The Sanctification of Samuel Brengle

The following is courtesy of Rev. Duane Maxey and Holiness Data Ministries:

SAMUEL LOGAN BRENGLE
(Salvation Army Commissioner)

In seeking to be sanctified wholly, Samuel Logan Brengle saw the contrast between himself in his carnal condition and the Lord in His immaculate purity:

"I saw the humility of Jesus, and my pride; the meekness of Jesus, and my temper; the lowliness of Jesus, and my ambition; the purity of Jesus, and my unclean heart; the faithfulness of Jesus, and the deceitfulness of my heart; the unselfishness of Jesus, and my selfishness; the trust and faith of Jesus, and my doubts and unbelief; the holiness of Jesus, and my unholiness. I got my eyes off every body but Jesus and myself, and I came to loathe myself."

Brengle had to die to his carnal ambition to be a great, eloquent preacher, a powerful orator. He was Divinely humbled before he was Divinely empowered: "I was willing to appear a big blunder and a complete failure if only He would cleanse me and dwell in me!"

When the humbling process was complete, the Spirit applied First John 1:9 to his heart: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." He became personally conscious of being cleansed from all unrighteousness, and the Divinely wrought change registered noticeably on his countenance. Twenty minutes after this personal experience, a fellow student looked upon him and remarked: ""Sam what is the matter? You look so different!" Two mornings later, the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ filled and flooded his soul:

"I awoke that morning hungering and thirsting just to live this life of fellowship with God, never again to sin in thought or word or deed against Him, with an unmeasurable desire to be a holy man, acceptable unto God. Getting out of bed about six o'clock with that desire, I opened my Bible and, while reading some of the words of Jesus, He gave me such a blessing as I never had dreamed a man could have this side of heaven. It was an unutterable revelation. It was a heaven of love that came into my heart. My soul melted like wax before fire. I sobbed and sobbed. I loathed myself that I had ever sinned against Him or doubted Him or lived for myself and not for His glory. Every ambition for self was now gone. The pure flame of love burned it like a blazing fire would burn a moth."

Believers today need an experience of personal holiness. I am involved with several churches and Bible studies. Excuses for sin abounds in some of these groups. People try to justify their sin by diminishing it in the eyes of God. They cry, "Grace, grace, and more grace." Yes, we are saved by grace; however, we need an appropriate response to grace. That response is obedience and living a life of personal holiness. A phrase to remember: "Where death leaves you, judgment will find you and eternity will hold you." Where will death leave you if you died today?

The Need for Holiness

The following is from Martin Wells Knapp's "The Double Cure" and courtesy of Rev. Duane Maxey and Holiness Data Ministries:

THE DOUBLE WORK

Sin is a double disease. It pollutes the soul and also poisons the outer life. It converts the heart into a den of vile passions and the exterior life into a panorama of dark deeds. It's twofold nature is clearly declared in God's word. (See Ps. 51; Zech. 13:1; 1 John 1:9, and kindred Scriptures.)

On these and like texts we base the following diagram which shows the light of the Word on the subject at a glance:

THE DOUBLE DISEASE --
I. Actual transgressions. Rom. 3:23. Wrong deeds. Rom. 3:10-18. Wrong life. Gal. 6:8. Bad fruits. Rom. 7:5; Gal. 5:19-21. Evil waters. Jas. 3:10, 11. Guilt. Rom. 3:19. Death. Rom. 5:12. Eternal punishment. Matt. 25:46.

II. Inbred sin. Rom. 6:6, and 7:19-24. Wrong tempers. 1 Cor. 3:1- 4. Wrong state. 1 Cor. 2:14. Bad tree. Matt. 3:10; 7:18. Evil fountain. James 3:12; Matt. 5:19. Pollution. Ps. 51:5; 2 Cor. 7:1. Sickness. Isa. 1:5; Luke 5:31. Debars from heaven. Heb. 12:14; Rev. 21:27.

THE DOUBLE CURE. --
I. Conversion. Matt. 18:3. Pardon. Isa. 55:7. Adoption. 2 Cor. 6:17, 18. Life. John 3:36. Witness. Rom. 8:16.

II. Entire sanctification. 1 Thess. 5:23. Complete cleansing. 1 John 1:9. Perfect love. 1 John 4:18. Witness. Heb. 10:14, 15.

THE DOUBLE CONDITIONS:--
I. Repentance. Luke 13:3. Sorrow for sin. Matt. 5:4. Giving up sin. Isa. 1:16. Confession. Prov. 28:13. Appropriating faith. John 3:16.

II. Consecration. Rom. 12:1. Death to sin. Rom. 6:6. Yielding to God. Rom. 6:13. Appropriating faith. Heb. 4 3.

In the above and like Scriptures actual transgressions and soul defilement are treated as two distinct phases of man's fall.

The first refers to what men do, the second to what they are.

The first to outward acts, the second to an inner state. The first life defilement, the second heart defilement. The first a result of the second, the second the cause of the first.

The first is like eruptions on the outside, the second the scrofulous soul disease, deeper than muscles, bones, marrow, or nerves, in the very center of the soul life.

The cure and conditions are mentioned here in connection with the disease, and will be more fully noticed in future chapters.

The twofold nature of the disease makes the Double Cure an imperative necessity.
The sinner is like a drowning leper. The leper needs a double work:

(1) To be rescued from a Watery grave;
(2) To be cured of his disease. When a life preserver will cure the leprosy it will be time to discard the double disease, the double conditions, and the Double Cure.

The sinner is like a diseased criminal about to be hung for his crime -- he needs the Double Cure of pardon and healing.

When a governor's reprieve will cure the consumption, or doctor's prescription secure a pardon, it will be time to overlook this double work of grace. Until then with the sacred bard shall we not continue to sing:

"Be of sin the Double Cure,
Save from guilt and make us pure."

A Pentecostal Question

Penetecost Sunday is this weekend which is a Christian holiday. However, the Bibilcal feast of Shauvot began Tuesday night May 14Th. Christians believe that they are part of the New Covenant as revealed in the New Testament. That New Covenant is first explained in Jeremiah 31:31-33: "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." (KJV) Now on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), the Holy Spirit descended and filled the believers in the upper room and they all spoke with tongues. This is considered the birth of the church. Shauvot is a remembrance of the time when G-d gave the law to Moses. At the first Shauvot after the resurrection of Yeshua, the law was written on the hearts of man as opposed to tablets of stone. Now some believe that this occurs at "salvation" while others believe it occurs in a subsequent experience known by a variety of names, e.g. Baptism of the Holy Spirit, entire sanctification, Christian perfection, etc. Whenever you think it occurs, the uncontradicted fact is that the Torah is what is written on the hearts of men.

Now here is the question: if the law has been written on the heart of believers, why don't Christians obey the law of G-d, all of it?

Are You Holy (set part)?

J.C. Ryle wrote the following in his work entitled Holiness:

"Holiness, without which no man shall see the Yahweh" (Hebrews 12:14).
The text which heads this page opens up a subject of deep importance. That subject is practical holiness. It suggests a question which demands the attention of all professing Christians: are we holy, i.e set apart? Shall we see the Yahweh?
That question can never be out of season. The wise man tells us, "There is . . . a time to weep, and a time to laugh, . . . a time to keep silence, and a time to speak" (Ecclesiastes 3:4, 7); but there is no time, no, not a day, in which a man ought not to be holy. Are we?
That question concerns all ranks and conditions of men. Some are rich and some are poor, some learned and some unlearned, some masters and some servants; but there is no rank or condition in life in which a man ought not to be holy. Are we?
I ask to be heard today about this question. How stands the account between our souls and Yahweh? In this hurrying, bustling world, let us stand still for a few minutes and consider the matter of holiness. I believe I might have chosen a subject more popular and pleasant. I am sure I might have found one more easy to handle. But I feel deeply I could not have chosen one more seasonable and more profitable to our souls. It is a solemn thing to hear the Word of Elohim saying, "Without holiness no man shall see the Yahweh" (Hebrews 12:14).

Friend, I ask the same question today: are you holy? If you are not, I ask you by what hope you intend to see Yahweh in eternity as Savior? If you claim to be holy, I ask you by what merit you are holy? Any answer other than by the blood of Yeshua is a false answer that dooms you to an eternity away from His loving Presence. Be holy because He is holy and has commanded our holiness. This is for our entire life and not just a segment. Holiness is not piecemeal; it is all or nothing. May you find truth through the sanctifying power of Yeshua today!

Repost: Ham on Easter

This was too perfect not to post. Our local newspaper, The Virginian-Pilot had the following in the paper some time ago:

"It's Easter Sunday. But before you dig into that succulent pig (remember Yeshua didn't eat pork added by BLJ), did you ever stop to wonder if more folks eat ham on Easter or Christmas (the answer is Christmas added by BLJ)?

Ishtar, also known as Semiramis, bore a son Tammuz, a hunter who was killed by a wild pig. In honor of Tammuz, Ishtar decreed a 40-day period each year during which no meat could be eaten. It concluded with a celebration on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox. Ishtar commanded that a pig be eaten then to remember the killer of her son."

Does that sound like Lent?

It is a real shame that a secular newspaper has more truth than most churches.

Repost: The Pagan Origin of Easter

Easter is this weekend. Churches are preparing for one of their biggest attendance days of the year. Activities are being planned for the children, choir rehearsals for special music, and pastors are preparing special messages celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, is Easter appropriate for followers of YHWH and His son Yeshua to celebrate? The short answer is, "No." Easter is a conspiracy plot against the true faith. This may be difficult to accept, but the truth must be told.

The first thing to be understood is that professing believers were not the only ones who celebrated a festival called "Easter.""Ishtar", which is pronounced "Easter" was a day that commemorated the resurrection of one of the pagan gods called "Tammuz", who was believed to be the only begotten son of the moon-goddess and the sun-god. In those ancient times, there was a man named Nimrod, who was the grandson of one of Noah's sons named Ham. Ham had a son named Cush who married a woman named Semiramis. Cush and Semiramis then had a son named him "Nimrod." After the death of his father, Nimrod married his own mother and became a powerful King. The Bible speaks of this man, Nimrod, in Genesis 10:8-10 as follows: "And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before YHWH: wherefore it is said, even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before YHWH. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad,and Calneh, in the land of Shinar." Nimrod became a god-man to the people and Semiramis, his wife and mother, became the powerful Queen of ancient Babylon. Nimrod was eventually killed by an enemy, and his body was cut in pieces and sent to various parts of his kingdom. Semiramis had all of the parts gathered, except for one part that could not be found. That missing part was his reproductive organ. Semiramis claimed that Nimrod could not come back to life without it and told the people of Babylon that Nimrod had ascended to the sun and was now to be called "Baal", the sun god. Queen Semiramis also proclaimed that Baal would be present on earth in the form of a flame, whether candle or lamp, when used in worship. Semiramis was creating a mystery religion, and with the help of Satan, she set herself up as a goddess. Semiramis claimed that she was immaculately conceived. She taught that the moon was a goddess that went through a 28 day cycle and ovulated when full. She further claimed that she came down from the moon in a giant moon egg that fell into the Euphrates River. This was to have happened at the time of the first full moon after the spring equinox. Semiramis became known as "Ishtar" which is pronounced "Easter", and her moon egg became known as "Ishtar's" egg." Ishtar soon became pregnant and claimed that it was the rays of the sun-god Baal that caused her to conceive. The son that she brought forth was named Tammuz. Tammuz was noted to be especially fond of rabbits, and they became sacred in the ancient religion, because Tammuz was believed to be the son of the sun-god, Baal. Tammuz, like his supposed father, became a hunter. The day came when Tammuz was killed by a wild pig. Queen Ishtar told the people that Tammuz was now ascended to his father, Baal, and that the two of them would be with the worshippers in the sacred candle or lamp flame as Father, Son and Spirit. Ishtar, who was now worshipped as the "Mother of God and Queen of Heaven", continued to build her mystery religion. The queen told the worshippers that when Tammuz was killed by the wild pig, some of his blood fell on the stump of an evergreen tree, and the stump grew into a full new tree overnight. This made the evergreen tree sacred by the blood of Tammuz. She also proclaimed a forty day period of time of sorrow each year prior to the anniversary of the death of Tammuz (Does this not sound like "Lent"?). During this time, no meat was to be eaten. Worshippers were to meditate upon the sacred mysteries of Baal and Tammuz, and to make the sign of the "T" in front of their hearts as they worshipped. They also ate sacred cakes with the marking of a "T" or cross on the top. Every year, on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox, a celebration was made. It was Ishtar's Sunday and was celebrated with rabbits and eggs. Ishtar also proclaimed that because Tammuz was killed by a pig, that a pig must be eaten on that Sunday (Did you ever wonder why the traditional Easter meal for "Christians" is ham when Yeshua would never have eaten swine?). By now, the connection between Easter and paganism should be clear. Paganism has infiltrated the contemporary "Christian" churches. The truth is that Easter has nothing whatsoever to do with the resurrection of our Yeshua.

You can easily research the truth of the above. I have taken a majority of the facts from a tract found on line. The real issue is, "What are you going to celebrate?" Will be Easter? Or, will you do what Yeshua always did and celebrate the Passover?

Lord, God, or Yahweh

The way the sacred Name of Yahweh has been handled throughout the centuries was prophesied in such passages as Jeremiah 23:27, which states: "Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbor, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal." (KJV) Baal means "Lord" according to Hebrew lexicons. You have forgotten my sacred Name for “LORD”, Yahweh spoke through the prophet. To call upon the “LORD” is to call on Baal. Now consider many of your “worship” songs.

"God" comes from Old English gheu(d), "to pour" (American Heritage Dictionary). According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, “god” means a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically: one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality. Sha’ul (Paul) says there are many lords and many gods. Do not disrespect Yahweh to just another common deity by replacing His Sacred Name with other titles. He speaks through the prophet in Isaiah 42:8, "I am Yahweh: that is my name: and my honor will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."

Yahweh established His Name in the Ten Commandments. It is spiritually very dangerous for man to substitute man’s names for His Sacred Name. That would be the equivalent of man making Yahweh into man’s image. He is not “LORD” or “god.” His Name is Yahweh. Why would you try to change it? Why would you want to?

Repost: Old Wineskins New Wineskins

Today, we look at a passage that is often misunderstood because it is taken out of context. Mark 2: 21-22 reads: And no man places a new patch onto an old garment and sews it, or else the new patch be taken away from the old and the tear becomes larger. And no man puts new wine into old wineskins or else the wine burst the wineskins, and the wineskins are destroyed and the wine is poured out. Rather, they put new wine into new wineskins. We must remember that Yeshua is a Jewish rabbi talking to Jewish listeners. The old garment is Judaism; the new patch is the coming Kingdom of Elohim through Yeshua. The point to be noticed is that Yeshua does not want the old garment destroyed. The first part of His teaching is that the old garment, i.e. Judaism, must not be destroyed. He is saying that the new patch is not to replace the garment. Think about it; have you ever seen a patch that covered a coat? No, the patch would be part of the garment. The new patch, i.e. the coming Kingdom will take place within Judaism.

However, the second part of the teaching explains that the new wine, i.e. the coming Kingdom of Elohim, cannot be put within the old wineskins of Judaism as it existed in the first century. Judaism in the first century were composed primarily four groups: Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, and the Essenes. The Sadducees controlled the Temple and were the rich and the elite. They were in partnership with Roman oppression to enable them to continue to control the Temple and the profit that came with it. The Pharisees had allowed the traditions of men to dominate the teachings of Torah to create an unfair burden on the people. The Zealots wanted a military commander to win a war with Rome and remove them from Palestine. The Essenes were a separatist movement that had withdrawn from the other three groups and believed that only they had the truth. The old wineskin of Judaism was not the vehicle for the new Kingdom. The new Kingdom would have the Torah of Elohim written on the heart of man and not tablets of stone. This is the promise of Jeremiah 31, the Renewed Covenant.

Yeshua was teaching His disciples that repentance was the path to receive the new Kingdom. His intent was not to destroy Judaism; instead, He sought to bring a Kingdom to a people that had torn down their house to receive the new one. That was the new wineskin. Which do you reside in?

Which set of holidays do you observe?

Sanctifying Pagan Rituals?

Easter versus Passover: Which do you celebrate?

New or Renewed Part 3

The Greek word chosen in the LLX in Jeremiah 31:31 for "new" is a very special word. There are different words in Greek for "new." There is a different Greek word for newness, renew, to make new, renewal, to renew, new in time, and new in nature. The word in verse 31 is kainos which means new in nature. The Hebrew language describes things how they appear. The Greek language is very precise. It tries to describe things how they actually are. The use of kainos in this verse I believe to be correct. What Jeremiah is describing is new in nature. Sinai involved tablets of stone. The covenant in Jeremiah is new in nature because now it involves the heart! What do we conclude? If we are talking Hebrew, I think "renew" is more appropriate. If we are talking in Greek, kainos, i.e. new is more accurate. Interestingly enough, there is an implication of better with kainos. Remember the book of Hebrews is Greek and that might explain some of its language.

New or Renewed Covenant Part 2

The word in Jeremiah 31:31 translated as "new" or "renewed" is hadash. In the text, it is an adjective. However, in Hebrew an adjective can also serve as a predicate in a verbless clause. So while the word is an adjective, action can also be involved. The root word is composed of three consonants (remember Biblical Hebrew did not originally have vowels): Chet, Dalet, and Shin. Hebrew letters are also pictures and numbers. The word picture for Chet is fence, inner room. The word picture for Dalet is door. The word picture for Shin is teeth, i.e. to consume or destroy. When read together, the word picture for hadash can be seen as destroying the door to the inner room. According to Hebrew Honey, (a wonderful little book written by a Christian pastor Dr. Al Novak that explains more than 500 Hebrew words and it requires no training in Hebrew) hadash means, "Primarily the notion of cutting, scraping, polishing. No wonder becoming a new creature in the Lord is a moving work of the Holy Spirit." There is a work of YHVH on every follower of the Way to be scraped and cut. Our old fences or inner rooms need to be destoyed so they can be replaced with His fences and His ways. Our old inner ways must be cut out. To say that the covenant is renewed is to state that whereas the covenant at Sinai was on stone, the renewed covenant is the work of the Ruach HaKodesh on the hearts of mankind.

As stated, the root word is composed of Chet, Dalet, and Shin. It means to renew or repair. The word used in Jeremiah 31:31 is a derivative of the root word. The derivative word does not replace the root word in Hebrew. Instead, in Hebrew you look at the root word to help understand the true meaning of the derivative. From the site Judaism 101 (http://www.jewfaq.org/) the following material is offered to assist in understanding how Hebrew words are created:

1. The vast majority of words in the Hebrew language can be boiled down to a three-consonant root word that contains the essence of the word's meaning. Even if you cannot read Hebrew, you will find that you can get some insight into the meaning of the Bible by identifying the roots of words. If you see the same English word in two different places, but different Hebrew roots are used, this may indicate that there is a different shade of meaning. If the same Hebrew root is used in two different places, the words and their meanings are probably related.

2. Hebrew words are formed from roots by changing vowels and by adding a wealth of prefixes and suffixes to that root. Prefixes can be prepositions (in, on, of, to, etc.), articles (the), or other things. Suffixes can be pronouns (he, you, our, etc.), possessives ('s), or can indicate gender and number (female singular; male plural, etc.). Because of the way these prefixes and suffixes are added to the root, a single word in Hebrew might be translated into English as several words.

The essence of the derivative word translated as "new" is seen in the root word that means renew or repair. So, even if we use the word "new," we do so understanding that the "new" does not mean brand new. Instead, it means new in the sense of restoration, and in this case how something is learned, i.e. as opposed to reading the tablets of stone the Torah is placed on the heart by YHVH. For example, every 3o days we have a "New Moon." Is it really new, or the beginning of a new lunar cycle? It is important that we practice exegesis. The Liberty University web site defines exegesis as: "Proper exegesis includes using the context around the passage, comparing it with other parts of the Bible, and applying an understanding of the language and customs of the time of the writing, in an attempt to understand clearly what the original writer intended to convey." The opposite is eisegesis. Eisegesis is the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas as opposed to the original author. Exegesis draws out truth while eisgesis reads into a text. In Jeremiah 31, the author is referring to the restoration of Israel after the Babylonian exile and the reconstruction of the Temple (Jewish Study Bible Study Notes). I don't think Jeremiah has in mind something totally new. I think a fair reading would be that he believed that the new covenant would be a renewal of the Sinai covenant on the inside of the Jewish people. If that is the original author's intent, we should not stray far from it.

New or Renewed Covenant

The issue presented is whether the new covenant described in the Scriptures is really "new" or "renewed." The following are several translations of Jeremiah 31:31:

1. "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. NIV

2. "The day is coming," says the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. NLT

3. "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah...." ESV

4. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.... KJV

5. "See, the days are coming," declares YHVH, "when I shall make a renewed covenant with the house of Yisra'el and with the house of Yehudah...." The Scriptures

Only the Messianic Bible, The Scriptures, uses the word "renewed" in describing the covenant. Most versions translate the Hebrew word hadash as "new." The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament states as follows: "Hadash is used in the sense of 'repair' or 'rebuild' referring to cities (Isa 61:4), the temple (II Chron 24:4, 12), and the altar (II Chron 15:8). " A derivative of hadash is used in Jeremiah 31:31. That derivative is defined by the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament as: "new, new thing, fresh." While a case can may be made to translate hadash as either "new" or "renewed," I believe that renewed best captures the intent of the verse. I base my opinion on the following:

1. The covenant at Sinai was with the nation of Israel. The covenant described in Jeremiah 31 is with the house of Yisra'el and with the house of Yehudah. The same parties are involved. There are no new parties to the covenant established at Sinai. As much as Gentiles would like to think that the new covenant was established for them, the Scriptures make clear that the covenant was for the Jews alone. Remember, Yeshua said in Matthew 15:24: "He answered, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.'" NIV (Emphasis Supplied) This is why it is so important that Gentile believers understand that they are grafted into the root of Israel and not the opposite (Romans 11:17-19). Messianic Gentiles do not become Jews, but they do become citizens of the commonwealth of Israel. (Eph 2:11-12: "Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called 'uncircumcised' by those who call themselves 'the circumcision' (which is done in the body by human hands) remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world." The underlined portion suggests that now that Gentile believers are a part of the covenant, that they are included as citizens in Israel as well.)

2. The covenant terms remain the same, only their location changes. At Sinai, the Torah was written on tablets of stone. Ezekiel 36 describes what will occur with the renewed covenant: "A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. Then you shall live in the land that I gave to your ancestors; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God." NRSV In the renewed covenant, the Torah will be placed on the hearts of mankind. However, the terms, i.e. The Torah, remain the same.

3. Dictionary.com defines "new" as: (a) of recent origin, production, purchase, etc.; (b) having but lately come or been brought into being: a new book. of a kind now existing or appearing for the first time; novel: (c) a new concept of the universe. having but lately or but now come into knowledge: a new chemical element. (d) unfamiliar or strange (often followed by to ): ideas new to us; to visit new lands. (e) having but lately come to a place, position, status, etc.: a reception for our new minister. When one considers both covenants, "new" just doesn't seem to accurately describe what is occurring.

4. I want to be clear that I am not calling someone anti-Semitic who disagrees with me. However, it seems to me that the idea of creating a "New Covenant" serves to replace the relationship that YHVH has with His chosen people the Jews. By calling it "new" we are encouraging a disconnect with what has occurred in the past. Using the translation "renewed" connects the ministry and sacrifice of Yeshua with Sinai. I think that should be preferred.