write Romans 11.

    The UMJC does not dispute that Yeshua's blood is the NC, this you are reading into the text.

  10. Dan,

    (NOTE: I'm creating a new comment so that the thread will be in sequence)

    It doesn't matter whatsoever that Gentiles are not mentioned in Jer. 31 because they are mentioned elsewhere in passages that pertain to the New Covenant. For example, one of the key features of the New Covenant is that the Ruach will be poured out on all flesh and we see this in the following passage:

    "And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions," Joel 2:28

    Peter the Apostles cites TO THIS VERY VERSE at Pentecost. And THEN he later when he sees the Spirit poured out on Gentiles he says the following:

    ""As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning," Acts 11:15

    It's actually all throughout the Prophets that the New Covenant would be offered to Gentiles. And we see Peter and Paul realizing this in Acts and communicating this message throughout their epistles.

  11. Dan,

    Are you actually saying that Yeshua's blood was offered only for Jews???

  12. These comments are hopelessly out of sequence. I really need to change the commenting software...

  13. ""For the New Covenant was made with the house of Judah and the house of Israel, not the people of the nations, and it is only by coming alongside Israel rather than replacing her or co-opting her unique relationship with God, that we can enjoy blessings of the covenants God made with the Jewish people."

    This is what James wrote and you disputed that. I called you on that and asked you to show me one place in Scriptures where it says that the NC is offered to the Gentiles. You have yet to do that. Gentiles are in because of the Abrahamic Covenant. (Gen. 12:3). The Gentiles are blessed through Israel, they don't take over. You need to drop this 2 house thing from your mind.

  14. Dan,

    See the new post entitled "Question for Dan." I'll copy/paste this most recent comment of yours to that new post.

  15. Well this is a technicality, but gentiles do not have access to the New Covenant, only through Messiah do gentiles have access. The scripture is clear that it is only made with Israel and Judah... Which is the whole reason of needing to be grafted in... Being in Messiah gives us access which we otherwise would not have... it is a technicality, but its reality.

    What the UMJC is saying, is that gentiles are not party to the covenant, not even in Messiah, in fact, they view "grafting in" and being "part of the commonwealth of Israel" as purely metaphor, having no realistic implications, which makes their argument so irrational, however it lines up with Judaism very well, it means Yeshua has had no impact on gentiles before or after his coming, effectively making His purpose towards gentiles worthless, which uplifts the Noachide argument very well. Do the 7 go to heaven, no need for Yeshua...

    Another part of their argument, is that gentiles who trust in Yeshua, get a few benefits of the covenant without being party and none of the responsibilities, which sounds nice, but is unrealistic... James shares this view, he has referenced gentiles and himself as the dogs at the end of the table, hes of no real value, he is only fed crumbs from the table... and he points to the metaphor of the woman in the Gospels for his example of gentiles place... The UMJC holds to this view as well.

    So while gentiles get to partake of the table, they never are fully part. Their argument then becomes, "gentiles should be humble and appreciate that they even get the crumbs", but this misses the entire point, a point they simply do not see.

  16. Zion,

    Re: "gentiles do not have access to the New Covenant, only through Messiah do gentiles have access."

    We're in complete agreement! Gentiles are members of the New Covenant; but they disagree and say that Gentiles are NOT members of the New Covenant.