But the Bible tells us in Jeremiah 31 verse 31, it says,
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the
house of Israel, 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 break, although I was in
husband unto them, saith the Lord.
Now go to Hebrews chapter eight, Hebrews chapter eight.
So keep that in mind and I'll repeat it for you.
So Jeremiah 31 is talking about that new covenant that was to come.
And he's speaking to Israel and he tells them that although they broke that
covenant, although he was a husband unto them, okay, does everyone understand
that husband unto them, they were his people, he loved them, he was a husband
unto them, Paul quotes this in Hebrews chapter eight, look what he says in
verse number seven, for if that first covenant had been faultless, then
should no place have been sought for the second, for finding fault with them, he
said, 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, not 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 continue not in my covenant.
And look what it says, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
So I regarded them not, and I was a husband unto them are saying
two completely different things.
That makes sense to everyone.
You see that now, James White, when he entered, when pastor Anderson interviewed
James White, James White literally said this, this is why he's such a devil.
James White said that Paul the apostle quoted the wrong
manuscripts in Hebrews eight.
You know, I'm talking about, we're talking about Paul who knew Hebrew.
He said he quoted the Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament.
That's why he said, I regarded them not because, you know, in Jeremiah 31, 32,
31 and 32, it says he was a husband unto them, and in Hebrews chapter eight,
he says he regarded them not, he was just quoting the wrong one, basically
saying the holy man of God did not speak, you know, as they were moved by the
Holy Ghost, you know, that they weren't moved by the Holy Ghost,
that they weren't inspired by God.
He literally said that he made a mistake there.
Now, is that the case?
Obviously not.
So what's going on here?
Why is it saying two different things?
I'll tell you why it's saying two different things.
Because in the Old Testament, God was a husband unto the nation of Israel.
But guess what?
In the new covenant, he doesn't regard them anymore.
Oh, but he's quoting.
Yeah, but something's changed though.
We're in the new covenant now.
And in fact, the theme of Hebrews eight is the new covenant, which
is established upon better promises.
So he quotes the entire thing and he says, oh, wait, but he's not a husband anymore.
Why?
Because he doesn't regard them any more.
They're cast away.
They're put aside.
They're no longer God's chosen people.
So look, this is Hebrews eight is the verse is my go-to for people
when we're KJV only pastors.
But I'll say this.
So Hebrews eight says he doesn't regard them.
Quote from Jeremiah 31 31, where he says that he was a husband unto them.
Is that a contextual error or is it teaching replacement theology?
You only have one of two choices.
Because if you say that it's wrong, you're saying that it's a contextual
error because obviously it's obviously saying two different things.
But if you agree that it's not a contextual error, then you have to agree
that it's teaching replacement theology because he doesn't regard them any more.
Okay.