|
And the King said: My son did you see how I nudged you from one scripture to another until you found the truth? Like wise, anyone that comes to me with a teachable heart I will help them to find the truth.
And I said: But my King, you didn’t answer my question, did you twist the scriptures?
And the King said: Now my son, twisting is a mighty strong word, I wouldn’t call it twisting; I would rather say I did this play-on-words thing. You see covenant and agreement means the same thing. Sometimes covenant flows better in a sentence than agreement does, and vice versa. Let me show you what I mean, look at verse seven, it says, “for if that first covenant had been faultless...” You did notice that the word covenant is in italics that meant we added it to the verse. Now change the word covenant to the word “agreement” and it would read like this, “If that first “agreement” had been faultless…” What agreement, you say?
Let’s look at the verse again, this time replace the word covenant with the word “priesthood.”
“For if that first “priesthood” had been faultless…”
Do you see it now, the scriptures are “not” speaking of a first covenant or a New Covenant, but are referring to two different priesthoods, the first priesthood, which serviced in the “Earthly temple” and the New Priesthood, which serves in the Heavenly temple.
Here in a nut-shell is what we meant by a “New agreement,” “New Testament,” or “New Covenant.” God agreed to take the priesthood away from the Levites and gave it to Christ, a better priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.
And I said: But my Lord, there are several verses in your translation that said plain, “New Testament,” are you saying we should read it as New Agreement or New Priesthood?
And the King said: My son, go to Matthew 26:28, and Hebrews 9:15 in your Greek English Interlinear, tell me, how do you read?
|
