Menu

A New Covenant

P
philologos

“Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— Jeremiah 31:32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. Jer 31:31–32 NKJV

This is how Jeremiah introduces the topic of the New Covenant. He makes the initial point here that this covenant will not be 'according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them'. That is to say it will NOT be like the Sinaitic or Old Covenant, however commenting on this verse John Calvin says...

"Let us now see why he promises to the people a new covenant. It being new, no doubt refers to what they call the form; and the form, or manner, regards not words only, but first Christ, then the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the whole external way of teaching. But the substance remains the same. By substance I understand the doctrine; for God in the Gospel brings forward nothing but what the Law contains. We hence see that God has so spoken from the beginning, that he has not changed, no not a syllable, with regard to the substance of the doctrine. For he has included in the Law the rule of a perfect life, and has also shewn what is the way of salvation, and by types and figures led the people to Christ, so that the remission of sin is there clearly made manifest, and whatever is necessary to be known." John Calvin's Commentary on Jer 31

If you pick out the words 'form' and 'substance' you will find that he is saying that the New Covenant is not SUBSTANTIALLY different from the Old Covenant and that the differences only relate to the FORMS. ie. the outward form changes but the inward essence remains exactly the same.

What are we to make of this? Is the New Covenant only different in its outward forms or is it better? Is it an addition to the Old Covenant or is it something quite new? Is the New Covenant another way of referring to Christ's New Creation or are we not a 'New Creation' but only an improvement of the Old? Answering these questions is fundamental to understanding the New Covenant.

As they used to say in those old school tests.... discuss! If we can do this is a spirit of gentle forebearance we may learn much. If we write only to attack each others' views the sooner this thread ends the better.

S
sermonindex

Ron:
As they used to say in those old school tests.... discuss! If we can do this is a spirit of gentle forebearance we may learn much. If we write only to attack each others' views the sooner this thread ends the better.
------------------------------------------------------------
Shabbat Shalom!

Please consider the following to catch a tiny glimpse of the stance and perspective here.

OK, what constitutes an attack and what is your context of gentle forebearance? What's meant is that from this perspective is -as meditation in the scriptures has brought out from within- there seems to be less and less grey areas, and everything is either black or white. If something is questionable or grey, it's black; and what is clearly white is correct. Lukewarm tolerance just doesn't get it anymore. From years of experience it has been seen repeatedly middle-of-the-roaders end up road-kill and thrown to the burn pile.

Gently forebearing with someone who is mistaken is given unendingly.

Someone who is insistently persistent on propogating lies, and proud about what is completely contrary to what the scripture clearly reveals is another story altogether...and someone who teaches should be put in their place swiftly to save them from a more severe judgement: Jas. 3:1, 11, 12.

Scripture is for doctrine, reproof and correction. Anything contrary to this need be eliminated before yeast leavens the whole lump.

Having stated this, you understand this perspective: gentle forebearance towards all who will accept and learn into a scriptural perspective. If it is not Biblically sound, especially from me, squelch it by whatever means. (i have learned not to talk about things that are not real (to experience in conformity with God's Word). Yet, still i error.)


ya know, that guy Marcion did some real damage to the church painting this picture of Jesus as such a nice guy. Now the world sees movies where Jesus is always looking up to heaven yet never tripping and holding his hands like he just had his nails painted or something. He was a carpenter in the days when you hauled the logs from the forest and then size em' down to specs. Jesus was not a ninny, and he prolly spent more time building coffins than anything else, such as Peter's boats, etc.

If you read greek, you will see that Jesus was more often than not overly demanding and outright mean by human standards. Hardly the sissy He is made out to be in movies. (How many Rabbi's chose several terrorists (aka: zealots) as disciples?)

Then again, a song just popped up in this ole' noggin:

If God is my Father
by
Larry Norman

If God is my Father
And you are my brother,
Then why can’t we bother
To really reach out and
Love one another?
Why do we keep on acting
the way we do?
The way we treat each other
It just breaks my heart in two.


Once we were happy:
Oh yes,
Once in the garden;
And then a lie broke the stillness;
And our hearts began to harden;
And hoping to be wiser,
Man has reached too far.
Sometimes I think that we’ve advanced,
But then I look at where we are.

Still, nice is not equivalent with love
and kind is not only nice.

i am very tenderhearted though posts from here may not appear to be such.

i care too much some say.

This is because i'm always looking at the bigger picture: chastisement is not fun, and hell is everlasting fire with billowing sulfurous smoke so thick catching your breath will make you gag, much less catch even a glimpse of light.

(Better to have hurt feelings by a seemingly terse word than chastisement by our Father, or worse the damnation of hellfire.)

i have little tolerance for ettiquette when somebody can be forthright and save me from further error. If somebody does not say what they mean and mean what they say, isn't that lying against the truth in unrighteousness? Consider Rom. 1:18,ESV.

As well, Lev. 19:17. 18

S
sermonindex

Ron, I think it is essential to not only look at the fact of a new covenant, but to also look at the particular features of that covenant. Before going into this further, I want to note that the words covenant and testament are the same. So when we're talking about the new covenant, we are in fact talking about the new testament.

I'd like to look at the two verses that follow yours, verses 33-34.

"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

"They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." (Jeremiah 31:33-34)

Where is the new testament written? "on their hearts." Not on parchment.

The apostle John picked up on this aspect of the new covenant, or new testament, when he wrote, "As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him" (I John 2:27).

Jeremiah prophesied that under the new covenant, we won't need to teach one another, that all of us will know God, from the least to the greatest. And why? "because I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

While differing from John on the topic of teachers, Paul also knew that the new testament from Christ was written on the human heart:

"You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts" (II Cor 3:2-3).

What we call the New Testament is in fact the library of Christian scriptures, but it is not the new covenant predicted by Jeremiah. Jeremiah predicted that the new covenant would be written on our hearts and placed in our minds, not written down on parchment or stone.

The new covenant is "written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts."

This makes an incredible difference. Paul says that God "made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (II Cor 3:6).

I still do not know how to do this. I am not yet aware that I am adequate as a minister of the new covenant of the Spirit. If God has made me adequate as a minister of the covenat of the Spirit, I still do not know how that works.

But to repeat. It is important to not only realize that a new covenant (testament) was predicted, but that the nature of that new covenant-testament was also predicted. We are not obliged to follow the misunderstanding of the early church fathers when they slapped the label "New Testament" on the canon of Christian scriptures. Jeremiah said that the new Law (the law of love, the law of liberty) would be placed in our minds and written on our hearts.

Ron Goetz

P
philologos

he (re)NEW(ed) Covenant is not different; but rather a completion of what was begun with Avraham Avinu.

Greg
The New Covenant is not different at all. It is the completion of what the Old Covenant could not do, having no worthy sacrafice nor living testator to insure Ya's will and testaments fulfillment.

There are several references to covenants being 'renewed' in the OT but this is not one of them. This is quite clearly, IMHO, a New Covenant. This is made even more explicit in the statement that this covenant is not going to be like the Sinaitic Covenent.

Do you have some biblical basis for redefining this as a 'renewed' covenant?

P
philologos

Ron
I am with you on this one.

S
sermonindex

The new covenant ratified and typified in the period just before the people of God entered the promised land, Deut 4 onwards is concerning the HOLINESS of God`s people, as previously in the wanderings they did not love Him with the whole heart nor did they give up their idols. But in order to live in the kingdom of God, absolute holiness required.

Under the first covenant, men are serving in the flesh for righteousness but God requires the whole heart. We see the flesh at work when men use the scriptures in the way that God did not intend. His law is to be written on their hearts and they are not to need to be taught, meaning they are to come to maturity and full union as the bride of Christ and to be in direct communication with Him hearing Him speak to them and sharing His heart and thoughts with them. The scriptures will not contradict this communication but we were not made to depend on a book even a holy book or to preach the words which are not applying to our own lives. We must be in the same Spirit as the writers and their experience of the spiritual life must be ours too.

A time of wandering is common for the children of God, not many enter into fullness quickly unless during a revival. During this time, God`s presence leaves them and they grow weary and cold until the day when they can cry out `O wretched man that I am who will deliver me` (from my sin nature) if the Lord grants them repentant and tender hearts. Otherwise they stay stiffnecked in their sins, thinking that they are not expected to be 100% obedient or that they can always come to say sorry (but do the same thing again) Brethren this is not love nor is it holiness.

If they respond to the Holy Spirit`s movement in them the new covenant is made clear and the necessity for Christ`s righteousness to be imparted through faith. Under the new covenant, disobedience is punished severely - they shall surely perish Deut 8:19 because it is not mans ability that enables him to obey absolutely it is the strength and the keeping power of the Lord our God so now there is no excuse.

Deuteronomy should not be thought of as concerning the people of Israel but as concerning all of God`s people. If the new covenant, after coming to Christ initially has not been made between us and God then we are in the flesh and flesh cannot see God.

"Take heed to yourselves that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside and serve other gods and worship them" Deut 11:16. What are we putting before the LOrd brethren? What comes first in our lives? Is it a partner, children, a job, our reputation as a Bible teacher? If we are not functioning within the new covenant then we will perish ie we will have no spiritual authenticity in our lives, our inward will not match our outward, we will be hypocrites and only our close family will know how empty and lacking in grace in the crisis we really are. Let Deuteronomy convict us in the name of the Lord.

Brenda

S
sermonindex

Ron B,

I told the people that there was a page in the Bible that was a lie.

And I had everyone in the Bible study turn to the page that reads "New Testament" and tear it out.

Someone asked, "Can we do that?"

The Bibles all belonged to me, so of course I told them it was okay.

But I don't think that's what the concern was.

Ron G.

P
philologos

Ron
I do think it would have been more helpful if the translators had not used the word testament. The New Covenant was initiated in the sacrifice of the covenant victim ie Christ at Calvary. It was made effectual for the saints in Acts 2. I have frequently teased people by saying that I was going to read from the beginning of the New Testament only to begin reading at Acts 2.

It is important to understand the beginnings and application of covenants. When the NT speaks the New Covenant it is always in contrast to the Old Covenant, ie. the Sinaitic Covenant. It is important to distinguish between the Sinaitic covenant which was with a nation and the Abrahamic covenant which was with individuals.

I would repeat, whenever the NT speaks of the New Covenant it is in CONTRAST to the Old Covenant. These covenants cannot co-exist. He takes away the first in order to establish the second. Wherever we stand on the destiny of national Israel, the New Covenant is a replacement covenant. To take away one and put another in its place is a definition of the word 'replacement'.

P
philologos

The new covenant ratified and typified in the period just before the people of God entered the promised land, Deut 4 onwards is concerning the HOLINESS of God`s people, as previously in the wanderings they did not love Him with the whole heart nor did they give up their idols. But in order to live in the kingdom of God, absolute holiness required.

Brenda
The New Covenant is not introduced in scripture until Jer 31 although there are references in Isaiah that plainly have that new covenant in mind.

Deut is the Old Covenant and is as the title suggests, deutero - second, nomos - law. The second giving of the law. NOT the bringing in of a new covenant but the ratifying and renewing of the old covenant.

R
rookie

Where is the new testament written? "on their hearts." Not on parchment.

The apostle John picked up on this aspect of the new covenant, or new testament, when he wrote, "As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him" (I John 2:2

This anointing of the Holy Spirit is spoken of in Proverbs 1....

Pro 1:23\t \tTurn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

And for what purpose does the Holy Spirit reveal "my words unto you'?

Pro 1:33\t \tBut whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

The writer of Hebrews confirms this precept when explaining the nature our our Lord's priesthood according to the order of Melchisedec...

Hbr 5:9\t \tAnd being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
Hbr 5:10\t \tCalled of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
Hbr 5:11\t \tOf whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
Hbr 5:12\t¶\tFor when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Hbr 5:13\t \tFor every one that useth milk [is] unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
Hbr 5:14\t \tBut strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.


"Unto all them that obey him;" He will make known to us His words by way of the Holy Spirit being poured out onto us..."I will pour out my spirit unto you,"
The Spirit is able to teach us "to discern both good and evil." And why should our Lord want to teach us this?


Pro 1:33\t \tBut whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

For our Lord, our High Priest's work is to destroy the works of Satan which began with Adam. He is preparing Himself a bride....

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie


“Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— Jeremiah 31:32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. Jer 31:31–32 NKJV


Paul writes of the first covenant this way....


2Cr 3:9\tFor if the ministration of condemnation [be] glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.


This "ministration of condemnation" the first covenant took effect in the Genesis chapter 3. We see the evidence of this first covenant take effect in the examples of Abel and Cane. Abel became the first adopted son of God and Cane the first child of Satan.

In Christ
Jeff

T
twayneb

I found it a little bit interesting that the book of Romans and the book of Hebrews have not yet entered into this discussion. One very good question to ask is, "What was the purpose of the old covenant and what is the purpose of the new covenant?" Paul is very clear about the purpose of the old covenant. Romans 7:1-14. The old covenant, the law if you will, sold us under sin. It actually made sin come alive in us. It showed us that what we were doing was sin. But it did not offer a resolution to that condition. 2 Cor. 3:6-8 actually calls the ten commandments specifically (they were the only portion of the law engraved in stone)a ministration of death. This is Paul simply repeating his message of Romans 7 in other words. The law was not God's perfect standard. It was only a shadow of God's standard. See Hebrews 10 and Matthew 5. The purpose of the law was not righteousness, but rather revelation of sinfulness and the need for something greater than the law. Galatians 3:19-29 tells us this. Paul goes on in Romans 8 to say that the law was weak through the flesh. It was up to us in our flesh to keep the law and that was totally impossible.

Hebrews 10 shows us how Christ fulfilled the law and ended the old covenant. Once the savior had come, the purpose of the old covenant was fulfilled. If I am born again in my spirit and His laws are in my heart through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, if He says go and I go, stop and I stop, if I am being led by the Spirit of God, a written law is superfluous at very best. Why would I need written commandments and prescribed punishments for breaking them if I have been made righteous before God through the blood of Jesus and if He now directs me by His Holy Spirit? Why serve God from fear of punishment and wrath when now I can serve Him in newness of life. This is the exact thing that Hebrews 2:15 is talking about. Gal. 5:1 makes the point that the living under the law is returning to bondage. We are free of that old and inferior covenant. It has not been extended in some new form. According to scripture it has been abolished, done away with. Eph. 2:15, 2 Cor. 3:11. When Jesus spoke in Matt. 5 of not destroying the law and prophets, but rather fulfilling, look at the context of the scriptures. He goes on to show how the standard of God's holiness is so much higher than the standard written in the law (recall Heb. 10:1). He begins with the statement that unless the people's righteousness exceeded that of the Pharisees they would not enter the kingdom. But the Pharisees kept the law better than anyone. The people would say, this is impossible. Jesus ends the discussion by saying that you must be perfect like God is perfect. Well, that is obviously beyond our reach, unless we have a savior who is the fulfillment of all the law and prophets pointed toward. Luke 24:44, John 1:45, Acts 28:23 etc..

So I don't believe in a "new" old covenant or a simple modification of the old law. I believe in the total abolition of the old so that the new might come. What did Paul say? Cast out the bondwoman. Was he not speaking of the two covenants?

S
sermonindex

"The New Covenant is not introduced in scripture until Jer 31 although there are references in Isaiah that plainly have that new covenant in mind."

Ron, the two covenants have been in place since the begining - the law of sin and death and the law of life. The benefit of the death of Christ is applied through all times. So we have holy prophets of old like Abraham who counted God for his righteousness and was not walking in the old covenant. Other men were also said to be holy and did not sin (although we have recorded incidences when they fell from this and were then restored). They could not keep the law themselves but by faith they were enabled. So the men could choose right from the start whether to serve in the flesh or outwardly or to serve Him in spirit and in truth. Only those who are under the law of life - the life of the Son of God are in union with Him and are in the kingdom.

As you seem to be in agreement with Keswick teaching, have you read Jesse Penn-Lewis on this matter?

P
philologos

his "ministration of condemnation" the first covenant took effect in the Genesis chapter 3. We see the evidence of this first covenant take effect in the examples of Abel and Cane. Abel became the first adopted son of God and Cane the first child of Satan.

Jeff, it's been a long time...

I think you are mixing up the covenants here. The covenant that Paul is referring to in 2 Cor 3 is very plainly the Sinaitic covenant.

clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart. 2 Cor 3:3 NKJV
the covenant on tables of stone was clearly the Sinaitic covenant.

clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart. 2 Cor 3:3 NKJV

the covenant in view here is the Sinatic or Mosaic covenant. When a contrast is made between the covenants is is always between the Sinaitic Covenant and the New Covenant.

P
philologos

So I don't believe in a "new" old covenant or a simple modification of the old law. I believe in the total abolition of the old so that the new might come. What did Paul say? Cast out the bondwoman. Was he not speaking of the two covenants?

I would certainly agree with this statement. No doubt we shall get to Romans and Hebrews in this thread. Paul asks and answers your question very clearly in Galatans...

... What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Gal 3:19 NKJV

This says two very important things about the Sinaitic covenant...

1. it was added... it was not part of God's original revelation
2. it was temporary... it was only to be in force until the Seed should come

P
philologos

Brenda

Ron, the two covenants have been in place since the begining - the law of sin and death and the law of life.

No, I don't believe they have. If you read my last post you will see that the Sinai Covenant of the Law was not in place from the beginning but was an addition.

S
sermonindex

Ron:

There are several references to covenants being 'renewed' in the OT but this is not one of them. This is quite clearly, IMHO, a New Covenant. This is made even more explicit in the statement that this covenant is not going to be like the Sinaitic Covenent.

Do you have some biblical basis for redefining this as a 'renewed' covenant?
------------------------------------------------------------

No. This 'renewal' is in reference to the ratification of the Sinai Covenant, and there is still a struugle here to come up with an appropriate definition and synonym better than "New". What is meant is that the Old Covenant is not yet obsolete, except the sacrficial and priestly applications. Yahshuvah made the Sinai Covenant complete.

Currently what we posess through relationship is the seal of the Holy Spirit, and all aspects of the New Covenant must be appropriated through grace by faith. When the fulness of this New covenant is complete, when death is destroyed, we shall see the full manifestation of this. It is then the words through Jerimiah will also come into full play. Currently this is not the case, or there would be no need for any fruits of the Spirit, be they gifts or other inward and outward expressions through love.

What was spoken of Abraham our father, it is in relation to the New Covenant, of which we too are still looking for that city not made with hands, the New Jerusalem.

i miight have confused some in what was stated as i was not clear myself in reference to what was ratified and what is yet to be made complete. While writing, thoughts were jumping back and forth between the two, considering your words regarding form -vs- substance, i was questioning if it is understood that the Sinai Covenant was the Law of Moses and not God's commandments (on which this Covenant had it's basis).

As well as jumping back and forth, what the Sinai covenant entails actually had not been clarified.


i'm probably raising eyebrows even in this post, so it's requested that before the next post from here, just consider 2 verses:

Matt. 5:17, 18

Agapeo,
gregg
Acts 20:32

P
philologos

Gregg

"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." Heb 8:13

From the moment that Jeremiah designated God's new work as a New Covenant it automatically designated the earlier covenant as 'old'. It was not 'old' until God began to speak about the 'new' from that time on the obvious way to distinguish it from the earlier covenant is to call the earlier one 'old' and the coming one 'new'.

The prophets referred to this coming event as
Isaiah - a new thing
Ezekiel - a new heart and a new spirit
Jeremiah - a new covenant

they are all in their different ways bearing the same testimony. Something was going to happen which would change the parameters conclusively.

S
sermonindex

seeing the thread headline,
"The New Covenant", i said to myself, "Ron Bailey's at it again"......and without prejudice, believing that maybe God gave you a new revelation of His Word, i read on, and my heart just dropped when i read what you wrote:

"I would repeat, whenever the NT speaks of the New Covenant it is in CONTRAST to the Old Covenant. These covenants cannot co-exist. He takes away the first in order to establish the second. Wherever we stand on the destiny of national Israel, the New Covenant is a replacement covenant. To take away one and put another in its place is a definition of the word 'replacement'."

the KEY word being "replacement" as in "replacement theology"...or as some have taken this hellish theo-babble and call it "British-Israelism", though i am not accusing you of being a "British-Israelite", or wishing to engage in any vituperative dialogue with you, i just know you still hew to your......views, which are "replacement theology", what else is new under the sun? it rises in the east and Ron Bailey is a replacement theologian. Don't worry, there are a few newer posters here that will agree with your views.

nothing new.

S
sermonindex

2Co 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
2Co 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
2Co 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
2Co 3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
2Co 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
2Co 3:12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
2Co 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
2Co 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
2Co 3:16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
2Co 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

R
RobertW

... it rises in the east and Ron Bailey is a replacement theologian. Don't worry, there are a few newer posters here that will agree with your views.


One of the great problems Dispensationalism has brought to us is the notion that somehow the unbelieving Jews are going to be saved in some arbitrary event as if they by birthright are the Elect independent of how they respond to Christ here and now. To call a non-believing Jew 'God's chosen' in my view is in direct opposition to Pauline theology.

L
Lysa

I am very interested in your (Jewish) perspective on the New Covenant.

I have listened to Zac Poonen's New Covenant sermon's, and what I read of Ron's version wasn't near as easy reading for me (by that I mean, Ron, if I have to learn all the theologians and their theologies, I'm not inclined to want to know about it). I just spoke with a friend and he gave me a new term I fell in love with... theological clutter. That's what it is to me; Sorry, Ron.

I, personally, want to know Christ and Him crucified.

Neil, if you can help me understand it from your perspective, I'd love to read it.

God bless all,

S
sermonindex

why dont you scribes ever just MAKE IT PLAIN?

" Dispensationalism "

and here is the "concept" that just gives me the heebie jeebie's whenever i see it:

"Pauline theology"

anybody uses those two words chould consider themselves lucky they dont have the actual Paul/Saul to deal with, he would be so far up in your face for putting those two words together, probably urging you to get a "Galation" circumcision to boot.

"Pauline theology"?

Paul was a man, so you're exposing a man's theology?

just like the roman institution claims Peter as "first pope", ie, the "vicar" of Christ.


What does Jesus have to say about all this?

it seems to me, that the fellows that have all the theo head knowledge in the world, have just that and that alone, head knowledge.

your books, your commentaries, and your 100 dollar words are your idols, and a stumble for people weak enough to buy that theo drivel. Jesus is just an afterthought to the scribes among us.

the human spirit with its pecking order and urge to control and manipulate trys to take over from the Holy Spirit.

R
RobertW

Natan4Jesus,

Who are you?

How have you lasted so long in these forums acting as you do?

P
philologos

"...not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. Jeremiah 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." Jer 31:32–33 NKJV

One of the striking contrasts in these verses is between the external and the internal. Jeremiah described the original Sinai Covenant in terms of the external. It was the covenant in which he took them by the hand... It is striking that we never get this kind of language in the New Testament. We had a large family and it was frequently necessary to 'take them by the hand to lead them...' It is a vivid description of a covenant in which so often the people of Israel were reluctant partners.

The Old Covenant was 'external' in many senses. God was external to the people. He was with them but not in them. Stephen began his account of their history with the phrase 'the God of glory appeared to our father Abraham'. The law that was given was preserved externally in stone tablets. The blood was sprinkled externally, the waters of ablutions were applied externally. The Spirit of God equipped them in powerful anointings in which He came upon the people.

The New Covenant is 'internal'. It was the promise given shortly before the cross. You know Him (the Spirit) because he has been with you and shall be in you. Paul speaks of Christ in you, the hope of glory. The law is written on the fleshy tables of the heart. The blood is drunk, internally. The water is drunk too. The Spirit of God leads into all truth with an anointing that abides within... even the anointing has gone onto the inside.

When Ezekiel spoke of this same new covenant he did not use the same words but clearly speaks of the same events...

"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. Ezekiel 36:27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them." Ezek 36:26–27 NKJV

Notice that here too we have the language of replacement... "I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh." This declares clearly God's intention of a New Creation. The old heart and the new heart do not co-exist but the new replaces the old. And not only will he effect this wonderful transformation but "I will put my Spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and you will keep my judgments and do them"

If this is the essence of the New Covenant are we enjoying it? Or are we enjoying just parts of it?

S
sermonindex

Did you ever notice that out of the 12 disciples who walked with Jesus in His Earthly Ministry, none of them were rabbi's, or scribes, or even trained theologians?

The Gospel of Matthew---Matthew, Levi, a tax collector, Jesus told him, "follow me"...off Matthew went.

The Gospel of Mark....John Mark, attributed to Peter, a fisherman.

The Gospel of Luke, Luke, a Gentile physician, an intimate of Paul's, the only rabbinically trained theologian of the lot, and Saul (Paul) was so crazy on fire to squash the Way, he had ants in his pants to take a long journey up to Damascus to break some heads!! So Jesus had to break Saul and make him Paul, and men bandy about the term "Pauline theology"?

and then.....The Gospel of John....fisherman, but i dare say, this dear man was given such a Gift from God.....His Gospel? coming from a plain spoken fisherman, yet just read it and see how Wide and Deep the Things of God, one could spend a lifetime on John 17, Jesus' High Priestly Prayer, and look how far we ALL have fallen from Jesus' Prayer, that they all may be one.

You see, there is the Body of Christ, The Church, and then there are the multitude of religious institutions called churches, or denominations. The gulf between them vast and wide, and it all went wrong in 315 AD when Constantine listened to his true father the devil, and made "christianity" the "religion" of the roman empire.

The "Early Church", hidden, yet open to all, persecuted, yet not crushed, the devil realized that he could not kill it, so he JOINED IT, and the gates of hell creaked open, 315 AD.

y'know, as a Jew, before coming to Messiah, i didnt even know there was a difference between catholics and protestants, all i knew was this, as an observant Jew, was that Christians, catholic protestant whatever, had for millenia killed us, forced converted us, inquisted us, and not just unorganized rabble, but church and government wed together, to kill Jews....thats not just folklore, thats history, i wont bore you with it.

What makes my heart leap is this, that Yahweh was NOT going to leave Gentiles in a pagan idolaturous hell, Jesus is the Bridge, The Branch.

Now my feelings towards fellow Jews is akin to Paul's in Romans 9, just tortured, but i can testify to this, thanks to the religionists of days past, who's hands are soaked with jewish blood, if you say the Beautiful Name, "Jesus" to a Jew...today, a reflexive shudder goes thru them. Not out of Holy Ghost conviction, but because of the long dark history generation passes on about generation what these "christians" do to us.

thats why its hard to evangelize to the Jewish people, thats why I praise and thank God, that He sent His Son Jesus to me, when i was alone on a mountain, no man preached to me, Jesus revealed Himself to me and in me, supernatural. (is that whats called "predestination"? lol)

and these men that foreward "replacement theology", or strut their theo head knowledge...God will deal with them, with me, with us all, and i pray the prayer of the lowly penitent, "Gid have mercy on me a sinner"

in Jesus love, neil

S
sermonindex

"Natan4Jesus,

Who are you?

How have you lasted so long in these forums acting as you do? "


what did i do wrong?

If I've offended you, please forgive me. i realize pastors pride resides in all the books, commnmetaries and theo speak, might upset one if they;re called on this idolatry, but "Pauline Theology"?...yes i've heard it before, and it gave me spiritual indigestion the first time i heard it.

the very term is an affrontery to God, Jesus, even Paul himself, along with "replacement theology".

However i did not mean to offend you Pastor Bob.

R
RobertW

If this is the essence of the New Covenant are we enjoying it? Or are we enjoying just parts of it?

Clearly the Disciples pre-Pentecost (Acts 2) enjoyed many of the benefits of justification; but it seems also evident that they had not yet become partakers of the New Covenant. They could not be dead to Sin until Christ Himself died to Sin. They could not be 'in' Christ while He walked the earth, therefor they could not be 'New' creatures. The New Covenant was of no strength at all while the Testator lived. It seems then that the lives of the Disciples (and other NT Saints) post-Pentecost must be the example to us of what God provided in the New Covenant.

I find the behavior and Godly capabilities of the Disciples radically different after Pentecost than before. I am often concerned that somehow the fulness of what God has designed in the New Covenant has been overlooked and the risk is that many are living in an experience similar to what the Disciples knew before they were Baptized into the Body of Christ at Pentecost.

R
RobertW

"what did i do wrong?"

Just trying to discuss a serious topic here in a spirit of gentleness. Pauline Theology is a simple way of referring to Paul's portions of the Biblical corpus that reveal his theology. It is easier to say 'Pauline Theology' as a means of referring to 'it' than huge paragraphs of explanation, etc. Not trying to be technical, just used it for brevity.

P
philologos

I have listened to Zac Poonen's New Covenant sermon's, and what I read of Ron's version wasn't near as easy reading for me (by that I mean, Ron, if I have to learn all the theologians and their theologies, I'm not inclined to want to know about it). I just spoke with a friend and he gave me a new term I fell in love with... theological clutter. That's what it is to me; Sorry, Ron.

Hi Lisa
Coming to faith in Christ is not complicated but what sin has done to the human race is very complex. We don't need to know these things in detail when we start but we are encouraged to be 'grown up in our understanding'. The wonder of the New Covenant is not only that it deals with sins but that is deals with Sin; the underlying nature of our race that pursued Christ to the cross.

I guess what I may have to say is not 'easy reading' although I do my best to keep it as simple as I can. I love the concept of covenant because it addresses not just events but relationships. God has spoken to us in words and ideas and I do my best to make those words and ideas understandable to any who want to hear them.

My purpose in this is to exalt the one who loved me and gave himself for me. I was a Gentile with no promise, no covenant and no hope and he came and found me and joined me to himself in a union of spirits and made me his own. I live my life for him and seek to publish his achievements wherever I can.

I am not offended that you don't like what you read. My teaching is 'an acquired taste' and some never acquire it! (just joking) Neil and I have crossed swords many times in the past; I love him still whenever I see him I thank God for him... I will let him explain that last remark if he chooses to do so. I am sorry when people get angry with me but woe unto me if I preach not the gospel... in its New Covenant fulness.

R
RobertW

Now my feelings towards fellow Jews is akin to Paul's in Romans 9, just tortured, but i can testify to this, thanks to the religionists of days past, who's hands are soaked with jewish blood, if you say the Beautiful Name, "Jesus" to a Jew...today, a reflexive shudder goes thru them. Not out of Holy Ghost conviction, but because of the long dark history generation passes on about generation what these "christians" do to us.

I am very familiar with these issues and have written about them. There are a lot of peoples blood on 'the hands'. The Martyrs Mirror is case-in-point. But we are concerning ourselves with what the scriptures teach and cannot allow our theology to be influenced by any of these horrendous events.

It is the view of Messianic's that I have studied with that salvation is in Christ alone. This is why they seek to preach the Gospel to them. I would further suggest that the best chance of seeing Jews come to Christ is for them to be exposed to a genuine expression of the New Covenant in the Body of Christ. When the New Covenant is truly expressed folk are brought to a face-to-face with God no matter if they are Jew or Gentile, etc.

P
philologos

They could not be 'in' Christ while He walked the earth, therefor they could not be 'New' creatures. The New Covenant was of no strength at all while the Testator lived.

Robert
I really think this is a key to so much. If we think about it it becomes very clear that the disciples were not 'in Christ' while he was physically on the earth. He was, to use his own analogy of the Spirit, with them but not in them. The indwelling Christ is the 'hope of glory' but there could be no in-dwelling Christ while he was an alongside-dwelling Christ'. It is this inwardness of the New Covenant that I find so exciting.

R
RobertW

Ron's: It is this inwardness of the New Covenant that I find so exciting.

I think Steven found it exciting also. He seemed to be able to put his finger right on the spot as he preached. The non-believers throughout biblical history did always 'resist the Holy Spirit.' Some were even fine with a covenant that gave them a religion that could be exercised independent of God. But God's design since the beginning has been a restoration of the relationship that went beyond what Adam actually experienced. Adam's pre-fall experience would have been similar to that of the Disciples (if they had been innocent as Adam was) or Moses on the Mount (if he could have been innocent as was Adam). As wonderful as these theophanies are, the New Covenant offers men to become habitations of God through the Spirit. In the language of Isaiah 66:1, 2

hus saith the LORD, The heaven [is] my throne, and the earth [is] my footstool: where [is] the house that ye build unto me? and where [is] the place of my rest?

For all those [things] hath mine hand made, and all those [things] have been, saith the LORD: but to this [man] will I look, [even] to [him that is] poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.


Stephen quoted part of this passage in Acts 7:49, 50. The implication is clear. Non-believers do not truly want to be that place of God's rest. They don't want God near. I heard a definition of religion I think is fitting: it is worship in the absence of God. The New Covenant provides something not even Adam knew; an opportunity to be the very dwelling place of God. It provides for us that God would work in us both to will and to do His good pleasure.

S
sermonindex

by philologos on 2010/7/3 12:17:39

They could not be 'in' Christ while He walked the earth, therefor they could not be 'New' creatures. The New Covenant was of no strength at all while the Testator lived.

Robert
I really think this is a key to so much. If we think about it it becomes very clear that the disciples were not 'in Christ' while he was physically on the earth. He was, to use his own analogy of the Spirit, with them but not in them. The indwelling Christ is the 'hope of glory' but there could be no in-dwelling Christ while he was an alongside-dwelling Christ'. It is this inwardness of the New Covenant that I find so exciting.

____________________________________________________________

Ron and Robert,
There is failure here to account for the fact that Jesus was the Lamb slain BEFORE the foundation of the world.

As well, do you think that Jesus breathing on the disciples telling them to recieve the Holy Spirit was just a useless exercise without effect?

Several of the prophets were filled with the Holy Spirit, probably all of them, and Jesus refers to them as bretheren in Revelation and implies such at the onset of the sermon on the mount.
____________________________________________________________
(g: cont.)

I Cor. 3:
10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.


12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.

14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
------------------------------------------------------------

This word for "New" that you seem to be making everything hinge on needs to be looked at in context of where it is written. "New" creature has a different meaning than "New" covenant. Respectively, one is in reference primarily to "something different" (never used before), and the other means "fresh" (not yet used, yet most likely pre-existent: like plan A and plan B, A did not work out, so it's time for plan B)-thus my use of the word "renewed" as this word "fresh' implies. The one that is used for "Fresh" Covenant, in context with the passages where it is written, is in reference to the old way of worship compared to the New and Livng Way: Jesus being God's best.

If either of these words implied "something never existing before" there are other words for that. For example, if it meant "begotten" or "newborn" that is what would have been stated.

If the "Fresh" Covenant had totally abolished the Old, we could murder, lie, break Shabbat, etc. without guilt, condemnation, remorse, or consequences. It's an extreme example, yet it serves to prove what has been made of no effect and what is still active. Yes, we who are regenerate do not desire to bring shame to God's name, these things being written on our hearts.

(The danger in taking these single passages in Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah alone and not accounting for other possibile error and solutions plainly stated in the scriptures...

-(the sin nature, sin commited, the pathway of reprobation:seared conscience, confusion and resulting manifestations of sin, etc.)-

...is to create erronious doctrine, upon which is built doctrines of demons (man-made(?) theologies).

If we ever think "this is the way it is", yet not have an Eden paradise lifestlye, completely free from all effects of the curse is to lie against the truth.

It's really wondered how one can promote ideations from scripture, yet moving through life in the living not be moving in constant conversation

R
RobertW

As well, do you think that jesus breathing on the disciples telling them to recieve the Holy Spirit was just a useless exercise without effect?

It surely had a purpose, but it cannot be confused with the Pentecost event in which individuals could be baptized into Jesus Christ.

There is failure here to account for the fact that Jesus was the Lamb slain BEFORE the foundation of the world.

This fact allowed individuals to be justified by faith since the beginning. Yet we see historically that God has dealt with man typically through covenants and in 'real time'. There is emphasis made by the writer to the Hebrews on an important point:

For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. (Hebrews 4:3)

Although the works were finished from the foundation of the world they are being worked out in the 'here and now' in a linear fashion. Although God always knows what He will do, He carries on in time as if He is oblivious to the future. So although He knew Christ would die as sure as if it had happened, the reality of that event was did not play out until Calvary. After Calvary we have an interesting 'change' in the way God reckons mans actions:

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: (Acts 17:30)

Notice the two words, 'BUT NOW...' Why now? Because the position of the timeline was such that the Testator (in the New Covenant's case our Lord Jesus Christ) had actually died and Jesus Christ the True Melchizidek had assumed His place in Heaven as our King/Great High Priest of the New Covenant that was established in His own blood upon BETTER promises. This New Covenant promise is now available to anyone since Jesus Christ actually died in real time. As it is written... now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away. This is linear language. Otherwise Noah could have been Baptized into Jesus Christ by the Spirit and could have preached to the people a better covenant.

Yet God has chosen to reveal His purposes over time in what we would call Salvation History (Heilsgeschichte the German's call it). The Bible is a Revelation that builds line upon line towards the Revelation of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant. God chose to do it this way. It is unfathomable wisdom and majesty revealed in Historical events giving light to God's Eternal Covenant.

R
RobertW

Several of the prophets were filled with the Holy Spirit, probably all of them, and Jesus refers to them as bretheren in Revelation and implies such at the onset of the sermon on the mount.

John the Baptist was the greatest OldTestament Prophet, yet notice the personal pronouns in this passage:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire: (Matthew 3:11)

Note, he shall baptize YOU. Notice he did not include himself in that passage. Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit he apparently knew he would not live to see the prophesy he was making fulfilled. It was NOT his present experience, this Baptism with the Holy Ghost and Fire. He was filled with the Spirit as were many before him, but the Baptism he spoke of was the ONE Baptism that Paul spoke of in Ephesians.

John Baptist was martyred before he could undergo The Baptism he preached about. Jesus said that there was none greater born of women than John the Baptist; that is to say none that had only been born of the flesh (John 3). But the least in the Kingdom of God was going to be greater than John. Why? Because they would experience the One great Baptism Paul preaches in Ephesians 4. All other baptisms and the revelation they provide us with throughout the Old Testament point to this 'One Baptism' that John Baptist and Paul spoke of.

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

A good exegete knows that they cannot pluralize one aspect of this seven fold revelation and leave the other 6 singular. To do so would be to στρεβλοῦσιν (wrest) the passage. As surely as there is one God there is only really One Baptism. All others are merely types and shadows; instruments of God's revelation. This One Baptism is what takes a person 'OUT' of Adam and places them 'IN' Jesus Christ. (I Cor. 15:22)

R
RobertW

If the "Fresh" Covenant had totally abolished the Old, we could murder, lie, break Shabbat, etc. without guilt, condemnation, remorse, or consequences. It's an extreme example, yet it serves to prove what has been made of no effect and what is still active. Yes, we who are regenerate do not desire to bring shame to God's name, these things being written on our hearts.

I am not suggesting antinomianism (lawlessness). What I would say is that the First Covenant has vanished away; why? because what the Law could not do in that it was weak because of the flesh God had made provision for. There are 613 laws in the Old Covenant (365 neg and 248 pos) and many of them deal specifically with Israel in the land and the Temple rituals. Keep in mind, a covenant sets forth terms of a relationship. The reason they needed a sacrificial system was because the terms of the covenant would be broken and if the people were expected to follow the prescription for restoring the relationship again through propitiation, etc., then God could remain among them and they could remain in the land of Israel. Otherwise He would have to either depart or bring swift judgment.

God does not need the Old Covenant to remain in order to serve as a standard of conduct for the Born Again. In fact, to utilize the Old Covenant in attempting to be spiritual is to fall into the Galatian error.

This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (Galatians 3:3, 4)


The essence of the New Covenant that makes it totally incompatible with the old is that the genuine Born Again have BEGUN in the Spirit. That is always the question. Not has a person repeated a prayer, etc. The real question I think we have to employ is Paul's, "Having begin in the Spirit are you now made perfect by the flesh?"

What makes flesh- 'Flesh' is that men and women are responding and doing other than what God is saying. A child of the flesh is as Ishmael- they are living in the same line of reasoning that brought forth Ishmael. Sarah knew what God had said- but when God tarried she would not wait and as a result suggested an alternate option to believing what God has said. She did what was right in her own eyes with no regard for the Word that is proceeding from the mouth of God. The Old Covenant allows people to move in a host of codified rules as if they are God's people while at the same time 'always resisting the Holy Ghost' (Acts 7). The New Covenant establishes a people that will live by every word that IS proceeding from the mouth of God. The Old Covenant simply cannot take a person to the level of God-pleasing and obedience that makes Him KING OF KINGS in the heart. One has to have begun in the Spirit so they can hear and obey the Spirit. Anything else, no matter how enticing, is Galatianism in some form or another.

S
sermonindex

by RobertW on 2010/7/3 15:34:14

Several of the prophets were filled with the Holy Spirit, probably all of them, and Jesus refers to them as bretheren in Revelation and implies such at the onset of the sermon on the mount.

John the Baptist was the greatest OldTestament Prophet, yet notice the personal pronouns in this passage:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire: (Matthew 3:11)
------------------------------------------------------------
John the Baptist was never mentioned to recieve the Holy Spirit within, though for example, Ezekiel did...

[Rev. 19:10]

... and individual greatness is not measured God's Spirit, though greater works are. Man is measured by what he does, not what God does in or through him. God can use a donkey if He so chooses.
____________________________________________________________

Robert (cont.)

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

A good exegete knows that they cannot pluralize one aspect of this seven fold revelation and leave the other 6 singular. To do so would be to στρεβλοῦσιν (wrest) the passage. As surely as there is one God there is only really One Baptism. All others are merely types and shadows; instruments of God's revelation. This One Baptism is what takes a person 'OUT' of Adam and places them 'IN' Jesus Christ. (I Cor. 15:22)


I never claimed to be an exegete nor have any clue about what you call the 7 fold revelation. i just call it like it is seen and learn from there.

As far as shadows and types go, without the substance and anti-type already existing, there is no shadow nor type.


The only this that can be recognized from this post is that the shadow of immersion through water, such as Noah's and the Moshe with the children of Israel, or even John the dunker, is that though the physical manifestation was not yet manifested, yet even these types and shadows have no validity without the form and substance already existing.

How does one make a replica of something that does not yet exist?

There is the One, and then there is everything else sympathetic with, never vice versa.

II Cor. 4:16, 17, 18


Agapeo,
g
Acts 20:32

R
RobertW

Shame on anyone who takes what they want to use to make their rationalizations palatable and ignore the rest of what is written, Mk. 9:49. When judgement falls, will these things and the results created stand the fire? How severe will it be for those who have decieved many and know better?

Paul certainly agrees with this. He wrote the letter to Galatia with his own hands in big letters. It was an urgent message. there were some among them that sought to mix the Old Covenant with the New and were in grave danger. You will scarcely find stronger language than this in the whole Bible:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8, 9)

There is always this fear that unless folk are somehow brought under Law they will backslide or fall into sin. This is understandable. But Paul would not back up from the truth of the Gospel. He was constrained to not want hybrid Old/New Covenant Christians. He preached a message that brought a person into a place in life where they by nature fulfilled the Law. The Law cannot make a person perfect, to begin and continue in the Spirit can.

R
RobertW

John the Baptist was never mentioned to recieve the Holy Spirit within, though for example, Ezekiel did...

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. (Luke 1:15)

S
sermonindex

by RobertW on 2010/7/3 15:24:55


Yet God has chosen to reveal His purposes over time in what we would call Salvation History (Heilsgeschichte the German's call it). The Bible is a Revelation that builds line upon line towards the Revelation of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant. God chose to do it this way. It is unfathomable wisdom and majesty revealed in Historical events giving light to God's Eternal Covenant.
------------------------------------------------------------
I think we are stating the same thing in all this, yet if you see difference, praytell in what. If you wish to call it the remedy-(salvation)-story in German, have at it. I'm fluent, having friends and relatives who are full blooded germans (and act as though they are still there) as well as some serving in missions in Austria and the North Woods. I'm fluent in English, too.


The issue of Jesus both speaking and breathing on the disciples though, it's seen without debate that we are in disagreement. My observations of Jesus ministry on earth, whenever he spoke present tense, it happened then. Add to this the breathing and consider what Yaweh Elohim did in bringing Adam to the point of becoming a living soul.

Anything else is speculative.

Agapeo,
g
Acts 20:32

p.s. Those sermons from the 2008 revival conference on youtube you told me about are awesome. Thanks.

R
RobertW

As far as shadows and types go, without the substance and anti-type already existing, there is no shadow nor type.

It is interesting how God brings revelation to us. In word studies I often find the first occurrence of the word I'm thinking about in the scripture and work my way through the bible looking at how God has built a history into that particular word. Baptism is a word we can do that with. This is very important because of what Paul tells us in Ephesians 4:4-6

[There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all.

1. One Body
2. One Spirit
3. One hope of our calling
4. One Lord
5. One faith
6. ONE BAPTISM
7. One God and Father of all...

My point earlier is that exegetically we cannot pluralize number 6 and allow 1, 2,3, 4, 5, and 7 to mean 'One'. In other words if 1, 2,3, 4, 5, and 7 mean 'One' then #6 must also mean 'One'. If there is really in fact just 'One' Baptism, then what baptism is that for there are many things called baptism in scripture. If we begin looking at the term Baptism we see that God was building revelation into the word baptism so that in the fulness of times He could reveal the One Baptism and draw from many historical events as well as concepts to build our understanding of what to expect when we receive the 'One' Baptism (the One that all others effectively point to).

C
Christinyou

Galatians 4:4-6 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

What is this fulness of time?

Gaebelein's Annoted Bible
Galatians 4:1

CHAPTER 4

1. Under the law in the state of minority. 1-3
2. The Son revealed to redeem. 4-5
3. Because ye are Sons; the Spirit of Sonship. 6-7
4. The backsliding Galatians. 8-20
5. The sons of the bondwoman and of the free woman. 21-31
Jewish believers were, before Christ had died, the children of God, and as such they did not differ from servants. They were in a state of minority, as children who do not know the father's thoughts, nor could they fully know God as Father.

"He compares the believer before the coming of Christ to a child under age, who has no direct relation with his father as to his thoughts, but who receives his father's orders, without his accounting for them to him, as a servant would receive them. He is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Thus the Jews, although they were heirs of the promises, were not in connection with the Father and His counsels in Jesus, but were in tutelage to principles that appertained to the system of the present world, which is but a corrupt and fallen creation. Their walk was ordained of God in this system, but did not go beyond it. We speak of the system by which they were guided, whatever divine light they might receive, from time to time, to reveal heaven to them, to encourage them in hope, while making the system under the rule of which they were placed yet darker. Under the law then, heirs as they were, they were still in bondage."--Synopsis

But a great change had taken place. "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that He might redeem those under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." God sent His Son from His bosom to become man and "made under the law." He took His place down here in two relationships. First with man, through the woman, and with the Jews, as born under the law. Sin and death came in by the woman; Christ came into this world by woman also. Through the law, man is under condemnation and Christ came as under that law. But that law was no bondage for Him. He fully worked out the righteousness of the law. Yet his righteous and holy life could not redeem those under the law. Redemption from the curse of the law was accomplished in the death of the Cross. And the glorious result of the coming of the Son of God and His finished work is for all believers in Him "the adoption of sons"--that is, placed, through grace, before God as sons. And because believing Jews and Gentiles are sons, through the efficacy of the redemption wrought by the Lord Jesus Christ, God sent the blessed proof and power of sonship. "He sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." The Holy Spirit was given as the seal of redemption, and as the joy of sonship. "Wherefore, thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ."

"Was it possible, then, that any could desire to put the Gentiles under the law, when they (the Jews) had been brought out from it themselves by the will of God, the work of Christ, and the witness of the Holy Spirit? What a gross inconsistency! What a subversion, not only of the truth of God revealed in the gospel, but also of redemption, which is its basis! For Christ bought off those that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons, bringing them, by grace, into a place of known salvation and intelligent joy in relation with our God and Father, out of that bondage and nonage which the law supposes."--W. Kelly

Then follows the appeal of the apostle to the backsliding Galatians, who were fast falling away from grace and turning to the weak and beggarly elements. Verses 8-10 are of much interest and significance. They were heathen, and knowing not God, they served idols. Now, as being converted, they had known God, or rather God had known them. Turning to Judaism, to the law with its ordinances, meant, for them, a turning back to the weak and beggarly elementary things in which they were as heathen. They were, practically, turning again to that which they had left--"how turn ye again?" As heathen they had ceremonies, different offerings, and they observed different days by which they tried to please their supposed gods. Ritualistic observances upon Christian ground are more than a perverted gospel: they are heathenish in principle. Some African fetich-priest attires himself in a fantastic costume. He takes a rattle, dances and mumbles something in an unintelligible way. Then he declares what he does will induce the gods to send rain. In a magnificent edifice caged "church" stands a man who wears different colored robes. This man goes through different ceremonies, bows and crosses himself, mumbles something in a foreign language, then lifts up a receptacle before which the people bow in worship. He claims that, through him, blessing comes upon the people. Both, the African heathen-priest and the ritualistic-priest follow the same principle, and the practice of the so-called "Christian priest" is as much heathenish as the practice of the other. And so as to the observance of special holy days, months and years. "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain." The gospel knows nothing of the observance of days and seasons such as saint-days, Lent, etc. All these special saint-days and most of the feast-days kept in Christendom were taken from the heathen.

Then what a tender appeal follows! He reminds them of the former days when he preached first the gospel unto them. In the infirmity of the flesh, physical weakness, they had not despised nor rejected him, but received him as an angel of God, as the Christ whose blessed ambassador he was. Then they enjoyed great blessedness and would have plucked out their own eyes and given them to him. But where was their blessedness now? Had he become their enemy in speaking the truth to them? He addresses them as His little children "of whom I travail in birth again."

He needed, so to speak, to travail in birth afresh with them till Christ should be formed in them. Nevertheless, he calls them his children: his love inspired him with confidence, and yet filled his heart with uneasiness. He would have desired to be with them that he might change his voice, suiting it to their state; not only teaching them the truth, but doing whatever their need required. Mark here the deep love of the apostle. Moses, faithful as he was, grew weary of the burden of the people and said: Have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father beareth the sucking child, unto the land which thou swearest unto their fathers? (Nu 11#19); but the apostle is willing to travail in birth with them as his children a second time, in order that their souls might be saved.

Verses 21-31 give an interesting, typical foreshadowing and contrast. As they were abandoning grace, he wants the law to speak to them. Abraham had two sons, one by Hagar, the bondmaid, born after the flesh; the other son was Isaac, the son of promise, born by Sarah, the free woman. Both illustrate the covenants of God. Mount Sinai, the law-covenant, which gendereth to bondage, is represented in Hagar and her son; the other, the covenant of promise, "Jerusalem which is above"--the mother of us all--it is the true church of God viewed in her heavenly state; she is free. He quotes Isa 54#1, "Rejoice thou, barren, that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not, for the desolate has many more children than she which hath an husband." These words are addressed to Jerusalem during the millennial kingdom, in the time of her promised restoration. Then Israel, redeemed and blessed, will look back and find that, during our age, this gospel-age, many more children were begotten by the gospel, during the time when Israel was cast off and Jerusalem trodden down by the Gentiles than at the time when Jerusalem flourished and enjoyed the favor of Jehovah. "Now, we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." Those who believe and are saved by grace are, therefore, the true children of promise. But, as then, he that was born after the flesh persecuted "him that was after the Spirit, even so it is now." The Jews persecuted Paul for preaching the gospel. They opposed the gospel and all those who believed in Christ. But what was said about the bondwoman and her son? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the free woman." This has happened to Israel; she, for a time, is disowned and their house is left desolate. "So then, therefore, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free." It would be impossible to be children of both. Equally impossible is it to be under law and under grace. The two cannot exist together. We are children of the free woman and of her only and have nothing whatever to do with the law-covenant. We belong to a risen Christ, with whom we have died, who has borne the curse for us and bestowed upon us life and righteousness, and, therefore, we are free from the law, from its service and ceremonies. End.

If the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ of the new covenant were available to old testament believers, why did Jesus Pray that the new covenant believers would not jus have the Holy Spirit with them but in them. Why must we be born again, born again to what? The Spirit of Christ in you the Hope of Glory.

The fulness of time is the total culmination of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, which was in the mind of God and put to effective work in the incarnation of Christ.

This is not a favorite saying, but, There is no life in the Old testament. There is only life in the New Testament and its covenant in Christ Jesus our Lord, which without The Spirit of Christ rebirthed in us we are none of His.

Sorry this is so long;

In Christ until He is formed in us: Phillip

S
sermonindex

by RobertW on 2010/7/3 15:52:50

God does not need the Old Covenant to remain in order to serve as a standard of conduct for the Born Again. In fact, to utilize the Old Covenant in attempting to be spiritual is to fall into the Galatian error.

This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (Galatians 3:3, 4)


The essence of the New Covenant that makes it totally incompatible with the old is that the genuine Born Again have BEGUN in the Spirit. That is always the question. Not has a person repeated a prayer, etc. The real question I think we have to employ is Paul's, "Having begin in the Spirit are you now made perfect by the flesh?"

What makes flesh- 'Flesh' is that men and women are responding and doing other than what God is saying. A child of the flesh is as Ishmael- they are living in the same line of reasoning that brought forth Ishmael. Sarah knew what God had said- but when God tarried she would not wait and as a result suggested an alternate option to believing what God has said. She did what was right in her own eyes with no regard for the Word that is proceeding from the mouth of God. The Old Covenant allows people to move in a host of codified rules as if they are God's people while at the same time 'always resisting the Holy Ghost' (Acts 7). The New Covenant establishes a people that will live by every word that IS proceeding from the mouth of God. The Old Covenant simply cannot take a person to the level of God-pleasing and obedience that makes Him KING OF KINGS in the heart. One has to have begun in the Spirit so they can hear and obey the Spirit. Anything else, no matter how enticing, is Galatianism in some form or another.
------------------------------------------------------------

It's thought that you are grouping two covenants into one.

There is the Sinaitic Covenant which entailed the Laws of Moses, mediated through Angels, written by the hand of Moses. It is a result of delineating God's commandments, and a need for an order of worship. It was never intended to make one "righteous, but explained (in Dueteronomy 9-11 i think) the means to rule as peoples would fear our God in making us strong and prosperous. This is the Old Covenant. This was placed beside the Ark.

Within the Ark are the commands that are parcel to the Everlating Covenant and should be automatic to us unless we are decieved (I Jn. 5:2-3), being in effect before Sinai, and still in effect today. (It's thought you may be misunderstanding -(or possibly me?)- the concept of rest related in Heb. 4. The word is Sabbatismo, refering to "observing Shabbat" as the 4th command of the Everlasting Covenant. This is God's designated rest spoken of. In Galatians, it refers to festivals, new moons, and Sabbaths which are part of Old covenant delinieations of God's commandments.

IF the Old covenant is abolished, why do the prophecies in Isaiah after chapter 53 point to the time when world government shall be controlled from Jerusalem and the festivals of the Mosaic Law will be enforced?

Living by every word proceeding from the mouth of God does not exclude Mosaic Law.

Galatianism is a nice word for legalism.

If one does obey the Law to attain righteousness, one falls from grace.

If ones purpose is trusting God obediently, knowing He has our best good at heart (in making Him known) through our following His directions, this is hardly legalism -(Galatianism).

Leaving our first love, we cut off our relationship with God, all that remains is powerless legalism or antinomianism. Our God becomes form without His substance of Power and glory.

Gal. 2:20

Being truly growing into Christ, we let His mind be in us. It was in His mind to obey the Law and the prophets, because of this love for our Father, and from this a love for those around us.

It seems that both you and Ron may have this disease of seperating the spiritual from the physical?
(Das ist nie real: wird es nie erlaubt, so zu arbeiten!)

Being a child of God does not mean that we do not walk in the flesh. We just are not in accord with it, though we do fail to walk in the Spirit at various times. This does not make us children of Ishmael, darkness, nor the devil. What it says is that we are choosing to be dictated by the curse of the Law.

We are not made perfect in the flesh, yet we are not perfect in the spirit either. If we were walking perfect, we would not die.

Some day we shall know even as we are known, beholding the glory of God in the Face of Jesus. Until that day, let's press into translation from glory to glory.


Shalom,
gregg
Acts 20:32

edited and re-edited: for intermittent errors confusing meaning

P
philologos

Ron and Robert,
There is failure here to account for the fact that Jesus was the Lamb slain BEFORE the foundation of the world.

As well, do you think that Jesus breathing on the disciples telling them to recieve the Holy Spirit was just a useless exercise without effect?

Several of the prophets were filled with the Holy Spirit, probably all of them, and Jesus refers to them as bretheren in Revelation and implies such at the onset of the sermon on the mount.

Greg
This is not a failure to account... it's just that we haven't got to that part yet. Christ was slain from the foundation of the world but the effective work of regeneration in individuals did not take place before the foundation of the world but takes place in our space/time experience.

We must give due weight to the statement of Christ regarding the coming of the Holy Spirit when he said...

the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. John 14:17 NKJV

That contrast between 'with you' and 'will be in you' makes it quite clear that the indwelling Spirit was not known to the disciples at that time but would be subsequently. The relationship between the disciples and the Spirit was going to be radically changed when the Spirit came.

P
philologos

Phillip

The fulness of time is the total culmination of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, which was in the mind of God and put to effective work in the incarnation of Christ.

I think the phrase simply means when the time was 'ripe'. Historically the incarnation took place at an amazing point in time when everything was ready. There were synagogues in most cities ready to preach the gospel. The Greek language was spoken throughout the Mediterranean. The Pax Romana meant that travel was much easier there being no borders in the one empire. The Roman navy had ended piracy in the Mediterranean. Judaism had its most magnificent temple and was morally bankrupt. The time was ripe.

P
philologos

"For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." Heb 7:12 NKJV

This verse holds an important truth. The law and the priesthood are inseparable. The Sinai (Old) Covenant had not only law but a priesthood. A single sin would have wrecked the covenant agreement if God had not made provision for atonement in the priesthood. Consequently the Old Covenant could only ever operate while the Levitical priesthood was operating. The 10 commandments, as we call them, were in effect a tenancy agreement between God who owned the land and the people of Israel who were the tenants.

The law included harvests festivals which could only be present when the people entered their land. Consequently there is a vital link between the Old Covenant and the land of Israel.

The writer to the Hebrews tells us that you cannot change the priesthood without changing the law. The New Covenant is a 'change' from one thing to another; it is not an amendment.

It was to the community of the Old Covenant that Christ said
"No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and the tear is made worse." Matt 9:16 NKJV

and

"And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine bursts the wineskins, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins.” Mark 2:22 NKJV

The New Covenant is a new garment and a new wineskin.

R
rookie

John the Baptist was the greatest OldTestament Prophet, yet notice the personal pronouns in this passage:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire: (Matthew 3:11)

Note, he shall baptize YOU. Notice he did not include himself in that passage. Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit he apparently knew he would not live to see the prophesy he was making fulfilled. It was NOT his present experience, this Baptism with the Holy Ghost and Fire. He was filled with the Spirit as were many before him, but the Baptism he spoke of was the ONE Baptism that Paul spoke of in Ephesians.

We have in this age, set apart the day of Pentecost, as a day that marked some new improved work of God upon men's hearts. We use words like "in" to distinguish that new improved work. Yet Scripture does not make this distinction. We say that the OT teaches that the Spirit of God was cast upon men. We say that in the NT we see that the Spirit of God will be in men. And we mark the day of Pentecost as the day in which God changed His work upon His creation. But Scripture does not support this doctrine formulated by men. Listen to the exact words of Scripture.


Act 2:1\t¶\tAnd when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
Act 2:2\t \tAnd suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
Act 2:3\t \tAnd there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
Act 2:4\t \tAnd they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.


In the above section of Scripture we find that the Holy Ghost filled them on the day of Pentecost.


This work of God is declared by Peter in the following Scripture....


Act 2:16\t \tBut this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
Act 2:17\t \tAnd it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
Act 2:18\t \tAnd on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:


In the above section of Scripture we find that Peter identifies the prophesy of Joel has come to bear upon those who were just filled by the Holy Ghost. In this prophesy, the Scriptures declare that God "will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh"...that "on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit: and they shall prophesy."

Therefore, the Scriptures, declare that the work of God, when He pours out of His Spirit "upon" men that this "event" filled them. And the purpose of this work is that His "servants" and His "handmaidens" "shall prophesy." This work of the Holy Ghost is manifested for the purpose that His people will know His words.

We have this same promise, this same work declared in the OT Scriptures.


Pro 1:23\t \tTurn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.


Do you "see" the work and purpose described in these Scriptures?

In Christ
Jeff

S
sermonindex

can i mess with your writing a bit? just bring it up to date a bit; you wrote:
__________________________________________________
"I think the phrase simply means when the time was 'ripe'. Historically the incarnation took place at an amazing point in time when everything was ready. There were synagogues in most cities ready to preach the gospel. The Greek language was spoken throughout the Mediterranean. The Pax Romana meant that travel was much easier there being no borders in the one empire. The Roman navy had ended piracy in the Mediterranean. Judaism had its most magnificent temple and was morally bankrupt. The time was ripe."
_______________________________________

(now i'm going to paste it in again, but substitute some new words, just to see how it reads:

I think the phrase simply means when the time was 'ripe'. Historically the incarnation took place at an amazing point in time when everything was ready. There were churches in most cities ready to preach the gospel. The English language was spoken throughout the globe. The Pax Americana/Global Economy meant that travel was much easier there being no "real" borders in the one global economy. The American military configured full spectrum dominance throughout the globe. Christianity, in its myriad of denominations had its most magnificent churches and mega-churches, which included vast televised empires and was morally bankrupt. The time was ripe.

how you think that reads?

true?

S
sermonindex

by philologos on 2010/7/3 23:35:34

the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. John 14:17 NKJV
------------------------------------------------------------
This is another issue altogether,related but seperate. (See, all your posts re:The Holy Spirit have been read through, and Jeremy was at a loss for words, yet i am not.)

Regarding this verse:
Who is the Truth?
and
Who dwelled with the disciples?

You do not understand 'echad'.

Case in point:
God is a decanity:
El

S
sermonindex

by philologos on 2010/7/3 23:53:35

"For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." Heb 7:12 NKJV

This verse holds an important truth. The law and the priesthood are inseparable.
------------------------------------------------------------
Boy, you really know how to make a guy look deeply into things that were once just accepted.

The law of the priesthood and sacrafice is inseperable from the priesthood. However, this Torah regarding common daily life is seperable from the law of priesthood and sacrafice, either that or Jesus was lying when he said Mt. 5:18.

It's hard to believe you went here already stating you were saving Hebrews for later on in this discussion.

Do you realize you are taking a verse out of context and misinterpreting what it actually says in stating what this post being commented on is all about?

The best English translation of this verse found, (having poured over them on Logos, Bluebible, my Bibles not online, and elsewhere is either the NKJV or the RSV.

Still, english does not do Koine justice.

Are you sure you should base a theology on one verse, and misinterpreted at that? Duet. 7:6, 19:15 and Mt. 18:16

The RSV and NKJV render it 'change in' the the Teachings (aka: Torah). First, this hardly spells out abolition...
____________________________________________________________
side-note:
It's thought that Westerners gravely misunderstand what Torah is all about, considering that they call it "Law". Of course how could they not, when that is all the greek calls it.
____________________________________________________________

...
Do you realize this is the only place in the whole New Testament where this 'change' in Torah is stated?

The question is, what type of change are we talking about?

In Acts 6:14 it does speak of a change regarding Torah, however this is in regards to addition/removal, i.e.,Purim, so it cannot be compared with this verse.

Rather than the word 'change', the word 'metamorphosis' or 'transformation' would have been better synonyms- (gk. 'nomou metathesis'). The need for what type of change, and why, is found in the passage of Heb. 7:11-14. The term metathesis does not say everything is abolished by any stretch of the imagination. It point to retention of form with variation in structure. It is rearrangement of elements within the object considered.

The whole of chapter 7 of Hebrews is in regards to change from a priesthood by physical descent -Gershom of Levi as priest in general and his great grandson Aaron for the High Priest. Pinchas, Aaron's great grandson, was given the covenant of an everlasting priesthood (Num. 25:13).

Yahshuvah posseses the everlasting priesthood because He alone is immortal, and thusly, after the order of Malki-Tzedek (I Tim. 6:16 & Heb. 5:6, 10, 6:20; Ps 110:4).

..there's a whole lot more, but to get to the point:

The context surrounding and word meaning for change in this verse speaks of 3, possibly more, things:

1. Context makes it overwhelmingly obvious that the only transformation of Torah is regarding priesthood and sacrafice.

2. As such there is no implication whatsoever that the teachings towards daily life are abrogated by this change in sacrafice and priesthood.

3. There is a faulty understanding of metathesis, based on taking an English synonym at face value without finding out the true archaic meaning and failing to consider the context and intent of the book of Hebrews.

Mt. 5:17


Yahshuvah did not come to abolish the Torah and the Prophets but 'to make full' (gk, plerosai) the meaning of Torah and the morality demanded by the Prophets.

He came to 'fill out' our understanding of these things. It means to 'bring to complete undrestanding, in both the nature and application' of these things.

Jesus Christ is the end of the law FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS; but, He is not the finality of it. He provided both the teaching and the means to enable us to become and do these things.


Sincerely,

Yur' lil' kotz,
gregg
Acts 20:32


A
ADisciple

Phanetheus, I'm a bit perplexed by your position. What do you think you gain by it? You'll end up in quite a quagmire if you continue along this line, trying to keep parts of Torah while leaving other parts of it behind.

You said, "The law of the priesthood and sacrafice is inseperable from the priesthood. However, this Torah regarding common daily life is seperable from the law of priesthood and sacrafice, either that or Jesus was lying when he said Mt. 5:18."

No, you can't split up the Torah that way. He who offends in one point is guilty of all (Jas. 2.10). If you want to be a Torah keeper, you'll have to start sacrificing lambs and bulls as well.

And, may I remind you of the clear teaching of Scripture, that "the Law (the Torah) was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (Jn. 1.17).

Grace and truth... beautiful words, both of which imply an intrinsic power that the Law didn't have.

Surely you know this verse: "What the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh..." (Rom. 8.3).

And this: "For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof" (Heb. 7.18).

It was for these reasons-- weakness, unprofitableness, and that it made nothing perfect (Heb. 7.19)-- that God said good-bye to the Old Covenant and brought in a New.

It is definitely true that "the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Heb. 7.12).

And not just parts of it. All of it. Under the New Covenant we are definitely no longer under the Levitical priesthood and its law. Our high priest is not after the order of Aaron, but "after the order of Melchizedek." And so the law-- all of it-- is changed as well.

What is the change? What law are we under now? The law of Grace. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. (Or as James calls it, the perfect Law of liberty, calling it a "mirror" into which we are called to look, and not look back).

James also calls it, (and there is a hint here, I think, of the Melchizedek order) "the royal law." "If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well..." (Jas. 2.8). That royal law is written in the Torah, but is not fulfilled there. In fact it cannot be fulfilled under the Torah. But when it goes forth as a commandment from the royal throne of King Melchizedek (our Lord Jesus Christ) with grace and Life in it... that's the change in the Law that has taken place. And those who embrace this New Law in their hearts find it being written there with a power of Life, and Grace and Truth, that enables them to walk in it and fulfill it.

AD

R
RobertW

To build on AD's point I wish to return to Hebrews 7:18ff:

For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death. (Hebrews 7:18ff)


Here disannulling in v. 18 is ἀθέτησις (nullified/removed) and it is used in only 2 places in the NT:

For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away (ἀθέτησις ) sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Hebrews 9:26)

This is interesting because what has happened to the Law has also happened to sin. If the Law is still hanging around since the New Covenant has been in place- so is our sins. There is no way around it. Our sin is taken away in the same measure as was the Law. Our sin is either ἀθέτησις (nullified/removed)or it is not ἀθέτησις (nullified/removed).

Although ἀθέτησις (nullified/removed) is used just twice in the NT, the noun, in a technical, legal sense, is found in a number of papyri from 98 to 271 A.D., meaning the making void of a document. (Vincent) According to G. Kittel it is a legal term meaning 'to invalidate' or to 'declare invalid'.

Again this is not an argument for antinomianism, but rather...

For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. (Hebrews 7:19)

The New Covenant opens the possibility that men and women might fulfill God's desire that men and women might reflect the true image of God.

S
sermonindex

You said, "The law of the priesthood and sacrafice is inseperable from the priesthood. However, this Torah regarding common daily life is seperable from the law of priesthood and sacrafice, either that or Jesus was lying when he said Mt. 5:18."

No, you can't split up the Torah that way. He who offends in one point is guilty of all (Jas. 2.10). If you want to be a Torah keeper, you'll have to start sacrificing lambs and bulls as well.
------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't split it. Jesus did in His sacrafice and immortal eternal High Priestly position, and in what He said in Mt 5:17, 18.

As well, in O.T. times, the Laws of the Priesthood and of animal sacrafice were not applicable to the common Hebrew, except in the fact that they took their offerings to them to be adminishered. They could not break these teachings if they tried, because these ways of doing things only applied to the bloodline of the priesthood and not every tribe.

You are disregarding the true meaning of the word metathesis, and like Ron, are disregarding context. So, in a round about way, are you saying Jesus lied when He stated Mt. 5:17, 18. If not, you explain the truth of these verses. You, nor anyone else has any right to change what He said.
____________________________________________________________

AD:

And, may I remind you of the clear teaching of Scripture, that "the Law (the Torah) was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (Jn. 1.17).


Grace and truth... beautiful words, both of which imply an intrinsic power that the Law didn't have.
------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, very beautiful, and without the teachings (Torah), there is no need for grace and truth.

If the Law is abolished there is no need for the 'Fresh' Covenant. They hings upon one another.

Without the Old Covenant, there is no purpose for the refreshing of the New.
____________________________________________________________

AD:
And this: "For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof" (Heb. 7.18).

It was for these reasons-- weakness, unprofitableness, and that it made nothing perfect (Heb. 7.19)-- that God said good-bye to the Old Covenant and brought in a New.
------------------------------------------------------------
Not commandments, but commandment, referring to one portion of Torah. In context this is only speaking of the sacraficial system and the administration thereof.

Metathesis means retention of basic structure with the rearrangement of the elements within it. It is a transition transforming the initial form through any variety of metamorphic processes.

I did not write it. I just believe it, and i am not about to say what it does not say as you or Ron are attempting.
Read what it says and not what you want it to mean.

Why are you too taking this out of context and disregarding the meaning behind it?
____________________________________________________________

AD:

It is definitely true that "the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Heb. 7.12).

And not just parts of it. All of it. Under the New Covenant we are definitely no longer under the Levitical priesthood and its law. Our high priest is not after the order of Aaron, but "after the order of Melchizedek." And so the law-- all of it-- is changed as well.
------------------------------------------------------------

...and here we go with what Jesus said in His earthly ministry, as well as in Hebrews further on.

Under grace, Failure to abide under the change of heart brought through this, anger is murder, and lust is adultery, forgive or you will not be forgiven, and so on. Jesus not just fulfilled the Torah, but made it complete, filling in all the missing parts that the commandments never detailed.

Where there is judgement under the Law, the judgement is more sever under grace, as not only the letter, but the spirit of the matter must find obedience...

(Examples: When you forgive, you are forgiven; when you are not angry, you will not murder; when you do not lust with your eyes, you will not commit adultery.)

...This severity of judement ounder grace is pointed to all over the New Testament, yet hopefully, 1 passaage will suffice: II Cor. 5:10,11,12

(...but, if not, when there is more time, more will be found to show you (there is one specifically that is thought of in direct relation to the need for more intense obedience under grace.
____________________________________________________________


AD:
And not just parts of it. All of it. Under the New Covenant we are definitely no longer under the Levitical priesthood and its law. Our high priest is not after the order of Aaron, but "after the order of Melchizedek." And so the law-- all of it-- is changed as well.
------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying that the ministration of the priesthood through the Old Covenant was the same as the ministration of God through it? It seems this is what you are implying, yet God clearly states through the prophets, that He would rather there be mercy than sacrafice.

The ministration of the Levitical Priesthood was a failsafe for men due to hardness of heart were not living in and through the expression of God's mercy.

If all the Law has changed, go murder somebody and see just how much of a change there has been.

???????
____________________________________________________________

AD:

What is the change? What law are we under now? The law of Grace. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. (Or as James calls it, the perfect Law of liberty, calling it a "mirror" into which we are called to look, and not look back).

James also calls it, (and there is a hint here, I think, of the Melchizedek order) "the royal law." "If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well..." (Jas. 2.8). That royal law is written in the Torah, but is not fulfilled there. In fact it cannot be fulfilled under the Torah. But when it goes forth as a commandment from the royal throne of King Melchizedek (our Lord Jesus Christ) with grace and Life in it... that's the change in the Law that has taken place. And those who embrace this New Law in their hearts find it being written there with a power of Life, and Grace and Truth, that enables them to walk in it and fulfill it.

------------------------------------------------------------

OK, from reading this last section above maybe now we are coming to terms just a bit.

The royal Law is briefly explained in the verses following, and these are contained in the last 6 commandments, yet under grace, it not only includes these 6, but the heart issues from which obedience to them springs.

The last 6 commandments are loving your neighbor as yourself, and this is what is covered in the sermon on the mount, the center premise of this sermon, on which everything hinges is Mt 6:14, 15.

Recall in the Prophets this is stated as mercy over sacrafice.

It's called royal law because it is in regard to the kingdom of God and the rule of King Yahshuvah on earth, after the New Jerusalem brought down from heaven.
____________________________________________________________

Yes, the law is weak through the flesh Rom. 8:3, yet truth and grace only applies to those who walk in the Spirit of this Grace, Rom 8:1.


You say all the "Law" has changed, but you hold up no scriptures to back this up.


Yur' lil' kotz 2,
g
Acts 20:32

A
ADisciple

Phanetheus said, "You are disregarding the true meaning of the word metathesis, and like Ron, are disregarding context. So, in a round about way, are you saying Jesus lied when He stated Mt. 5:17, 18. If not, you explain the truth of these verses. You, nor anyone else has any right to change what He said."

Phanetheus, it would do you good to come to a grasp of that one word "fulfil" in Mt. 5.17.

Our Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled the Passover (1 Cor. 5.7) and so we no longer celebrate Passover by sacrificing a lamb etc. as the Jews of old did.

He fulfilled Pentecost, which you can read about in Acts Ch. 2: the beginning of the church. And so we no longer observe Pentecost after the shadow outlined in the Torah.

And our Lord will yet fufill the feast of tabernacles in the church.

And so with all the Torah.

And so as to keeping the Torah under the terms of the Old Covenant, this has utterly been done away.

You asked, "Are you saying that the ministration of the priesthood through the Old Covenant was the same as the ministration of God through it? It seems this is what you are implying, yet God clearly states through the prophets, that He would rather there be mercy than sacrafice."

Sorry, I don't understand your question. It was indeed God who instituted the Old Covenant. His purpose in it was to "bring in a better hope" (Heb. 7.19).

You say, "If all the Law has changed, go murder somebody and see just how much of a change there has been."

It appears to me you don't understand the nature of the basic difference between the Old Covenant and the New.

As Robert W has said, and I agree with him, to say that the Old Covenant and its Torah have been done away is not to champion antinomianism.

We are under a far higher order now.

...I'm still somewhat perplexed as to just where you are at, Phanetheus. I don't know why you are trying to defend this. Look at what the Apostle Paul had to go through regarding the Judaizers. Yet, no man loved the Jews more than he.

...And if you don't mind my saying it, can't you just use Anglicized words like the rest of us who are speaking and writing in the English language? When you use words like "Avraham," and "Yehoshua," etc. this does not make you more spiritual. In fact you come across as being bit affected. If I ever moved to Israel and learned Hebrew, certainly I'd use those spellings to communicate with others who speak Hebrew. Meanwhile, I'm going to use English with those who understand English. :)

S
sermonindex

by RobertW on 2010/7/4 13:19:10

To build on AD's point I wish to return to Hebrews 7:18ff:

------------------------------------------------------------
Now why are you trying to build on something that has quite a shakey foundation, if any at all.

Show us on this forum just one scripture that states the Law was abolished.
____________________________________________________________


Ron:
For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death. (Hebrews 7:18ff)


Here disannulling in v. 18 is ἀθέτησις (nullified/removed) and it is used in only 2 places in the NT:

For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away (ἀθέτησις ) sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Hebrews 9:26)

This is interesting because what has happened to the Law has also happened to sin. If the Law is still hanging around since the New Covenant has been in place- so is our sins. There is no way around it. Our sin is taken away in the same measure as was the Law. Our sin is either ἀθέτησις (nullified/removed)or it is not ἀθέτησις (nullified/removed).
------------------------------------------------------------

There is no need for a New Covenant if the Torah is removed.

It is the context of Hebrews 7 to cover the change of Priesthood and sacrafice. You are majoring on minors and pulling issues out of context to do it.

Hebrews 7:15-19 are one piece of information. This is speaking of the second reason for the change from generational priesthood by fleshly descent. The contrast between a weak power and rule with the 'Fresh' Covenant order is explicitly stated in vv,18 and 19. This is also alluded to in other places in the NT such as Rom. 8:3 that AD mentioned, and also Gal. 3:2-3.

Re: Heb. 9:26

says "he has appeared to disannul" and it does not say that he has already disannulled 'sin'. He came to make possible the removal of the sin nature. Heb. 7:19 clearly states that this is still a hope and not yet seen,
(though through this hope in faith we can draw near unto God (and recieve His good graces). Redemption has not yet come, and all we have is a down-payment at present.

Where do the scriptures say that this has been done already?

The Law is still in effect and this in a more comprehensive way now through grace, being not merely a matter of letter, but the heart of this matter is the sprit of forgiveness in mercy.
____________________________________________________________

Phanetheus thinks:
There is no point in moving on when things already do not stack up with this 'theology' you are attempting to promote.

(...and from what has been seen
how the Q&A's to issues expressed
are supposedly silenced
(and hopefully forgotten?)
if they do not agree
with your slant of
the discussion at hand,
the following
list is probably already currently longer
than what you will be importuned with now.)

For the sake of light and truth, please quit making up stuff that doesn't fit with the whole counsel of God.

THESE THINGS YOU HAVE STILL NOT YET ANSWERED
from what is recalled without checking back
over this thread:

1. Is God 1, 3, 9, or 10?

2. How do you account for several of the prophets being filled with the Spirit of God, when you imply that this is something only after Pentecost?

3. How do you reinterpret Mt. 5:17, 18 since there is no more "law"?

4. Why are the feasts, new moons, as well as not only God's Sabbath, but also the High Holy days of Sabbath of these 7 festivals going to be enforced during the millenial reign of Yahshuvah since the Old Covenant is totally abolished?

5. Why do you say the Law is removed/negated when this is not found in scripture anywhere?

6. Why do you keep saying things that have not yet occured have occured already? Why do you apply meanings to things that are not in the text, nor have cross-reference to prove what you say? Why do you take things out of context?

7. Why do you say Koine Greek words say what they do not say (mostly in regards to tense and genetives), or attempt to lose people in your form of misdirectional rhetoric through the misapplication of such?

AD asked what i am trying to gain in this, and the answer is in two words:

UNADULTERATED TRUTH

To adulterate God's Word with all the "I think"'s and "so-and-so says" is nothing more than the polity of idolatry.


Yur lil' kotz,
gregg
Acts 20:32

A
ADisciple

"Show us on this forum just one scripture that states the Law was abolished."

2 Cor. 3.12-14

R
RobertW

Gregg's: Show us on this forum just one scripture that states the Law was abolished.

Answer: Consider the strength of Paul's argument here:

Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.


Gal 5:2\t \tBehold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.


Gal 5:3\t \tFor I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.


Gal 5:4\t \tChrist is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.


Gal 5:5\t \tFor we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.


Gal 5:6\t \tFor in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.


Gal 5:7\t¶\tYe did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?


Gal 5:8\t \tThis persuasion [cometh] not of him that calleth you.


Gal 5:9\t \tA little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.


The Old Covenant with it's sign of Circumcision is likened in verse 1 to a YOKE of bondage that we are NOT to be entangled again with. Verse 2 says that if we do, Christ shall profit us nothing. Verse 3 says that if we come again under the bondage and Christ profits us nothing then we then are a debtor to the WHOLE Law (this presents a serious problem because it is impossible to keep the Law now because the sacrificial system is not in place).

Verse 4 says for those in Circumcision in debt to the whole Law that Christ is of no effect to them, they have FALLEN from grace. Paul then calls re-entangling again with the yoke of the Old Covenant disobedience in verse 7. The notion according to verse 8 does not come from God. It is a leaven that has the power to ruin the whole lump.

BTW it is impossible to be under the Law (old Covenant). You will know that this is where the concept of Halakhah came from. Because it is utterly impossible to keep so much of the 613 Laws the Rabbi's has to systematize all sorts of reinventions and innovations to give some sense of fulfillment. But it is a sham- a propped-up nonsense that does no justice to the Law whatsoever. When Titus destroyed the Temple is sealed the coffin of the Old Covenant for Israel. Every single offering they would attempt to offer God today is STRANGE fire before the Lord. Why? They long ago lost the sacred flame- the only flame that made their offerings acceptable. They have no Fire and no Glory, but they kept innovating means to keep the Old Covenant on life support. .

R
RobertW

I want to zoom in on a critical passage and consider some simple logic:

Gal 5:2\t Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.


To suggest that the Old Covenant is still in effect is to imply that we ought to observe it. If we observe the Old Covenant, even circumcision, then we become a debtor to the whole law. If we do this then Christ profits us nothing. So it is impossible to promote men/women observing the Old Covenant without reproaching Christ.

S
sermonindex

Being rather limited for time presently, there will be an attempt to speak back regarding what you two are double teaming regarding. If not, everything will be addressed in time.

First it is desired that both you AD and philo consider that as was stated near the onset of what has beeen stressed from here is your failure to recognize that there are the Mosaic ordinances of the Old Covenant, and then there is the Law of God, the commandments. Both of these things are seperate issues

The greek word used for Torah is nuos, which means Law, yet there is no greek word for Torah, basically consisting of: 1. History of origins (including the foreshadowing of the "Fresh" covenant-and all that proceeded through God and Abraham's faithfulness.
2. The Exodus and Wilderness
3. The Expression of God's commandments, spoken and written by God
4. The Mosaic ordinances written by Moses, from angels mediating.

All this is what falls under the term nuos. So, when i read the word law ...i'm thinking ok, are they meaning the Torah, the laws of Moshe, or the Laws of God.

At times in this discussion, there is seen confusion by me and yourselves as to what actually is being addressed. So in my instance i am looking to the Bible reference you give, by mention of incident or passage, because the greek word nuos just does not cut it in meaning Torah, though this is the only appropriate Greek word that exists. One must look to the context of the passage to see in the NT what nuos is in reference to. (you group all these things together as one thing, and yet these 4 things are hardly the same. When nuos is in reference to Mosaic Law, there is the specific change only related to the sacrafice and piesthood, whether in substance-(such as Jesus being High Priest or Annointed King and Mediator) or in form-(such as Jesus being our passover, circumcision of the heart through regeneration via Jesus Christ crucified represented by immersion (Baptism))

Onvorten!
g
Acts 20:32

S
sermonindex

by RobertW on 2010/7/4 19:16:26

I want to zoom in on a critical passage and consider some simple logic:

Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.


To suggest that the Old Covenant is still in effect is to imply that we ought to observe it. If we observe the Old Covenant, even circumcision, then we become a debtor to the whole law. If we do this then Christ profits us nothing. So it is impossible to promote men/women observing the Old Covenant without reproaching Christ.
------------------------------------------------------------
Gal. 5:2 is in reference to Gentiles being told they must become Jews via circumcision (by the concission=judaisers).

To suggest that the Old Covenant is not in effect is to imply that we ought not observe it. If we observe the Old Covenant in respect to circumcision or any aspect of the Levitical ordinances, then we become a debtor to the whole law. If we do this then Christ profits us nothing. So it is impossible to promote men/women observing the Levitical way without reproaching Christ.


Yur kotz,
g Acts 20:32

S
sermonindex


by ADisciple on 2010/7/4 16:21:41

...And if you don't mind my saying it, can't you just use Anglicized words like the rest of us who are speaking and writing in the English language? When you use words like "Avraham," and "Yehoshua," etc. this does not make you more spiritual. In fact you come across as being bit affected. If I ever moved to Israel and learned Hebrew, certainly I'd use those spellings to communicate with others who speak Hebrew. Meanwhile, I'm going to use English with those who understand English. :)
------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, it's just me coming out of the closet STS. i have been asked by many if i were Jewish and now dealing with, as Neil put it, "a replacement theologist", it is desired to hammer home the point that the Bible is a Jewish book and basic misunderstandings are due to a lack of comprehension of Middle-Eastern Occidental thought and ways, compared to graeco-roman reasoning and culture.

I never claimed to be more spiritual as you probably are more than me. God knows and that is not the purpose. It does show i am more human though, considering at times i tend to slip the actual renditions of words by mistake...but not in this case.

Affected? Would the word crazy or extreme or radical or all three together suit you better? i don't mind at all, yet it's wondered if Gentiles such as yourself will ever understand the implicit as well as the complicit meanings of such names as YHVH, when you can't even deal with them as the are really spell? (Hebrew is not a word definition language: every letter symbolises an object and every root word (usually 3 letter/symbols) within a full word forms a smaller picture of what the complete picture of the full word means.)

The whole Bible is written by Jews, not Gentiles, as this is what God entrusted us to do. You cannot take western thought and reasoning and apply it to an occidental book, even if part of it is written in greek, or there is a rendition of the O.T. in Greek.


That's all.
g
Acts 20:32

P
philologos

how you think that reads?

I think you are right on the ball! It one of the reasons I am so excited to be alive in this part of history. One part I missed out was that the 1st century had seen a great wash of mystical eastern religions which swept into the Mediterranean area. There really is a remarkable parallel between the first century and the one we are living in. Some are filled with anxiety as they see this, I must admit I am somewhat exhilarated!

P
philologos

gregg

Rather than the word 'change', the word 'metamorphosis' or 'transformation' would have been better synonyms- (gk. 'nomou metathesis'). The need for what type of change, and why, is found in the passage of Heb. 7:11-14. The term metathesis does not say everything is abolished by any stretch of the imagination. It point to retention of form with variation in structure. It is rearrangement of elements within the object considered.

I am struggling to keep up now and I may find someone else has already answered this...

I think if we are too pedantic (something which I am often accused of) we may lose some of our readers however...

the difference between metathesis and metamorphosis is that one means to transpose and the other means to transform. If would be quite inappropriate to translate metathesis as metamorphosis and I doubt you will find any translator who has done so. Transposing means to swap things around, transforming needs no explanation.

The word metathesis is used three times in Hebrews so you can test out your theory very easily

this is the BlueLetterBible


[url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3331&t=KJV]metathesis[/url]

S
sermonindex

by ADisciple on 2010/7/4 17:34:20

"Show us on this forum just one scripture that states the Law was abolished."

2 Cor. 3.12-14
------------------------------------------------------------
If this passage actually did mean the Law was abolished, alot of the NT would have to be thrown out along with the whole Torah, which is it's basis.


3 things:

1.) The KJV mistranslates this, being Anglicanized Anti-semitism, carried over from the church they broke off from: HRCC.

A purer translation, Such as the ESV transliterates the Greek much more appropriately: II Cor. 3.12-14 ESV.

v.13: "...what was being brought to an end..." (Not was already brought to an end, but rather 'being -(as "in the process of")- brought'.

There is a world of difference between 'past tense' and '(past-)continuous present tense'. Further, abolished, as in being done away with, is completely different than being brought to 'a final conclusion' (aka: end).


2.) The issue of misunderstanding arises if this is taken as a verse saying the "whole" law is abolished, or even, "was being brought to an end."

Within context it does not say this at all.

Realizing i slipped up on a former post-- in stating 'nuos' was the word for "law", as it is 'nomos' (aka: Torah), --reading this morning...
... Anyway, that word is not even found within this passage. Context is imperative. So, this passage is not even talking about the Old Covenant is not the Law that 'was being brought to a final conclusion' because it may not even be talking about Law at all.

It is speaking about the Spirit of the Law being more able than the letter. What the letter could not do, the Spirit makes possible, through the glory revealed in us by Christ Jesus. This is why their is a veil over their hearts (those who do not depend on Jesus) is spoken of when the Law is read, compared to we who are regenerated.

3. If it were actually the word 'abolished', and referring to Torah in the original text, alot of NT books would have to be thrown out, as they contradict this one mis-translated verse. (The book of Romans is just one of these books/letters, where Paul states not that 'the Law WAS', but that 'the Law IS': Rom. 7:12.

Yur kotz 2,
g
Acts 20:32

S
sermonindex

by philologos on 2010/7/5 1:57:16

I think if we are too pedantic (something which I am often accused of) we may lose some of our readers however...
------------------------------------------------------------
i'm gonna have to look that word up, but from what you say, it must have something to do with teaching by rote? or possibly detailed in explanation?
____________________________________________________________


...the difference between metathesis and metamorphosis is that one means to transpose and the other means to transform. If would be quite inappropriate to translate metathesis as metamorphosis and I doubt you will find any translator who has done so. Transposing means to swap things around, transforming needs no explanation.
------------------------------------------------------------
You are so very right. Transform then seems the most appropriate, However we may be able to use a word that may be more ameniable between the two of us: transmorgrify?
____________________________________________________________

The word metathesis is used three times in Hebrews so you can test out your theory very easily

this is the BlueLetterBible


[url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3331&t=KJV]metathesis[/url]
____________________________________________________________
g:
I too am presently pressed for time.

When i want to your site after reading up on your stance re:trinity here on SI, i began using it then, and thanks for the link as well as putting it on the front page of your website. It has proved to be an additional valued source in better learning the scriptures.

Personally, though the Bible is regarded as it's own best interpreter, comparing word usage can be flawed if context is either convoluted or disregarded in the process.

I'll look into metathesis further, per your suggestion.

When done, with the all the resources, my former Nazarene pastor will be contacted for the final word, as he is quite astute in Koine, as that is his doctoriate.
(Actually, he set me on the first steps towards learning greek and relating John Stott's writings with what he was teaching me.)

Yur' lil' kotz,
g
Acts 20:32

R
rookie

Robert wrote:

Gregg's: Show us on this forum just one scripture that states the Law was abolished.

The Old Covenant with it's sign of Circumcision is likened in verse 1 to a YOKE of bondage that we are NOT to be entangled again with. Verse 2 says that if we do, Christ shall profit us nothing. Verse 3 says that if we come again under the bondage and Christ profits us nothing then we then are a debtor to the WHOLE Law (this presents a serious problem because it is impossible to keep the Law now because the sacrificial system is not in place).


Galatians is a book that parrallels Romans chapter 7 and 8.Paul's deep desire for the Galatians is that they return to following the Spirit as oppose to following the law given to Moses on Mount Sinai. The law is a side issue in Paul's discertation. The point of the letter is to give the Galatians a clear understanding of the choice they must each make. One cannot please the Father according to the flesh. Only through the Spirit can one put to death the deeds of the body. The law of God is Spiritual. The man who chooses not to hear the Spirit, not to obey the Spirit is left to the weakness of his flesh. The veil remains on the mind of those who do not submit to the Spirit of God. The Galatians began in the Spirit but fell away from the grace of God that is ministrated through the Holy Spirit.

Christ fulfilled the law because He did not rely on His flesh to satisfy the law. Christ through the Spirit obeyed unto death. He is the author of salvation for those who turn and walk with Him.

Gregg is laboring to bring understanding to this thread. Pray that the Lord continues to give him and us the grace necessary to understand more clearly the entire council of God.

In Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

..the difference between metathesis and metamorphosis is that one means to transpose and the other means to transform. If would be quite inappropriate to translate metathesis as metamorphosis and I doubt you will find any translator who has done so. Transposing means to swap things around, transforming needs no explanation.
------------------------------------------------------------
You are so very right. Transform then seems the most appropriate, However we may be able to use a word that may be more ameniable between the two of us: transmorgrify?

No Transform is not the most appropriate word. The Greek word for transform is G3339 metamorphoo. This is the word from which we have metamorphosis. This is a changing of form. If the writer to the Hebrews had wanted to refer to changing the form this is the word he would have used. However, he did not use G3339 metamorphoo but G3346 metatithemi. Now tithEmi is to put something is place and metatithEmi is to put something else in its place ie to swap or replace.

Now a word about 'replacement theologians'. I don't regard myself as a theologian of any kind and I don't refer to myself as a 'replacement' anything. If I were looking for a label I would invent one, something like 'a reconstitution believer'. In the course of this thread I will try to explain what I mean by that. My next post will refocus on Jer 31:31ff

P
philologos

“Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— Jeremiah 31:32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. Jeremiah 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." Jer 31:31–33 NKJV

I would like you folks to think a little about the words 'house of Israel' and 'house of Judah' here. What does this signify?

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel (and some others) were all active during what is known as the 'Divided Monarchy'. The covenant people of Israel had been united under the Davidic monarchy but only lasted through the reigns of David and Solomon and fell to pieces during the reign of David's grandsom Rehoboam. From that time on they were regarded as two nations. (more of this later) The northern kingdom was referred to under various names; the house of Israel, Ephraim, Joseph and Rachel's children. The predominant tribe was that of Ephraim, the son of Joseph who was the son of Rachel.

The northern kingdom, the house of Israel, went into captivity and God disowned it. (wait a while, I will explain) "The virgin of Israel has fallen; She will rise no more. She lies forsaken on her land; There is no one to raise her up." Amos 5:2 NKJV As one historian has said the 'house of Israel' passed from history into legend. Although there have been various theories about what happened to them, there is no historical evidence to support any of the theories. They were swallowed up by the nations into which they were exiled and their land was possessed by foreign nations who became the Samaritans. This was under the Assyrian empire.

The house of Judah survived for almost another 150 years but ultimately they too were taken into captivity, this time by Babylon. Later Ezekiel, living in Babylonian captivity prophesied; "and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; they shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms again." Ezek 37:22 NKJV This is apparently a promise for the uniting of the two nations but we need to take something else into account, the principle of the remnant.

Earlier Isaiah had prophesied a return but makes it very plain that he is not talking about the nation in its entirety but about a believing remnant."And it shall come to pass in that day That the remnant of Israel, And such as have escaped of the house of Jacob, Will never again depend on him who defeated them, But will depend on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. Is. 10:21 The remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, To the Mighty God. Is. 10:22 For though your people, O Israel, be as the sand of the sea, A remnant of them will return; The destruction decreed shall overflow with righteousness." Is 10:20–22 NKJV

The promises of God will now be born by the remnant and the united nation will now simply be called by the one name Israel.
“Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— Jeremiah 31:32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. Jeremiah 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." Jer 31:31–33 NKJV

Can you see above how Jeremiah has a promise for the 'house of Israel' and for the 'house of Judah' BUT in 31:33 he only refers to Israel. What has happened to the 'house of Judah'? They have been re-incorporated into the one nation in this promise. This believing remnant from both houses will become the single nation of Israel and there will be one king over them.

"I will establish one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them—My servant David. He shall feed them and be their shepherd." Ezek 34:23 NKJV

"“David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them." Ezek 37:24 NKJV

According to Ezek 37:24 when one shepherd-king reigns over the one nation they 'will walk in my judgments and observe my statues and do them'.

When the remnant of Judah returned to their land they regarded themselves as the one nation;

"So the priests and the Levites, some of the people, the singers, the gatekeepers, and the Nethinim, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities." Ezra 2:70 NKJV Even though the returnees were from the 'house of Judah' they saw themselves as 'all Israel'.

"And they offered sacrifices at the dedication of this house of God, one hundred bulls, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs, and as a sin offering for all Israel twelve male goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel." Ezra 6:17 NKJV. They conducted their temple worship as though they were a united nation.

It is to this reconstituted Israel, made up of believing remnants of both houses, that God promises the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31. But God had a secret and it begins to leak in places such as... "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd." John 10:16 NKJV Then comes Paul with a stunning revelation...

"For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— Eph. 3:2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel," Eph 3:1–6 NKJV

This reconstituted 'Israel' has a new ingredient... believing Gentiles.

...as Robert sometimes says "I'll go and get my helmit". ;-)

R
rookie

Ron wrote:

It is to this reconstituted Israel, made up of believing remnants of both houses, that God promises the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31.

In the book of Ezekiel we also find this when speaking of those who returned from Babylon...

Eze 44:6 "Now say to the rebellious, to the house of Israel, 'Thus says the Lord GOD: "O house of Israel, let Us have no more of all your abominations.

Eze 44:7 When you brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary to defile it--My house--and when you offered My food, the fat and the blood, then they broke My covenant because of all your abominations.

He charges the Levitical priesthood with allowing foreigners, without circumcised heart to minister in "My sanctuary."

What work of God in the OT enables men to have circumcised hearts?

In Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

What work of God in the OT enables men to have circumcised hearts?

Jeff
I think we need to understand the significance of circumcision 'in the flesh' and then to see the spiritual significance of that. Circumcision was the brand mark which signified that the bearer belonged to God. In that sense in the Old Covenant both circumcisions were necessary, in the New Covenant only the second.

S
sermonindex

by philologos on 2010/7/5 11:26:48

What work of God in the OT enables men to have circumcised hearts?

Jeff
I think we need to understand the significance of circumcision 'in the flesh' and then to see the spiritual significance of that. Circumcision was the brand mark which signified that the bearer belonged to God. In that sense in the Old Covenant both circumcisions were necessary, in the New Covenant only the second.
------------------------------------------------------------
Circumcision of the heart is appropriated by faith, looking unto God as the author and finisher of our faith(fulness). This is the only way of pleasing God, and through this, covenant is established for any individual who comes to God on His terms, whether that be before the Old (Mosaic) Covenant ever existed--as in the case the ancients such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Sarah, Abraham, When the Levitivcal order forshadowed both form and substance of the New, or after it's Levitical substance and form was renovated.

(Ron, how's 'renovated' for the word to use rather than 'changed'. Yes, just a small bit of research has begun into the word metathesis. With analogy (hopefully) relative to this study...
...from what has been learned thus far:

1.)there is the form, which is the thesis;

and, then

2,)there is the substance, the backbone to the form STS. The substance is premise to the thesis, the meta-thesis.


It's questioned whether the rebellious house is or is not included in the new house, and it's thought that it is, considering they are still called (to be as part of) the house.

Man looks on outward appearances, but God looks at the heart. ( One need not be comitively rebellious to be rebellious.) God chastises His own, and throughout History, we see this with any people, whatever ethnos, God claims as His own.

Ya' know, your post triggered thought of Revelation and the 144,000 from every(?) tribe, yet Dan is exluded. Further, the order of the tribes named in every other place in the Bible follow a certain specific order that is not done here.
(If the meanings of the names (rather than the names themselves) are listed in the order they appear in this passage, there is a message that comes out of it.)

(Just wondering if this is speaking actually of the bloodline Israel (as the listed order is completely different, and the message found is revelation the book Revelation. (Yes, i am post-trib.))


Yur' lil' kotz,
g
Acts 20:32

A
ADisciple

One of the problems with this kind of communication is that it ends up with people speaking at the same time... carrying on two or three different strands of thought, I mean. So I apologize in advance for interrupting the flow of where Ron B is taking things now, but I want to go back to last post Phanetheus addressed to me.

You said, quote, "A purer translation, Such as the ESV transliterates the Greek much more appropriately: II Cor. 3.12-14 ESV.

v.13: "...what was being brought to an end..." (Not was already brought to an end, but rather 'being -(as "in the process of")- brought'." End of quote.

Okay, I'm fine with that. The Old Covenant was "being brought to an end."

From what you've said in other posts, I think I gather that you don't feel we have yet come to the time when it has actually finally completely been done away and brought to an end.

You said, quote, "The issue of misunderstanding arises if this is taken as a verse saying the "whole" law is abolished, or even, "was being brought to an end." end of quote

May I ask you, then, what part of the Old Covenant do you feel is still in effect? And when is it that you expect the Old Covenant will have finally once and for all been entirely done away?

You said, quote, "If it were actually the word 'abolished', and referring to Torah in the original text, alot of NT books would have to be thrown out, as they contradict this one mis-translated verse. (The book of Romans is just one of these books/letters, where Paul states not that 'the Law WAS', but that 'the Law IS': Rom. 7:12." end of quote.

I agree with you that the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. And that the law is lawful if a man use it lawfully (1 Tim. 1.8-10). But to try to be a Torah keeper in whole or in part is not lawful. No man can hope to be in right standing with God by keeping the Old Covenant under which the Law (the Torah) was instituted. In Christ, that is done away.

AD

PS... I guess you're having fun with us, but sorry, I don't have a clue what you mean when you sign off saying, "yur lil kotz," or "yur kotz 2." It's going way over my head. Is that another of those Hebraisms, maybe? :)

And by the way, I wasn't wanting to make a big issue of your use of the Hebrew spellings for Jesus and Abraham, etc. Sorry if that offended you. It's just that there's so much of that these days, and I know people personally who feel they are part of God's in-crowd because they talk that way.

...As far as Gentiles being unable to understand the nuances of a Bible written by Jews (as you suggested)-- yes, I know we are handicapped there. But thank God for the Holy Spirit. Where would we be without the Holy Spirit! He makes up my handicap! And in any case... I do think God had the Gentiles in mind when He had the Bible inspired. From the very beginning He had a wonderful plan to include them in His purposes in His time. I'm glad for that. I'm glad for that. "...To the Jew first, and also to the Gentile..." (Rom. 1.16). Which, by the way, always leaves me wondering, and perplexed, as to why any person of natural Jewish lineage should ever think himself second class, or left out, when it comes to the wonderful purposes of God in the New Covenant of Christ Jesus the Lord.


R
RobertW

gregg's: It's questioned whether the rebellious house is or is not included in the new house, and it's thought that it is, considering they are still called (to be as part of) the house.

Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment, than for you. (Luke 10:13, 14)

_________


This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:11, 12)

_________

He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.


[It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Hebrews 10:28-31)

______________

It would be superfluous to continue bringing to bear the weight of scripture that utterly rules out the possibility of salvation for those that reject Jesus Christ.

S
sermonindex


by ADisciple on 2010/7/5 14:38:02

One of the problems with this kind of communication is that it ends up with people speaking at the same time... carrying on two or three different strands of thought, I mean. So I apologize in advance for interrupting the flow of where Ron B is taking things now, but I want to go back to last post Phanetheus addressed to me.
------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, your right. Often issues unresolved and relative to the discussion fall by the wayside through this. (if time permits, i try to address everything in the letter, and if not, hopefully the main points, so further banter can continue.

It's so wonderful when we can all come to a cohesive and comprehensive conclusion in agreement without missing a beat.


___________________________________________________________

You said, quote, "A purer translation, Such as the ESV transliterates the Greek much more appropriately: II Cor. 3.12-14 ESV.

v.13: "...what was being brought to an end..." (Not was already brought to an end, but rather 'being -(as "in the process of")- brought'." End of quote.

Okay, I'm fine with that. The Old Covenant was "being brought to an end."

From what you've said in other posts, I think I gather that you don't feel we have yet come to the time when it has actually finally completely been done away and brought to an end.
------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, but in this way:

(BTW, 'fulfil' from MT 5.17-18 was addressed already at the end of one of a former posts (( 1st post, p.6, after these: "... ..."))As well, "Christ being the end of the Law for righteousness": This is for righteousness, so keeping the law towards this purpose (righteousness) is turning to another way than Jesus, and falling from grace, mentioned in Galatians. It is placing faith in the law, and no man can serve two masters. Second, this word end here does not mean completion as in finished, but rather the fulness of it. It is as though we once had a half circle and now the circle is complete. In taking up Jesus cross as our own, denying what we think and doing what God thinks, God empowers us through His spirit to fulfil the Law even as Jesus did on earth: Jn. 14:15, 21, 23; I Jn. 5:2-3; Rom. 6:1-4)

All the Law, except the Levitical ordinaces remains valid, though not towards making us right with God. It is now an expression of our love for God, and a manifestation of His work of grace in us.

Without an active relationship in Him, we are either nomian or antinomian. In Him, because we still function in this world, we can operate above the Law by walking in the Spirit. We will do more than the Law requires as we are operating from a change of heart, by grace through faith.

The purpose of whole counsel of God, Mosaic Law included, is to renew our minds (Jn 14:21, 15:5; Rom 12:1; Phil 2:1-10) and sanctification (Jn. 17:17; Jas. 1:21-22; I Cor. 1:18, 30, 31).

Everything in the scriptures is a love letter from God, and our experience through understanding how we are in Jesus Christ though this will stand in accord with what we keep through abiding in Jesus thoughts, words, and deeds, (Jn. 5:39).
____________________________________________________________

You said, quote, "The issue of misunderstanding arises if this is taken as a verse saying the "whole" law is abolished, or even, "was being brought to an end." end of quote

May I ask you, then, what part of the Old Covenant do you feel is still in effect? And when is it that you expect the Old Covenant will have finally once and for all been entirely done away?
------------------------------------------------------------
Still in effect?

The metathesis to the Mosaic Law is God's commandments, existing before and after the old covenant. Everything within the Mosaic Law was based on the 10 commandments.
The ten commandments are the substance, and the Mosaic Law is the shadow. Though the means of propitiation and the priesthood has changed from shadow to substance, the shadow of the commandments still exists.

No, we do not 'have to' keep the Mosaic ordinances of the Old Covenant Law; but it is in our best interests to do this towards health, wealth and wisdom. We reap whatever we sow. (The health ordinances will help keep you healthy -vs- sickness and disease, for example.) God's purpose in these was taken up by the Jews as a means to righteousness, yet, their true purposes are spelled out around Duet. 9-11(that's what 21+ years of application towards learning these things has yeilded...here a little, there a little, line upon line, precept upon precept...)

Anyway, it was the issue of Mt 5:18 that prompted use of "kotz". You know that phrase, not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Law or Prophets til' all is fulfilled..."

-(and when All is 'made-full' from both the Law and the prophets, this is when the LAw will be abolished)-

...that word tittle is a part of the Hebrew markings called 'a kotz'. In it's pictorial meaning, it literally means 'a thorn'. (i'm one of those that questions everything that is not plainly stated or clearly alluded to in the scriptures. at times, days have been spent looking up one little issue questioned. There is a very strong desire here to know without conjecture truth untained, namely, Jesus Christ.
____________________________________________________________


And by the way, I wasn't wanting to make a big issue of your use of the Hebrew spellings for Jesus and Abraham, etc. Sorry if that offended you. It's just that there's so much of that these days, and I know people personally who feel they are part of God's in-crowd because they talk that way.
------------------------------------------------------------

In daily speech, unless with those who are of this persuasion, i am quite careful to not confuse others, but i slip up sometimes. You should have made a bigger issue of it, because it was very wrong of me to confuse things more in attempting to clarify things. It was like making both ends work against the middle. Sorry. You need not apologize about a thing. What you said is taken to heart brother.

Maybe i am 'touched'.
____________________________________________________________

...As far as Gentiles being unable to understand the nuances of a Bible written by Jews (as you suggested)-- yes, I know we are handicapped there. But thank God for the Holy Spirit. Where would we be without the Holy Spirit! He makes up my handicap! And in any case... I do think God had the Gentiles in mind when He had the Bible inspired. From the very beginning He had a wonderful plan to include them in His purposes in His time. I'm glad for that. I'm glad for that. "...To the Jew first, and also to the Gentile..." (Rom. 1.16). Which, by the way, always leaves me wondering, and perplexed, as to why any person of natural Jewish lineage should ever think himself second class, or left out, when it comes to the wonderful purposes of God in the New Covenant of Christ Jesus the Lord.
------------------------------------------------------------

With Paul it was to the Jew first and also to the Gentile, but that is not what is seen today, thus the second class christian idea. Also, to many, their Messiah has not come. There is alot of anti-semitism as well, that most do not even recognize as such. i had a chip on my shoulder long before this ever started, but God in His good grace is eliminating that.

His Spirit leads us into all truth.

AMEN!

Shabbat Shalom!

Yur kotz 2,
gregg
Acts 20:32

S
sermonindex

It would be superfluous to continue bringing to bear the weight of scripture that utterly rules out the possibility of salvation for those that reject Jesus Christ.


Yeah, yur right.


You know how some hope against hope sometimes?

YOU KOTZed ME!
g
Acts 20:32


p.s. great references.

A
ADisciple

Just trying to see a little more clearly where you are at, Gregg...

You still didn't answer my question: "And when is it that you expect the Old Covenant will have finally once and for all been entirely done away?" For if it "was being done away," there must come a time when it is finally totally done away. When, in your judgment, does that take place?

And you said, "The metathesis to the Mosaic Law is God's commandments, existing before and after the old covenant. Everything within the Mosaic Law was based on the 10 commandments. The ten commandments are the substance, and the Mosaic Law is the shadow. Though the means of propitiation and the priesthood has changed from shadow to substance, the shadow of the commandments still exists."

The change is from shadow to substance, but the shadow of the commandments still exist? That's confusing.

And you say the Mosaic ordinances ought to be kept for health's sake. You mean we shouldn't eat pork. then?

I wonder, do you still observe the feasts in their shadow form?

...Are you still living in the shadows, Gregg? Or have you come out into the True Light?

S
sermonindex

you might think this off topic, but to a Jew who follows Jesus and feels he is dealing with several posters who deny that Yahweh is indeed behind and with the modern state of Israel, read this lil article i just saw in the NY TIMES:
(btw, what the world calls the "west bank", i feel should have been annexed by Israel in the 80's and renamed Judea and Samaria, three states, Israel, Judea and Samaria in the Nation of Israel, thats where i'm coming from, just so responders know)

-------------------------------------------------

July 5, 2010
Tax-Exempt Funds Aid Settlements in West Bank
By JIM RUTENBERG, MIKE McINTIRE and ETHAN BRONNER
HAR BRACHA, West Bank — Twice a year, American evangelicals show up at a winery in this Jewish settlement in the hills of ancient Samaria to play a direct role in biblical prophecy, picking grapes and pruning vines.

Believing that Christian help for Jewish winemakers here in the occupied West Bank foretells Christ’s second coming, they are recruited by a Tennessee-based charity called HaYovel that invites volunteers “to labor side by side with the people of Israel” and “to share with them a passion for the soon coming jubilee in Yeshua, messiah.”

But during their visit in February the volunteers found themselves in the middle of the fight for land that defines daily life here. When the evangelicals headed into the vineyards, they were pelted with rocks by Palestinians who say the settlers have planted creeping grape vines on their land to claim it as their own. Two volunteers were hurt. In the ensuing scuffle, a settler guard shot a 17-year-old Palestinian shepherd in the leg.

“These people are filled with ideas that this is the Promised Land and their duty is to help the Jews,” said Izdat Said Qadoos of the neighboring Palestinian village. “It is not the Promised Land. It is our land.”

HaYovel is one of many groups in the United States using tax-exempt donations to help Jews establish permanence in the Israeli-occupied territories — effectively obstructing the creation of a Palestinian state, widely seen as a necessary condition for Middle East peace.

The result is a surprising juxtaposition: As the American government seeks to end the four-decade Jewish settlement enterprise and foster a Palestinian state in the West Bank, the American Treasury helps sustain the settlements through tax breaks on donations to support them.

A New York Times examination of public records in the United States and Israel identified at least 40 American groups that have collected more than $200 million in tax-deductible gifts for Jewish settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem over the last decade. The money goes mostly to schools, synagogues, recreation centers and the like, legitimate expenditures under the tax law. But it has also paid for more legally questionable commodities: housing as well as guard dogs, bulletproof vests, rifle scopes and vehicles to secure outposts deep in occupied areas.

In some ways, American tax law is more lenient than Israel’s. The outposts receiving tax-deductible donations — distinct from established settlements financed by Israel’s government — are illegal under Israeli law. And a decade ago, Israel ended tax breaks for contributions to groups devoted exclusively to settlement-building in the West Bank.

Now controversy over the settlements is sharpening, and the issue is sure to be high on the agenda when President Obama and the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, meet in Washington on Tuesday.

While a succession of American administrations have opposed the settlements here, Mr. Obama has particularly focused on them as obstacles to peace. A two-state solution in the Middle East, he says, is vital to defusing Muslim anger at the West. Under American pressure, Mr. Netanyahu has temporarily frozen new construction to get peace talks going. The freeze and negotiations, in turn, have injected new urgency into the settlers’ cause — and into fund-raising for it.

The use of charities to promote a foreign policy goal is neither new nor unique — Americans also take tax breaks in giving to pro-Palestinian groups. But the donations to the settler movement stand out because of the centrality of the settlement issue in the current talks and the fact that Washington has consistently refused to allow Israel to spend American government aid in the settlements. Tax breaks for the donations remain largely unchallenged, and unexamined by the American government. The Internal Revenue Service declined to discuss donations for West Bank settlements. State Department officials would comment only generally, and on condition of anonymity.

“It’s a problem,” a senior State Department official said, adding, “It’s unhelpful to the efforts that we’re trying to make.”

Daniel C. Kurtzer, the United States ambassador to Israel from 2001 to 2005, called the issue politically delicate. “It drove us crazy,” he said. But “it was a thing you didn’t talk about in polite company.”

He added that while the private donations could not sustain the settler enterprise on their own, “a couple of hundred million dollars makes a huge difference,” and if carefully focused, “creates a new reality on the ground.”

Most contributions go to large, established settlements close to the boundary with Israel that would very likely be annexed in any peace deal, in exchange for land elsewhere. So those donations produce less concern than money for struggling outposts and isolated settlements inhabited by militant settlers. Even small donations add to their permanence.

For example, when Israeli authorities suspended plans for permanent homes in Maskiot, a tiny settlement near Jordan, in 2007, two American nonprofits — the One Israel Fund and Christian Friends of Israeli Communities —raised tens of thousands of dollars to help erect temporary structures, keeping the community going until officials lifted the building ban.

Israeli security officials express frustration over donations to the illegal or more defiant communities.

“I am not happy about it,” a senior military commander in the West Bank responded when asked about contributions to a radical religious academy whose director has urged soldiers to defy orders to evict settlers. He spoke under normal Israeli military rules of anonymity.

Palestinian officials expressed outrage at the tax breaks.

“Settlements violate international law, and the United States is supposed to be sponsoring a two-state solution, yet it gives deductions for donation to the settlements?” said Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator. The settlements are a sensitive issue among American Jews themselves. Some major Jewish philanthropies, like the Jewish Federations of North America, generally do not support building activities in the West Bank.

The donors to settlement charities represent a broad mix of Americans — from wealthy people like the hospital magnate Dr. Irving I. Moskowitz and the family behind Haagen-Dazs ice cream to bidders at kosher pizza auctions in Brooklyn and evangelicals at a recent Bible meeting in a Long Island basement. But they are unified in their belief that returning the West Bank — site of the ancient Jewish kingdoms — to full Jewish control is critical to Israeli security and fulfillment of biblical prophecies.

As Kimberly Troup, director of the Christian Friends of Israeli Communities’ American office, said, while her charity’s work is humanitarian, “the more that we build, the more that we support and encourage their right to live in the land, the harder it’s going to be for disengagement, for withdrawal.”

Sorting Out the Facts

Today half a million Israeli Jews live in lands captured during the June 1967 Middle East war. Yet there is a strong international consensus that a Palestinian state should arise in the West Bank and Gaza, where all told some four million Palestinians live.

Ultimately, any agreement will be a compromise, a sorting out of the facts on the ground.

Most Jewish residents of the West Bank live in what amount to suburbs, with neat homes, high rises and highways to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Politically and ideologically, they are indistinguishable from Israel proper. Most will doubtless stay in any peace deal, while those who must move will most likely do so peacefully.

But in the geographically isolated settlements and dozens of illegal outposts, there are settlers who may well violently resist being moved. The prospect of an internal and deeply painful Israeli confrontation looms.

And the resisters will very likely be aided by tax-deductible donations from Americans who believe that far from quelling Muslim anger, as Mr. Obama argues, handing over the West Bank will only encourage militant Islamists bent on destroying Israel.

“We need to influence our congressmen to stop Obama from putting pressure on Israel to self-destruct,” Helen Freedman, a New Yorker who runs a charity called Americans for a Safe Israel, told supporters touring the West Bank this spring.

Israel, too, used to offer its residents tax breaks for donations to settlement building, starting in 1984 under a Likud government. But those donations were ended by the Labor Party, first in 1995 and then, after reversal, again in 2000. The finance minister in both cases, Avraham Shohat, said that while he only vaguely recalled the decision-making process, as a matter of principle he believed in deductions for gifts to education and welfare for the poor, not to settlement building per se.

In theory, the same is true for the United States, where the tax code encourages citizens to support nonprofit groups that may diverge from official policy, as long as their missions are educational, religious or charitable.

The challenge is defining those terms and enforcing them.

There are more than a million registered charities, and many submit sparse or misleading mission summaries in tax filings. Religious groups have no obligation to divulge their finances, meaning settlements may be receiving sums that cannot be traced.

The Times’s review of pro-settler groups suggests that most generally live within the rules of the American tax code. Some, though, risk violating them by using the money for political campaigning and residential property purchases, by failing to file tax returns, by setting up boards of trustees in name only and by improperly funneling donations directly to foreign organizations.

One group that at least skates close to the line is Friends of Zo Artzeinu/Manhigut Yehudit, based in Cedarhurst, N.Y., and co-founded by Shmuel Sackett, a former executive director of the banned Israeli political party Kahane Chai. Records from the group say a portion of the $5.2 million it has collected over the last few years has gone to the Israeli “community facilities” of Manhigut Yehudit, a hard-right faction of Mr. Netanyahu’s governing Likud Party, which Mr. Sackett helps run with the politician Moshe Feiglin.

American tax rules prohibit the use of charitable funds for political purposes at home or abroad. Neither man would answer questions about the nature of the “community facilities.” In an e-mail message, Mr. Sackett said the American charity was not devoted to political activity, but to humanitarian projects and “educating the public about the need for authentic Jewish leadership in Israel.”

Of course, groups in the pro-settler camp are not the only ones benefiting from tax breaks. For example, the Free Gaza Movement, which organized the flotilla seeking to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza, says on its Web site that supporters can make tax-deductible donations to it through the American Educational Trust, publisher of an Arab-oriented journal. Israeli civil and human rights groups like Peace Now, which are often accused of having a blatant political agenda, also benefit from tax-deductible donations.

Some pro-settler charities have obscured their true intentions.

Take the Capital Athletic Foundation, run by the disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In its I.R.S. filings, the foundation noted donations totaling more than $140,000 to Kollel Ohel Tiferet, a religious study group in Israel, for “educational and athletic” purposes. In reality, a study group member was using the money to finance a paramilitary operation in the Beitar Illit settlement, according to documents in a Senate investigation of Mr. Abramoff, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to defrauding clients and bribing public officials.

Mr. Abramoff, documents show, had directed the settler, Shmuel Ben Zvi, an old high school friend, to use the study group as cover after his accountant complained that money for sniper equipment and a jeep “don’t look good” in terms of complying with the foundation’s tax-exempt status.

While the donations by Mr. Abramoff’s charity were elaborately disguised — the group shipped a camouflage sniper suit in a box labeled “Grandmother Tree Costume for the play Pocahontas” — other groups are more open. Amitz Rescue & Security, which has raised money through two Brooklyn nonprofits, trains and equips guard units for settlements. Its Web site encourages donors to “send a tax-deductible check” for night-vision binoculars, bulletproof vehicles and guard dogs.

Other groups urge donors to give to one of several nonprofits that serve as clearinghouses for donations to a wide array of groups in Israel and the West Bank, which, if not done properly, can skirt the intent of American tax rules.

Americans cannot claim deductions for direct donations to foreign charities; tax laws allow deductions for domestic giving on the theory that charities ultimately ease pressure on government spending for social programs.

But the I.R.S. does allow deductions for donations to American nonprofits that support charitable projects abroad, provided the nonprofit is not simply a funnel to another group overseas, according to Bruce R. Hopkins, a lawyer and the author of several books on nonprofit law. Donors can indicate how they would like their money to be used, but the nonprofit must exercise “some measure of independence to deliberate on grant-making,” he said.

A prominent clearinghouse is the Central Fund of Israel, operated from the Marcus Brothers Textiles offices in the Manhattan garment district. Dozens of West Bank groups seem to view the fund as little more than a vehicle for channeling donations back to themselves, instructing their supporters that if they want a tax break, they must direct their contributions there first. The fund’s president, Hadassah Marcus, acknowledged that it received many checks from donors “who want them to go to different programs in Israel,” but, she said, the fund retains ultimate discretion over the money. It also makes its own grants to needy Jewish families and monitors them, she said, adding that the fund, which collected $13 million in 2008, was audited and complies with I.R.S. rules.

“We’re not a funnel. We’re trying to build a land,” she said, adding, “All we’re doing is going back to our home.”

Support From a Preacher

Late one afternoon in March, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. landed in Israel and headed to his Jerusalem hotel to prepare for a weeklong effort to rekindle Middle East peace talks.

Across town, many of the leading Israeli officials on Mr. Biden’s schedule, among them Prime Minister Netanyahu, were in a convention hall listening to the Rev. John Hagee, an influential American preacher whose charities have donated millions to projects in Israel and the territories. Support for the settlements has become a cause of some leading conservative Republicans, like Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin.

“Israel exists because of a covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob 3,500 years ago — and that covenant still stands,” Mr. Hagee thundered. “World leaders do not have the authority to tell Israel and the Jewish people what they can and cannot do in the city of Jerusalem.”

The next day, Israeli-American relations plunged after Israel announced plans for 1,600 new apartments for Jews in East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians want as their future capital.

Israeli officials said Mr. Hagee’s words of encouragement had no effect on government decision making. And the preacher’s aides said he was not trying to influence the peace talks, just defending Israel’s right to make decisions without foreign pressure.

Still, his presence underscored the role of settlement supporters abroad.

Nowhere is that effort more visible, and contentious, than in East Jerusalem, which the Netanyahu government says must remain under Israeli sovereignty in any peace deal.

The government supports privately financed archaeological projects that focus on Jewish roots in Arab areas of Jerusalem. The Obama administration and the United Nations have recently criticized a plan to raze 22 Palestinian homes to make room for a history park in a neighborhood where a nonprofit group called El’Ad finances digs and buys up Arab-owned properties.

To raise money, groups like El’Ad seek to bring alive a narrative of Jewish nationalism in living rooms and banquet halls across America.

In May, a crowd of mostly Jewish professionals — who paid $300 a plate to benefit the American Friends of Ateret Cohanim — gathered in a catering hall high above Flushing Meadows-Corona Park in Queens to dine and hear John R. Bolton, United Nations ambassador under President George W. Bush, warn of the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran.

A few days earlier, Ateret Cohanim’s executive vice president, Susan Hikind, had gone on a Jewish radio program in New York to proclaim her group’s resistance to American policy in the Middle East. The Obama administration, she said, did not want donors to attend the banquet because it believed Jerusalem should “be part of some future capital of a Palestinian state.”

“And who’s standing in the way of that?” Ms. Hikind said. “People who support Ateret Cohanim’s work in Jerusalem to ensure that Jerusalem remains united.”

The Jerusalem Reclamation Project of Ateret Cohanim works to transfer ownership of Arab homes to Jewish families in East Jerusalem. Such efforts have generated much controversy; Islamic judicial panels have threatened death to Palestinians who sell property in the occupied territories to Jews, and sales are often conducted using shell companies and intermediaries.

“Land reclamation is actually sort of a bad name — redeeming is probably a better word,” said D. Bernard Hoenig, a New York lawyer on the board of American Friends of Ateret Cohanim. “The fact of the matter is, there are Arabs who want to sell their homes, and they have offered our organization the opportunity to buy them.”

Mr. Hoenig said Ateret Cohanim bought a couple of buildings years ago, but that mostly it helps arrange purchases by other Jewish investors. That is not mentioned, however, on its American affiliate’s tax returns. Rather, they describe its primary charitable purpose as financing “higher educational institutions in Israel,” as well as children’s camps, help for needy families and security for Jews living in East Jerusalem.

Indeed, it does all those things. It houses yeshiva students and teachers in properties it helps acquire and places kindergartens and study institutes into other buildings, all of which helps its activities qualify as educational or religious for tax purposes.

The American affiliate provides roughly 60 percent of Ateret Cohanim’s funding, according to representatives of the group. But Mr. Hoenig said none of the American money went toward the land deals, since they would not qualify for tax-deductible donations.

Still, acquiring property has been an integral part of Ateret Cohanim’s fund-raising appeals.

Archived pages from a Web site registered to the American affiliate — taken down in the last year or so — described in detail how Ateret Cohanim “quietly and discreetly” arranged the acquisition of buildings in Palestinian areas. And it sought donations for “the expected left-wing Arab legal battle,” building costs and “other expenses (organizational, planning, Arab middlemen, etc.)”

An Unyielding Stance

Deep inside the West Bank, in the northern region called Samaria, or Shomron, lie 30 or so settlements and unauthorized outposts, most considered sure candidates for evacuation in any deal for a Palestinian state. In terms of donations, they do not raise anywhere near the sums produced for Jerusalem or close-in settlements. But in many ways they worry security officials and the Palestinians the most, because they are so unyielding.

Out here, the communities have a rougher feel. Some have only a few paved roads, and mobile homes for houses. Residents — men with skullcaps and sidelocks, women with head coverings, and families with many children — often speak in apocalyptic terms about the need for Jews to stay on the land. It may take generations, they say, but God’s promise will be fulfilled.

In November, after the Netanyahu government announced the settlement freeze , Shomron leaders invited reporters to watch them shred the orders.

David Ha’Ivri, the public liaison for the local government, the Shomron Regional Council, has positioned himself as a fierce yet amiable advocate. As a leader of an American-based nonprofit, he also brings a militant legacy to the charitable enterprise.

Mr. Ha’Ivri, formerly David Axelrod, was born in Far Rockaway, Queens, and was a student of the virulently anti-Arab Rabbi Meir David Kahane and a top lieutenant and brother-in-law to the rabbi’s son, Binyamin Kahane. Both Kahanes, who were assassinated 10 years apart, ran organizations banned in Israel for instigating, if not participating in, attacks against Arabs. The United States Treasury Department later added both groups, Kach and Kahane Chai, to its terrorism watch list.

As recently as four years ago, Mr. Ha’Ivri was involved in running The Way of the Torah, a Kahanist newsletter designated as a terrorist organization in the United States. He has had several run-ins with the authorities in Israel over the last two decades, including an arrest for celebrating the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in a television interview and a six-month jail term in connection with the desecration of a mosque.

Treasury officials said a group’s presence on the terror list does not necessarily extend to its former leaders, and indeed Mr. Ha’Ivri is not on it.

Mr. Ha’Ivri says he no longer engaged in such activism, adding that, at 43, he has mellowed, even if his core convictions have not. “I’m a little older now, a little more mature,” he said.

A Sunday in late May found him in New York, on a stage in Central Park, speaking at the annual Salute to Israel celebration. “We will not ever, ever give up our land,” Mr. Ha’Ivri said.

He posed for pictures with the Republican National Committee chairman, Michael Steele, and distributed fliers about the “501 c3 I.R.S. tax deductible status” of his charity, Shuva Israel, which has raised more than $2.6 million since 2004 for the Shomron communities.

Although I.R.S. rules require that American charities exhibit “full control of the donated funds and discretion as to their use,” Shuva Israel appears to be dominated by Israeli settlers.

Mr. Ha’Ivri, who lives in the settlement of Kfar Tapuach, was listed as the group’s executive director in its most recent tax filing; Gershon Mesika, the Shomron council’s leader, is the board’s chairman; and Shuva Israel’s accountant is based in the settlement of Tekoa. Its American presence is through a post office box in Austin, Tex., where, according to its tax filings, it has two volunteers who double as board members.

“I’ve never been to the board,” said one of them, Jeff Luftig.

When asked about his dual status as leader of the charity and an official with the council it supports, Mr. Ha’Ivri said he was no longer executive director, though he could not recall who was. He said he was confident the charity was following the law, adding that the money it raises goes strictly toward improving the lives of settlers.

Exacting a Price

If Mr. Ha’Ivri has changed tactics, a new generation has picked up his aggressive approach. These activists also receive American support.

Their campaign has been named “Price Tag”: For every move by Israeli authorities to curtail settlement construction, the price will be an attack on an Arab mosque, vineyard or olive grove.

The results were on display during a recent tour through the Arab village of Hawara, where the wall of a mosque had been desecrated with graffiti of a Jewish star and the first letters of the Prophet Muhammad’s name in Hebrew. In the nearby Palestinian village of Mikhmas, the deputy mayor, Mohamed Damim, said settlers had come in the dark of night and uprooted or cut down hundreds of olive and fig trees.

“The army has done nothing to protect us,” he said. Though the attacks are small, Israeli commanders fear they threaten to scuttle the uneasy peace they and their Palestinian Authority partners have forged in the West Bank.

“It can bring the entire West Bank to light up again in terror and violence,” a senior commander said in an interview.

Israeli law enforcement officials say that in investigating settler violence in the north, they often turn to people connected to the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva in the Yitzhar settlement. After the arson of a mosque in Yasuf in December, authorities arrested the yeshiva’s head rabbi, Yitzhak Shapira, and several students but released them for lack of evidence. He denied involvement. Rabbi Shapira is known in Israel for his strong views. He was co-author of a book released last year that offered religious justification for killing non-Jews who pose a threat to Jews or, in the case of young children, could in the future.

A plaque inside the recently built yeshiva thanks Irving Moskowitz, the hospitals entrepreneur, and his wife, Cherna, for their “continuous and generous support.” Another thanks Benjamin Landa of Brooklyn, a nursing home operator who gave through his foundation, Ohel Harav Yehoshua Boruch. Mr. Landa said he donated to the yeshiva after its old building was destroyed in an Arab ransacking. None of the American donations have been linked to the campaign of attacks.

The Israeli military has activated outstanding permit violations that have set the stage for the yeshiva’s planned demolition this month. And officials have barred some of the yeshiva’s students from the West Bank for months on end.

Od Yosef Chai’s director, Itamar Posen, said in an interview that the military was unfairly singling out the yeshiva because “the things that we publish are things that are against their ideas, and they are frightened.” Mr. Ha’Ivri and Mr. Mesika say the military is jeopardizing the men’s livelihoods without due process.

A settler legal defense fund, Honenu, with its own American charitable arm, has sought to provide a safety net.

A recent online appeal for tax-deductible donations to be sent to Honenu’s Queens-based post office read, “If the 3 men can have their families supported it will cause others at the Hilltops to brave military and government threats against them.”

Reached last month, one of the men, Akiva HaCohen, declined to say how much support he had received from American donors; Honenu officials in Israel declined comment as well.

There is no way to tell from Honenu’s American tax returns; none was available through Guidestar, a service that tracks tax filings by nonprofits. Groups that raise less than $25,000 a year are not required to file. But a review of tax returns filed by other charities showed that one American family foundation gave it $33,000 in a single year, enough to have required filing.

Asked whether it had ever filed a tax return, Aaron Heimowitz, a financial planner in Queens who collects Honenu’s donations there, responded, “I’m not in a position to answer that.”

Opaque Finances

Religious charities are still more opaque; the tax code does not require them to disclose their finances publicly.

Mr. Hagee is one of the few Christian Zionists who advertises his philanthropy in Israel and its territories, at least $58 million as of last year, distributed through a multimedia empire that spins out a stream of books, DVDs and CDs about Israel’s role in biblical prophecy.

Mr. Hagee’s aides say he makes a majority of his donations within Israel’s 1967 boundaries and seeks to avoid disputed areas. Yet a sports complex in the large settlement of Ariel — whose future is in dispute — bears his name. And a few years ago, according to officials at the yeshiva at Har Bracha, Mr. Hagee donated $250,000 to expand a dormitory.

The yeshiva is the main growth engine of the settlement, attracting students who put down roots. (Some are soldiers, and the head rabbi there has called upon them to refuse orders to evict settlers.) After the yeshiva was started in 1992, “the place just took off,” growing to more than 200 families from 3, said the yeshiva’s spokesman, Yonatan Behar. “The goal,” he added, “is to grow to the point where there is no question of uprooting Har Bracha.”

Various strains of American pro-settlement activity come together in Har Bracha. The Moskowitz family helped pay for the yeshiva’s main building. Nearby, the Heartland Winery was built with volunteer help from HaYovel ministries, which brings large groups of volunteers to prune and harvest. Mr. Ha’Ivri’s charity promotes the program.

The winery’s owner, Nir Lavi, says his land is state-sanctioned. But officials in the neighboring Palestinian village of Iraq Burin say part of the vineyard was planted on ground taken from their residents in a parcel-by-parcel land grab.

Such disputes are typical for the area, as are the opposing accounts of what happened that February day when HaYovel’s leader, Tommy Waller, and his volunteers say they came under attack and the shepherd was shot.

“They came up screaming, slinging their rock-slings like David going after a giant,” Mr. Waller said. A Har Bracha security guard came to the rescue by shooting in the air, not aiming for the attackers, he added.

But, in an interview, the shepherd, Amid Qadoos, said settlers started the scuffle by throwing rocks at him as he was grazing his sheep on village land a few yards from the vineyard, telling him, “You are not allowed here.” He and his friends then threw rocks in retaliation, he said, prompting the security guard to shoot him in the back of his leg. His father, Aref Qadoos, added, “They want us to go so they can confiscate the land, through planting.”

Though two volunteers were hurt, Mr. Waller said neither he nor his group would be deterred. “People are drawn to our work who believe the Bible is true and desire to participate in the promises of God,” he said. “We believe the restoration of Israel, including Samaria and Judea, is part of that promise.”

In the last year, he said, he brought 130 volunteers here. This coming year, he said, he expects as many as 400.


Isabel Kershner and Myra Noveck contributed reporting from Jerusalem.


P
philologos

(Ron, how's 'renovated' for the word to use rather than 'changed'. Yes, just a small bit of research has begun into the word metathesis. With analogy (hopefully) relative to this study...
...from what has been learned thus far:

1.)there is the form, which is the thesis;

and, then

2,)there is the substance, the backbone to the form STS. The substance is premise to the thesis, the meta-thesis.


Gregg
No, that won't do either.
thesis is not the form. It derives from tithEmi which means to position something, to put something in a place. metatithEmi means to put something else in that place. In other words to swap or substitute.

renovate means to renew. Covenants can be renewed and there are biblical examples of this but the New Covenant is 'not a renovation' it is a new covenant.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3346&t=KJV

P
philologos

So let's have a look at some related ideas of new.

"For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." Eph 2:10 NKJV

The idea of things being new is seen throughout the New Testament. Paul, speaking by the Spirit, says ""Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." 2 Cor 5:17 NKJV. This is an interesting use of the contrast between the old and the new. We see that there can be no mutual coexistence between the old and the new. Quite specifically, the old things have passed away, and all things have become new.

In Christ there is a new creation. In the Eph 2:10 verse above we have a really interesting use of a rare New Testament word. It is the word 'workmanship'; [url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4161&t=KJV]poiEma[/url] It is the word from which we get our word 'poem'. It signifies an artifact that has been designed and carefully made. This did not develop, nor was it a modification, but a creative work of a creator.

The word is only used twice in the New Testament. The other instance is in "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse," Rom 1:20 NKJV. Here it is translated by the word 'made'.

You will notice then that we have 'two' things which were carefully crafted; the cosmos and the people of God, an old creation and a new creation.

Elsewhere Paul describes very carefully the process of the creation of this new thing. "having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace," Eph 2:15 NKJV. 'from' two he makes 'one new man'. The context plainly has Jew and Gentile in view. Notice this is not a 'weld' with the Gentile added to the Jew... out of the Jews and out of the Gentiles ... of the two he has created, in Himself, one new man. Surely we can see that this is no kind of development, or addition, or bolt-on, this is a new creation. This is why Paul says so categorically, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:28 NKJV.

There are no Jews in Christ, neither are there any Gentiles in Christ. In Christ there is a new creation.

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation." Gal 6:15 NKJV

"...according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all." Col 3:10–11 NKJV

S
sermonindex

I came to the Lord in my early 20`s after a sudden understanding that He died for me personally. Before that I did not know sin, I thought that I was as good as anyone and a godless upbringing did not educate me otherwise. In a way it was a blessing as I was totally steeped in the world`s philosophies and once God began to teach me by His Spirit it was astoundedly in opposition to everything I had known previously so I had an advantage in knowing the things of God and things of man very clearly.

With the revelation of the truth came the law, and I now had a standard to live by and no longer was free to do as I desired. Gratitude for what Christ had done for me was the driving force behind my desire to be obedient but I went the way that many do. I thought that my obedience to the commands of God written in the NT were what was required to make me able to approach the throne of grace with confidence but gradually I began to feel the weight of guilt that I feel down so many times and failed to do what I knew I ought to do and did not do the things I knew I should do.

The law weighed heavily on me as I tried to maintain a good witness and this was a grievous bondage to me as I knew that what went on in my heart was not in accordance with my professions of faith. I was desperate that others would not see me as a fake as I did not want to let the Lord`s reputation down by my own failures and so it went on.

I admired the Lord and was grateful but I could not say I loved Him with my whole heart. My attendance at church and the Bible study were out of duty and fear of falling away if I did not attend. It had all become a routine and an act but the emptiness inside was kept hidden through shame. Is this all there is I asked myself? Life was much harder than before I was saved. Where was the blessedness - the peace the joy? I had none just this burden on my back that is to say, the result of being under the Old Covenant in order to teach me of my weakness and failures.

As a schoolmaster it brought me to Christ one day in deep desperation whereby I did not want to live any longer as I was. I was ready to die and just as Christ died to bring in the New Covenant, His child has to die too. So I consented to death, that from henceforth I would belong entirely to Christ and He could do whatever He wanted with me - I was done.

In an instant the prison filled with light and His presence was upon me as He took my hand and led me forth out of my bondage onto the ground of the New Covenant where He showered His love upon me until I had to ask Him to stop, and the gate of heaven was opened up to me. The precious promises became real.

I did not know but His will was that He was to be all and I had to learn that serving Him no matter how good the intentions was not what He required. We are to be as He was and He did nothing without the father, living in absolute dependence on Him. The early part of my walk was to teach me this, that whatever I do by my self will fail but when He is our all in all it is His doing and there is no failure, no letting Him down, no gap in the reality of what we present to the world and our inner lives and especially what is deep in our heart.

The new heart from the new covenant is one that obeys Him entirely because it is He who rules there and nothing else can claim our loyalty.

Unless we have experience of the two covenants and have put the flesh to death and are walking in holiness as He is holy, then we are talking hot air.

Brenda

W
whyme

There are a lot of posts on this thread and I will try to go through them all. But in the meantime, perhaps "New" has less to do with "never before seen" , but rather is new in the sense of substitution. The Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant are the same and Paul makes that clear in many passages in Romans and elsewhere. The New Covenant is a fuller expression and actually is fulfilled in Christ. The Newness of it perhpas is that Christ is the fullfilment of it and through and in Him we are born again into participation in that covenant.

P
philologos

Unless we have experience of the two covenants and have put the flesh to death and are walking in holiness as He is holy, then we are talking hot air.

Brenda
I appreciate your testimony and I don't intend to 'adjust' it! If this is the way God has led you... Amen to it. I do think we have to be careful about setting it down as the only way for everyone.

Read your Galatians again and notice how Paul switches from 'us, our, we' referring to the Old Covenant community and the 'you' as he refers to Gentile believers. The law was 'our paedogogus' 'our personal policeman/child-conductor', but when 'faith' came even 'we' are no longer under the law. The Gentiles were never 'under the law' of Sinai; they were under universal law but not the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments are people and land related. If we read Exodus we see very plainly who they were addressed to.

P
philologos

The Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant are the same

If we compare the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant on Gen 17 and the terms of the New Covenant in Jer 31 are quite different. I don't know what verses you are referring to when you say that Paul equates the Abrahamic Covenant with the New Covenant

perhaps "New" has less to do with "never before seen" , but rather is new in the sense of substitution.

I am sure that the two covenants cannot coexist and in that sense 'substitution' might fit but 'fulfilment' would be a better fit I think. Have you thought about the implications of Gen 15 and 17. In Gen 15 Abram, as the sleeping partner, witnesses a covenant making ceremony, but what covenant is this? In Gen 17 God makes a covenant with Abraham in which the covenant seal is circumcision. Gen 16 is the tragedy of Ishmael and there is a gap of 13 years between the covenant of Gen 15 and the covenant of Gen 17. Any thoughts?

W
whyme

Ron B. - I didn't state my case very clearly. I think that Christ is the fulfillment of all the Covenants God has made with His people starting in Genesis and forward. The New Covenant is not a replacement for the Abrahamic Covenant in the sense that faith in the coming Seed has always been God's way of eternal blessing. What is different between the Sinatic Covenant and the New is what you have described. It is Christ in you, the Hope of Glory. The union of God and the soul of man is the work God does to create a covenant/marriage relationship with each person and His people. As Scripture says, the Holy Spirit will dwell with you and in you. It is through faith that we have union with Christ.

If you look at Paul's insturction to the Galation church in Galations 2 and 3, you can see that Paul stresses very hard that we begin in Christ and live in Christ because we have received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and returning to the Law of the Old Covenant as the source of our relationship with God is antithetical to that. So ultimately, I agree with you, the difference is the difference between circumcision of the flesh and circumcision of the heart caused by the indwelling of God.

Union with Christ is our participation with Christ in the fulfillment of all prior covenants because He fulfilled them all. In Christ and Christ in You should be not only a theological belief but a personal experience.

W
whyme

Another thought.....

As Scripture says, the Old Covenant of the Law was added because of transgression. Perhaps, it was "added" to the Abrahamic Covenant. Under God's Abrahamic covenant with His people, he would be the God of those who are descendants of Abraham, children of the promise and not of the flesh. Jesus and the apostle Paul make it clear this refers to spiritual descendants and not physical descendants.

Since the path to God has always been through faith in the Seed of the Woman and the Seed of Abraham, then faith in God's Seed and provision of a Savior has always been the door through which we enter into God's kingdom and spiritual family. The question of the Old and New Covenant, then, is not one of a different path for becoming a part of His spiritual family but, rather, the New Covenant is a different way of living once we've entered into that family. Those "under the law" were living according to external standards which was the Law, a tutor and a gaurdian for God's covenant spirtual family. This tutor always pointed to the need for Christ because living according to the perfect standard of the Law was impossible. The need for Christ was a need for the Spirit of Christ to indwell and guide the child of God into all righteousness. The external Law is no longer necessary as a tutor for the child of God. Now, under the new covenant, Christ indwells the believer/child of God and being taught by the Spirit of Christ and walking with and according to the Spirit of Christ is what our union with God looks like under the New Covenant. Under the Old Covenant His people were His people by faith, but they walked according to the Law written on tablets of stone.

R
rookie

Since the path to God has always been through faith in the Seed of the Woman and the Seed of Abraham, then faith in God's Seed and provision of a Savior has always been the door through which we enter into God's kingdom and spiritual family. The question of the Old and New Covenant, then, is not one of a different path for becoming a part of His spiritual family but, rather, the New Covenant is a different way of living once we've entered into that family. Those "under the law" were living according to external standards which was the Law, a tutor and a gaurdian for God's covenant spirtual family


Amen....................................

From the foundation of this world, all generations could access salvation through Christ by faith. We know that the law of God was in place after the fall of Adam. We know that the 10 commandments were in place in the generation of Job. We know that those who are perishing today are still under the law.

All things procede from the Father through Christ. He is the mediator for all men. He is the light of all men.

In Christ
Jeff

S
sermonindex

by ADisciple on 2010/7/5 17:03:41

Just trying to see a little more clearly where you are at, Gregg...

You still didn't answer my question: "And when is it that you expect the Old Covenant will have finally once and for all been entirely done away?" For if it "was being done away," there must come a time when it is finally totally done away. When, in your judgment, does that take place?
------------------------------------------------------------
It's been answered several times.

What was being done away is not yet done away.

When in 'my?' judgement will this happen?
Mt 5:18

This seems to me to refer to the re-creation of Heaven and earth as the end of all the old things. Towards righteousness, the Law is a complete full circle. If these other things, such as deitary laws were obsolete and done away with, we would not even have the potential to get sick,as one example.
____________________________________________________________

And you said, "The metathesis to the Mosaic Law is God's commandments, existing before and after the old covenant. Everything within the Mosaic Law was based on the 10 commandments. The ten commandments are the substance, and the Mosaic Law is the shadow. Though the means of propitiation and the priesthood has changed from shadow to substance, the shadow of the commandments still exists."

The change is from shadow to substance, but the shadow of the commandments still exist? That's confusing.
------------------------------------------------------------

Since we have the substance, Jesus Christ and His finished work as the reality here and now, there cannot help but be the shadow in it's fullness.

The Laws of Moses are a visible representation of God's ideal for us. As we relate with God in growth, it has been observed, that these things almost automatically become visible in our lives. It serves as a standard of conduct, a marker, given by our loving Father to help us in living life as He would have it, in every aspect.

It is not a matter of keeping rules. It's a matter of growing relationship.
____________________________________________________________

And you say the Mosaic ordinances ought to be kept for health's sake. You mean we shouldn't eat pork. then?

I wonder, do you still observe the feasts in their shadow form?
------------------------------------------------------------

That's your choice if you want to eat pork, but it is not God's ideal. IF you take some time and study the damages pork does to your health, with that evidence alone, most people quit using it.

Personally, i thankfully eat what is placed before me when it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer.

"All things are permissable, yet not all things are beneficial."

At home, i do not enforce others here to do it, as they are capable of deciding what should and should not be on their own. My eldest daughter is a pescatarian (sp?), like Jesus: i'm not.

Holy Days are not currently observed in their shadow form. The Pascal Love Feast and Pentecost are observed though, in appreciation and recognition of their fulfillment.
____________________________________________________________

...Are you still living in the shadows, Gregg? Or have you come out into the True Light?


AD,

No one person is in the same place in their walk with our Father through Jesus Christ. We all come to relationship in God through different perspectives and different cultures.

Jesus makes the shadow of the Old Covenant light, and it is not by the outward obedience to traditions or rules that these things are done. It is an outworking from the heart, without a thought of is this right or wrong.

I'm sure on judgement day, God will not condemn you to hell for walking closer to the ideals He reveals because your heart's being transformed towards His standard by Him.

Now being rebellious and disobedient when you know better is another thing altogether.

Rom, 7:8-9, 14:23
I Jn. 3:4
Jas. 4:17

Gal. 2:20
Mt. 5:19

God Bless you
as you abide
in Jesus Christ
hear His voice,
then do as he says,
irregardless of human opinion,

Yur kotz 2,
gregg
Acts 20:32

S
sermonindex


Ron wrote

"Read your Galatians again and notice how Paul switches from 'us, our, we' referring to the Old Covenant community and the 'you' as he refers to Gentile believers. The law was 'our paedogogus' 'our personal policeman/child-conductor', but when 'faith' came even 'we' are no longer under the law. The Gentiles were never 'under the law' of Sinai; they were under universal law but not the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments are people and land related. If we read Exodus we see very plainly who they were addressed to."

Ron when I read Galatians I see Paul speaking to those believers who were like me and who thought that they were to be sanctified through obeying the law - gradual sanctification but Paul was telling them that it is by faith. Paul when he says we, is referring to himself and others who made the same mistake and got stuck in Romans 7 from where he progressed to Romans 8 when he saw this too. We are sanctified through faith in the blood of Christ and not through working at it and remain under the old covenant unless we are enlightened and unfortunately most of us are not enlightened especially when the church is not preaching the full gospel.

If this was the pattern for the Galatians and Paul then I think we can safely assume it is for all of us.

Brenda

R
rookie

Ron wrote:

The Gentiles were never 'under the law' of Sinai; they were under universal law but not the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments are people and land related. If we read Exodus we see very plainly who they were addressed to."

Was Job a gentile?

Listen to this section of Scripture, most of the 10 commandments will be found in just one chapter in the book of Job..............................................

Job 31:1 ¶ I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?
Job 31:2 For what portion of God [is there] from above? and [what] inheritance of the Almighty from on high?
Job 31:3 [Is] not destruction to the wicked? and a strange [punishment] to the workers of iniquity?
Job 31:4 Doth not he see my ways, and count all my steps?
Job 31:5 If I have walked with vanity, or if my foot hath hasted to deceit;
Job 31:6 Let me be weighed in an even balance, that God may know mine integrity.
Job 31:7 If my step hath turned out of the way, and mine heart walked after mine eyes, and if any blot hath cleaved to mine hands;
Job 31:8 [Then] let me sow, and let another eat; yea, let my offspring be rooted out.
Job 31:9 If mine heart have been deceived by a woman, or [if] I have laid wait at my neighbour's door;
Job 31:10 [Then] let my wife grind unto another, and let others bow down upon her.
Job 31:11 For this [is] an heinous crime; yea, it [is] an iniquity [to be punished by] the judges.
Job 31:12 For it [is] a fire [that] consumeth to destruction, and would root out all mine increase.
Job 31:13 If I did despise the cause of my manservant or of my maidservant, when they contended with me;
Job 31:14 What then shall I do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall I answer him?
Job 31:15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?
Job 31:16 If I have withheld the poor from [their] desire, or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail;
Job 31:17 Or have eaten my morsel myself alone, and the fatherless hath not eaten thereof;
Job 31:18 (For from my youth he was brought up with me, as [with] a father, and I have guided her from my mother's womb;)
Job 31:19 If I have seen any perish for want of clothing, or any poor without covering;
Job 31:20 If his loins have not blessed me, and [if] he were [not] warmed with the fleece of my sheep;
Job 31:21 If I have lifted up my hand against the fatherless, when I saw my help in the gate:
Job 31:22 [Then] let mine arm fall from my shoulder blade, and mine arm be broken from the bone.
Job 31:23 For destruction [from] God [was] a terror to me, and by reason of his highness I could not endure.
Job 31:24 If I have made gold my hope, or have said to the fine gold, [Thou art] my confidence;
Job 31:25 If I rejoiced because my wealth [was] great, and because mine hand had gotten much;
Job 31:26 If I beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking [in] brightness;
Job 31:27 And my heart hath been secretly enticed, or my mouth hath kissed my hand:
Job 31:28 This also [were] an iniquity [to be punished by] the judge: for I should have denied the God [that is] above.
Job 31:29 If I rejoiced at the destruction of him that hated me, or lifted up myself when evil found him:
Job 31:30 Neither have I suffered my mouth to sin by wishing a curse to his soul.
Job 31:31 If the men of my tabernacle said not, Oh that we had of his flesh! we cannot be satisfied.
Job 31:32 The stranger did not lodge in the street: [but] I opened my doors to the traveller.
Job 31:33 If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom:
Job 31:34 Did I fear a great multitude, or did the contempt of families terrify me, that I kept silence, [and] went not out of the door?
Job 31:35 Oh that one would hear me! behold, my desire [is, that] the Almighty would answer me, and [that] mine adversary had written a book.
Job 31:36 Surely I would take it upon my shoulder, [and] bind it [as] a crown to me.
Job 31:37 I would declare unto him the number of my steps; as a prince would I go near unto him.
Job 31:38 If my land cry against me, or that the furrows likewise thereof complain;
Job 31:39 If I have eaten the fruits thereof without money, or have caused the owners thereof to lose their life:
Job 31:40 Let thistles grow instead of wheat, and cockle instead of barley. The words of Job are ended.


.......................................................

According to Paul, these people, jew or gentile are still under the law.
.........................................................

1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law [is] good if one uses it lawfully,
1Ti 1:9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for [the] lawless and insubordinate, for [the] ungodly and for sinners, for [the] unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Ti 1:10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,


Do you see that the law is still in effect?

In Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

Brenda
try reading this and emphasise the personal pronouns. I will put them into upper case for you...

"Christ has redeemed US from the curse of the law, having become a curse for US (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that WE might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15 Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, WE were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was OUR tutor to bring US to Christ, that WE might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, WE are no longer under a tutor.
26 For YOU are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of YOU as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if YOU are Christ’s, then YOU are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. 1 Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. 3 Even so WE, when WE were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that WE might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because YOU are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!”" Gal 3:13–4:6 NKJV

The last two verses show the switch very clearly
"to redeem those who were under the law, that WE might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because YOU are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into YOUR hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!”" Gal 4:5–6 NKJV

In Gal 4 describes the Old Covenant community as being 'children' and those outside that covenant as being 'slaves'. He says that there is no difference between the 'child' and the 'slave' until the 'time appointed by the father'. This is one of Paul's great themes...

"Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father." Gal 4:1–2 NKJV

"For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," Rom 3:22–23 NKJV

"For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.”" Rom 10:12–13 NKJV

The coming of faith and the receiving of the Spirit is the great equalizer.

S
sermonindex

Andrew Murray quotes from "The Two Covenants."........

"The New Testement gives evidence, in some of its most important epistles-especially those to the Galtians, Romans and Hebrews-how possible it is within the New Covenant still to be held fast in the bondage of the Old."
(page 20)
How many times do we see this in ministry?

" We shall see how the one great cause of the feeble-ness of so many Christians is that the Old Covenant spirit of bondage still has mastery.'(page 21)

"Not only among the Galatians, but throughout the Church there are to be found two classes of Christians. Some are content with the mingled life, half flesh and half spirit, half self-effort and half grace." (page 22)

"The Old Covenant attains its goal only as it brings men to a sense of their utter sinfulness and their hopeless inability to deliver themselves. As long as they have not grasped this, no offer of the New Covenant life can lay hold of them. As long as an intense longing for deliverance from sinning has not been achieved, they will naturally fall back inti the power of the law and the flesh. The holiness which the New Covenant offers will terrify rather than attract them-largely because the life in the spirit of bondage appears to make allownace for sin, because obedience is declared to be impossible." (page 26)

This last point is among the most tragic of outcomes for the "wretched man," the Christian who has not layed a hold of the freedom that is wrought in Christ and the New Covenant. We have an army of saints today, stuck behind bars, stuck in their cells of unbelief.........brother Frank


P
philologos

Andrew Murray quotes from "The Two Covenants."........

Frank
I love Andrew Murray and his books and my wife almost always has an Andrew Murray 'on the go' but I have a question about this one. I occasionally hear folk say that someone is still living under the Old Covenant which is essentially what AM is saying. My question is 'are they really living under the Old Covenant?' Is it really there to live under?

If it has been fulfilled in Christ is it not past its sell-buy date and therefore does is have any value at all? I know that will be provocative but I am just asking the question. The Old Covenant had to have a functioning priesthood; this was all part of the package deal that they signed up for at Sinai. As the Levitical priesthood has not functioned for almost 2000 years the Old Covenant has not been a functioning covenant for a long time.


A
ADisciple

Great quotes from Andrew Murray, Frank.

It grieves the spirit to see so many Christians these days who are entangled in the yoke of bondage. I am continually coming across Christians who are enamored of the types and shadows of the law... to the point of religiously observing the dietary rules, keeping Saturday sabbath, observing the feasts in their Old Covenant setting (being quick, of course, to say the sacrifices are not to be kept any longer) etc. etc. It's a big thing with them to talk about Shabbat, and call Jesus Yeshua, etc.

There was once a veil that came over those who were under the Old Covenant preventing them from seeing it was being done away in Christ. It seems the same blindness is settling upon many Christians. They simply aren't seeing the awesome wonderful difference between the Old Covenant and the New.

S
sermonindex

Hi Ron, I think that you are right and wrong :) For sure the functioning Jewish priesthood has passed. Yet it is the type and anti-type that I am most interested in. What can I learn from those who had to stand outside the vail? If, under the OC the priests had no access to the holy of holies, then what access do the royal priests have under the NC? The functioning purpose of the OC still applies to those who put themselves under the Law. I think Paul speaks about it best in 2 Cor chapter 3. He clearly describes it as a ministry of death as opposed to the ministry of the Spirit. One is death in the Law and the other is life in the Spirit. So, to me, the tragedy is, there are two broad groups within genuine Christianity as Murray rightly identifies. The vail has been taken away for all of them, yet only some of them enter into the Holy of Holy's.

If one is in prison for life, and Jesus comes and pardons you and opens the cell, its still incumbant upon that one to walk out of the cell. And so one can appear to be a prisoner and live the life of a prisoner and yet the door has been opened. Its somehow safer to dwell within the bounds of the cell than to open it up and go beyond what they ever knew. The bars are made up of the Law, and they have not aprehended their freedom in Christ........brother Frank

A
ADisciple

Ron said, "My question is 'are they really living under the Old Covenant?' Is it really there to live under?"

Excellent point, Ron, and you brought this out earlier on this same thread. No, it is not there any longer to live under.

It is fulfilled in Christ.

"For the law, having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things..." (Heb. 10.1).

But the good things to come have come now! The Very Image is come now!

The True Light-- which makes what is true in Him to be true in us-- is now shining!

I know there is, and will be, a warfare over this!

S
sermonindex

You are mixing up the Ten Commandments with the Old covenant.

When that old covenant was established by blood, the ten commandments were not sprinkled with blood. The old covenant was laid BESIDE the ark of the covenant, and not within it. The Old covenant was mediated to Moses, and written by his hand.

The Old Covenant ORDINANCES(,not comandments,) were an addition to God's commandments.

The ten commandments were written and declared by God. They are valid until death is no more.

[The 4th commandment is to remember the Sabbath, and look at just a few of the benefits of obeying God in this: Is. 13, 14.]

Here's a challenge repeated:
Where does it say that the Law is done away with?

We see from scripture that it has only been changed in the Levitical and sacraficial aspects.

Rom 7:12

These things in this verse are also descriptive of God.

The Law (of Moses) was against us until Jesus completed all of God's covenants in one fell swoop. What man could never keep was made not only possible, but probable in Jesus Christ's finished work.

What do you make of Psalm 119, since you think that (maybe all) former covenants are abolished? Is it a lie? Are the truths in it invalid?

Paul clarifies that the Law manifests sin, and we know that disobedience to God put us into bondage to sin. Having put these two thoughts together, can't you see that bondage to the law is relative to knowing to do good and not doing it?

Since the Law is Holy, it is also good.

Jesus kept the whole Old Testament? If you think that grace is given to step on what is Holy and good, you are dead wrong.

When Jesus said he came to filfil the Law and the prophets, it does not at all mean He did everything so we can just think, say, and do whatever we please. It means that he brought the spirit of the Law to rest sqaure on the shoulders of those who believe and obey. The letter of the law is the outward evidence of Jesus living within.
Jn. 3:36 ESV

Ron said that there were 613 Laws, and he is correct to a certain point. 603 are not laws for us, but are ordinances of the Old covenant written by man through angels giving the message from God. To we who believe and obey Jesus, these are not Laws, but pathway towards our best interest. When such things as sickness, disease, poverty, being taken advantage of, etc. no longer exist, they will no longer be needed.

The Ten Commandments are not based on the old covenant. The old covenant is based on them. They stand of their own merit as God's declaration to all of humanity. When sin and resulting death are no more, they will no longer be needed.

Yur kotz 2,
g
Acts 20:32

T
twayneb

Phanetheus:

There are actually several places where Paul states explicitly that the law was done away with. 2 Cor. 3:7-11 states that the ten commandments, the only part of the law written and graven in stone, was glorious, but has been done away with. Ephesians 2:14-15 tell us that the law of commandments in ordinances was in itself the enmity between us and God and that it was abolished by the blood of Christ. Paul calls the law a yoke of bondage that we should never again be entangled with in Gal. 5. Hebrews 10:9 is also very clear.

I distinctly remember having a similar discussion with my Grandfather several years before he passed away. It was a time when I was really beginning to understand what Paul was saying when he talked about the law. He just could not see it for some reason. I remember asking him if he believed a Christian should keep the law. He said, "yes". But then he began to pick parts of the law that should be kept and parts that were not necessary to keep. It fell primarily along the lines of the ten commandments vs. the rest of the law. The problem with this thinking is that the ten commandments are part of and inseparable from the remainder of the law and the law is one and the same with the old covenant.

This is not to say that the law does not serve a valid purpose today. It's purpose is the same as it has always been, to show sin to be exceeding sinful and to convince all under sin. Romans 7 is perhaps the most clear statement of this purpose of the law. The ten commandments never did anything about sin, they just showed us that we were in sin. If I were in sin and did not think I was doing anything wrong, if I were a man who said, "I am a good person. I will be OK when I die.", the law will quickly show me that I am not so good after all. This is exactly how Jesus used the law with the rich young ruler. He reminded him of the commandments and then showed him that he was not even keeping the first one.

But the law is not made for the Christian. We operate under a very different paradigm. We have a spirit that has been born again, regenerated, made alive unto God and as such He has written His law there. Not the inferior shadow of His Holiness that the law portrayed, but the He Himself dwelling in us in Holiness. If we realize this and walk in the Spirit we exceed the mere keeping of the letter of the law. We live from the heart of God. If we learn to die to self and walk in the Spirit we will live more holy on accident than a person who is in bondage to law could ever have lived on purpose.

The law is holy. The law is good. True statements from Romans 7:12. But then in Romans 7:13 and following Paul tells us the purpose of the law. If God says, "Thou shalt not kill.", and it shows us that our murder is sin, we would not say the law was bad, but we would also not say that the law made us anything better than a murderer. It was a holy standard that concluded us under sin, that showed us our sin and depravity. But the law was never intended by God to be the standard or covenant under which we live our lives. He has so much better a covenant in mind from before the foundations of the world. A covenant in which we might walk in the spirit in relationship with Him and be free from our sin.

A
ADisciple

Phanetheus said, "You are mixing up the Ten Commandments with the Old covenant. When that old covenant was established by blood, the ten commandments were not sprinkled with blood."

No, the ten commandments are the very backbone of the Old Covenant. And yes, they were sprinkled with blood.

"For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, this is the blood of the testament (covenant) which God hath enjoined unto you" (Heb. 10.19,20).

Phanetheus said, "The old covenant was laid BESIDE the ark of the covenant, and not within it. The Old covenant was mediated to Moses, and written by his hand."

No, they were IN the ark of the covenant.

"There was nothing IN the ark save the two tables of stone which Moses put there in Horeb when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt" (1 Kings 8.9).

Edited to add this: And of course that ark itself was also sprinkled with blood.

S
sermonindex

by ADisciple on 2010/7/6 12:30:35

Ron said, "My question is 'are they really living under the Old Covenant?' Is it really there to live under?"

Excellent point, Ron, and you brought this out earlier on this same thread. No, it is not there any longer to live under.
------------------------------------------------------------
To be under Law, in the Bible means that you are reaping the consequences for disobeying it: sin leading eventually to death.

It's one thing to obey because God says it's holy, righteous and good, and another altogether to do it out of fear (towards consequences, of man, of unrighteousness, etc...).
____________________________________________________________

It is fulfilled in Christ.
------------------------------------------------------------
You have to be using Mt 5:17, because that's the only place i find it(searching concordance quickly. Either you did not read what i wrote or you do not want to understand:

Here's Strongs:
πληρόω [pleroo /play·ro·o/] v. From 4134; TDNT 6:286; TDNTA 867; GK 4444; 90 occurrences; AV translates as “fulfil” 51 times, “fill” 19 times, “be full” seven times, “complete” twice, “end” twice, and translated miscellaneously nine times. 1 to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full. 1a to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally. 1a1 I abound, I am liberally supplied. 2 to render full, i.e. to complete. 2a to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim. 2b to consummate: a number. 2b1 to make complete in every particular, to render perfect. 2b2 to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking). 2c to carry into effect, bring to realisation, realise. 2c1 of matters of duty: to perform, execute. 2c2 of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish. 2c3 to fulfil, i.e. to cause God’s will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God’s promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment.

As well, Rom. 10:4 is relative to this.

Look at the word 'end'in Strong's:
τέλος [telos /tel·os/] n n. From a primary tello (to set out for a definite point or goal); TDNT 8:49; TDNTA 1161; GK 5465; 42 occurrences; AV translates as “end” 35 times, “custom” three times, “uttermost” once, “finally” once, “ending” once, and “by (one’s) continual + 1519” once. 1 end. 1a termination, the limit at which a thing ceases to be (always of the end of some act or state, but not of the end of a period of time). 1b the end. 1b1 the last in any succession or series. 1b2 eternal. 1c that by which a thing is finished, its close, issue. 1d the end to which all things relate, the aim, purpose. 2 toll, custom (i.e. indirect tax on goods).


It should be pretty clear the Law is not a closed issue, nor finished, as many other verses do contradict this such as Rom. 8:4.

Why would it, as this verse bears out, still need to be fulfilled in us if Jesus abolished it?

Since it is walking in the Spirit that fulfills the Law, please explain exactly how this occurs. If not for me, for others reading.
(Oh, i know and do walk accordingly. It's just that you questioned whether i was walking in shadow, so it's questioned if you walk in light, considering what you say about the Law of God.)
____________________________________________________________


"For the law, having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things..." (Heb. 10.1).

But the good things to come have come now! The Very Image is come now!
------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus said He came to 'bring things to fullness'.

The image came and went and is coming again to set everything as His kingdom comes.

The good things are not here yet. The fulness of our redemption is still to come. You and i will still die (if not anything else,) from the curse of the Law.

AD, you need to quit living in an air fairy neverland and look at the here and now. Are there wars? Is there sickness, disease, people starving, death...etc?

Did Jesus come to leave the earth in the state it's in? You should know better than to speak as though you are ignorant of all the prophets not yet being filfilled. Accordingly, the Law is still effective.

Get a grip, because scripture does not contradict reality. It is above it! He has revealed what will happen when, and to say otherwise is to lie against the truth (in unrighteousness).
____________________________________________________________


The True Light-- which makes what is true in Him to be true in us-- is now shining!
------------------------------------------------------------
The above statement is as close to truth as you have come in your post.

The Light through the glorious Good News of Jesus CHrist is now shining, in and through we who are in Him. The issue is, even in us, we have not yet seen the translation into His glory.

Get a grip.
get a grip.
get a grip.

Let go and let God be I AM,
and not what we want
to make Him out to be.

Yur' kotz 2,
gregg
Acts 20:32

p.s. i have , and still am just as guilty as you in this in other ways relative. Thing is, when we see Him as he is, we shall know even as we are known. In that day we will all find out just how wrong we all were.

S
sermonindex

by twayneb on 2010/7/6 16:01:56

Phanetheus:

There are actually several places where Paul states explicitly that the law was done away with. 2 Cor. 3:7-11 states that the ten commandments, the only part of the law written and graven in stone, was glorious, but has been done away with. Ephesians 2:14-15 tell us that the law of commandments in ordinances was in itself the enmity between us and God and that it was abolished by the blood of Christ. Paul calls the law a yoke of bondage that we should never again be entangled with in Gal. 5. Hebrews 10:9 is also very clear.
------------------------------------------------------------

To be brief, as these things were already address in earlier posts:

2 Cor, is speaking about the vail being taken away, so that we not only obey the stone tablets, but operate through regeneration, not only doing the ten, but, for example, instead of murdering, we do not even get angry, instead of adultery, we don't even lust towards it, etc

Eph 2 was not covered, however, it is the ordinances of the Law of Moses (that were against us), and not those things directed towards our benefit. (i haven't studied into that and really don't have much more time for this presently, but will tomorrow, DV. That is what it has always been taken to mean...what it says).

...and the whole book of Hebrews is regarding the 'metathesis' (change) of the old covenant in regards only to levitical law and sacrafice to what was intended before the foundation of the world: a Kingly Priesthood of God.

I'll read the rest later brother,
Your friend in deed,
gregg
Acts 20:32

edited: end phrase added to L. para.

S
sermonindex

AD:

Phanetheus said, "The old covenant was laid BESIDE the ark of the covenant, and not within it. The Old covenant was mediated to Moses, and written by his hand."

No, they were IN the ark of the covenant.

"There was nothing IN the ark save the two tables of stone which Moses put there in Horeb when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt" (1 Kings 8.9).

Edited to add this: And of course that ark itself was also sprinkled with blood.
------------------------------------------------------------In a blood covenant, what is written is sprinkled with blood, not the object containing it.

Mosaic Levitical Law was established so that access to the mercy seat was possible, not the Ten Commandments.

Yur kotz 2,
g
Acts 20:32

C
Christinyou

Satan would love to keep us under the Law, any law, law of the land, law of moses, law of the 10 commandments, which nulifies Grace. We cannot have both, for satan and Christ cannot live in the same house. That is impossible, even in scripture. Grace is the total of all that God and the Son are together dispensed by the Holy Spirit. This mystery of God revealed to Paul is our total Grace. That is, God putting another person in the believer that we might become in nature son's of God, not diety, but the same nature that the Father has with the only begotten son. Are we sons' or not. If we are, it was the Father's birthing in us His own Seed, Jesus Christ that makes us by nature of being new creatures, son's of God.

This war of Law and Grace was dropped and completely won at the Cross. Grace has triumphed over all law of any kind and it is Now the light of the Father Jesus Christ who is our totallity of all that God intended His sons', even before the foundation of the world. In Christ. A total new creation, The created now rebirthed to become, not created beings, but birthed son's of God.

What does Hebrews 1 say? Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, (Law) PAST TIMES.

But NOW;

Hebrews 1:2-14 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

First of all God our Father can only speak through the Son who is not birthed in us. The Holy Spirit Teacher, Parakleet the revealer of this speaking through our Spirit and our mind will and emotions. The Law has no claim on any that are now birthed son's of God, only to those that believe the same old lie of satan, keeping us under the Law to make Grace of no effect.

Think about it, who is the birthing Father? Who birthed the only Begotten Son in Mary, who has birthed the only begotten Son is those that believe, by His believing Faith that we are birthed with. Did your earthly father ask you if he could birth you. Did God the Father ask if He could give you rebirth, by the full Grace and Faith of His only Begotten Son, Seed that is incorruptable and unatainable by man, freely give only By the Grace and Love of God.

All that the old testament was, Heb 1:1 dies at the Cross and all that Christ was intended to be, The First born among many brethern, not gods', but brothers and sisters in Christ who is our first born brother making us son's of the Same Father. Heb 1:2 thru 14 and on and on and on.

Christ in you the hope of Glory: Phillip

R
rookie

Gregg wrote,

Circumcision of the heart is appropriated by faith, looking unto God as the author and finisher of our faith(fulness). This is the only way of pleasing God, and through this, covenant is established for any individual who comes to God on His terms, whether that be before the Old (Mosaic) Covenant ever existed--as in the case the ancients such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Sarah, Abraham, When the Levitivcal order forshadowed both form and substance of the New, or after it's Levitical substance and form was renovated.

Thank you for your work in this thread...I have a question that I hope you would consider...


Paul writes this of himself:

..........................................................................

Phl 3:8\tYet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ
Phl 3:9\tand be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which [is] from the law, but that which [is] through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;

....................................................................................................................

Paul's desire for himself is that the substance of his hope not consist of self righteousness which comes by following the law, but a God grown righteousness that is created by faith in Christ.

Therefore if one follows the law one can only be self righteous. One can only acquire a God given righteousness if it is God who extends His grace to man. Job is a perfect example of one who became self righteous by following the law. Then God brought about a work that changed Job for good.

My question then to you is this...what provision has God brought to man which enables man to have a God given faith?

In Christ
Jeff

K
knitefall

You all have posted interesting thoughts. To know where one Cov't begins and ends and the same for the other, is to know God's mind and heart.

Let me first ask, "who was the Law made for?"

One may say, to show man a sinner. Or specifically the Hebrews.

God NEVER intended all along to give men something to DO in order to be Righteous. The children chose, in their own fallen state, to clench a fist at the LORD and demonstrate their ability to keep a Law that was intended solely for Jesus Himself.

Now, Apparently, Melchizedek and his time period understood God's Mind and His Righteousness. Along the way, God revealed the Law thus exposing man's desire to gain his own righteousness apart from God.

Man failed and failed [much as they do today in prominent Christian circles] until Jesus came, obeyed the Heavenly Father in totality and was Resurrected.

Now by Faith, we are over-comers of self and fallen soulish consequences.

Much MUCH more can be said. The Original Plan of Salvation has never changed. Really, what we call the First Cov't or Old Testament Cov't is nothing more than the temporary exposing machine and (at the same time) something God used to create Jesus a Righteousness literally out of nowhere! And this Cov't was a blip in the middle of the One True Plan. Like along a road and you come across a patch of sand and then road again. But by Faith, we soar over the whole thing as 'more than over-comers' being placed IN Jesus.

C
Christinyou

Philippians 2:5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

What equallity with God, is this? The Holiness of God, Jesus choses not to be Holy in Himself, which He Was, but Chose the Holiness of His Father as His criteria for Holiness.

The fulfillment of the Law did not make Jesus Holy, it only made Him well pleasing to God His Father, Jesus was Holy because His Father is Holy.

How do we become holy? 1Pe 1:15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
1Pe 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

It is our birthing of the incorruptable Seed of the Father, Jesus Chirt born again in us by the Word, which is also Christ that make us holy as He is Holy.

Everything pertaing to the Grace of Christ and the Father dispersed by the Holy Spirit in us is all the total of All the Father has done for His children, Pure Grace. I love Him because He first loved me.

1 Corinthians 1:2-4 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;

What is this Grace?

1 Corinthians 1:30-31 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

And all inbetween;
Christ in you the hope of Glory: Phillip

A
ADisciple

Things are moving very fast on this thread, it’s hard to keep up. Just want to respond to Phanetheus again… and then I think I will sit in the back for a while.

Phanetheus, to say the Law is abolished does not mean that now we are free to murder, steal, etc. You’ve charged this against some of us a number of times, and in doing so you are misunderstanding what it means to say the Law is abolished. It simply means that the Old Covenant in which the 10 commandments and all the other precepts and ordinances were given is no longer a covenant that’s in effect.

It means that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” (Rom. 10.4).

Righteousness has not been abolished. But it’s not by keeping Torah that any man is made righteous, neither Jew nor Gentile. It’s by faith.

You quoted Romans 10.4, adding that, “It should be pretty clear the Law is not a closed issue, nor finished, as many other verses do contradict this such as Rom. 8:4.”

And then you added, “Why would it, as this verse bears out, still need to be fulfilled in us if Jesus abolished it?"

He abolished it because there was something it couldn’t do.

“What the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh God did, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

The Old Covenant contains the types and shadows of the Perfect Law of God. But the New Covenant alone is able to fulfill that righteousness.

Read that beautiful passage of Paul’s testimony in Philippians—I’m sure you are familiar with it. (Phil. 3.7-11)

“…That I may be found in Him not having mine own righteousness, which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith…”

You said further, “The good things are not here yet. The fulness of our redemption is still to come. You and i will still die (if not anything else,) from the curse of the Law.”

Yes, I know, the fullness of our redemption is yet before us. But the good things are here, which under the Old Covenant were not yet “made manifest” (Heb. 9.8). We have now a high priest who is able to minister these good things to us under a New and better covenant. “Christ being come an high priest of good things to come…” (Heb. 9.11).

As to dying, Gregg, I am not going to die. I may fall asleep in Jesus… but in any case, it’s not the curse of the law that causes death. It’s because of the sin that came in through Adam’s transgression. “As in Adam all die…” It’s the law of sin and death in Adam that causes death. But those in Christ are made alive. “So in Christ shall all be made alive.”

The law could not do that. “…For if there had been a law that could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” (Gal. 3.21).

And right there we see another reason the Old Covenant was abolished. The basic problem with all those who were under the law is that they were dead. Dead in trespasses and sins. And the law could not impart life to them. It takes a New Covenant to do that.

You said also, “You should know better than to speak as though you are ignorant of all the prophets not yet being fulfilled. Accordingly, the Law is still effective.”

Yes, you’re right, much of what is written in the prophets is not yet fulfilled. But it’s not the Old Covenant that fulfills what the prophets wrote. It’s the new Covenant of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that fulfills all the law and the prophets.

“The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached…” (Lk. 16.16) Notice that. “Until John…” Another place that shows the Old Covenant is history now.

And notice. It’s in the context of this “kingdom” that Jesus adds in the next verse, “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail” (Lk. 16.17).

It’s the kingdom of God that fulfills the law and the prophets. That brings up the verse in Matthew again. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Mt. 5.17). Christ fulfilled the 10 commandments. He fulfilled the Sabbath… He fulfilled Passover, and Pentecost, as we mentioned earlier. He will yet fulfill the feast of Tabernacles… and all that is written. So it's vain, actually blindness, to observe those things in their shadow form.

It is the kingdom of Christ and of God that fulfills the law and the prophets. “This Gospel of the kingdom…” The New Covenant of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.


P
philologos

Frank

The functioning purpose of the OC still applies to those who put themselves under the Law.

How do I put myself under a Law that is no longer in force. Suppose I come to the States and choose to put myself under UK Law as regarding the side of the road I choose to drive on. I suppose I could do that but I could not call upon any rights I had under UK law to excuse the consequences.

P
philologos

knitefall

Let me first ask, "who was the Law made for?"

One may say, to show man a sinner. Or specifically the Hebrews.


I was going to ask this same question... and supply the answer...

"...desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm. 8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine," 1 Tim 1:7–10 NKJV

This is our clue... the law was not made for the righteous person but for... an different group altogether. In essence the Old Covenant was made for the Old Man, the New Covenant was made for the New Man.

By God's grace I am not part of this group...

...the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers...

the Law was not 'made for' me.

P
philologos

Phanetheus said, "The old covenant was laid BESIDE the ark of the covenant, and not within it. The Old covenant was mediated to Moses, and written by his hand."

No, they were IN the ark of the covenant.

The Ark is usually known in scripture as The Ark of the Covenant. It served as the Propiatory during the Day of Atonement but it 'housed' two copies of the law.

Just as in a legal agreement today you would have two copies so in the making of the Sinai Covenant there were two copies. One was written by Moses as the representative of the community.

"And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD. And he rose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 Then he sent young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the LORD. 6 And Moses took half the blood and put it in basins, and half the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient.” 8 And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you according to all these words.”" Ex 24:4–8 NKJV

Hebrews add the fact that not only were the altar and the people sprinkled with the covenant making blood but that this book was sprinkled too.

"For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people," Heb 9:19 NKJV

This copy was in Moses' handwriting. The Covenant agreement was read from this document to the people so that they knew exactly what they were committing themselves to. Three times they gave their full hearted assent to this covenant agreement and the covenant was specifically based on the words that Moses had written and read to the people.

"And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you according to all these words.”" Ex 24:8 NKJV

There was a second copy of the Covenant, this one was in God's handwriting and it was written on stone. The stone copy was kept inside the Ark the papyrus/vellum copy written by Moses was kept by the side of the Ark. The scripture doesn't really show us how is was stored there but just that it was.

"“Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there as a witness against you;" Deut 31:26 NKJV

It seems that this copy, Moses' copy, was designed to be removed at times for a long forgotten purpose. Every new crowned monarch was required to write out his own personal copy of this document and keep it as his own personal copy in which he was to read and remind himself constantly of the conditions of that covenant.

"“Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites. 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes, 20 that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel." Deut 17:18–20 NKJV

(this is an interesting verse for thoughts concerning the value of transcribed manuscripts too. If you copy from the original a 4th century copy would be just as valid as a 2nd century copy... but that is a different topic.)

A
ADisciple

"There was a second copy of the Covenant, this one was in God's handwriting and it was written on stone. The stone copy was kept inside the Ark the papyrus/vellum copy written by Moses was kept by the side of the Ark. The scripture doesn't really show us how is was stored there but just that it was.

"“Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there as a witness against you;" Deut 31:26 NKJV"

Thanks for clarifying that. The King James is a bit misleading, saying, "Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of ark of the covenant..." (Dt. 31.26).

...Which I've always thought meant, "put it inside..."

In any case, both copies, the stone tablets inside the ark, and this copy beside it, were sprinkled with the blood of the covenant (for the ark itself was sprinkled), showing that the 10 commandments-- which were in both copies-- were indeed part of a Covenant which is now "old" and done away.

P
philologos

adsiciple

The preposition is not present in the Hebrew (as far as I can make out. My Hebrew is very limited) All other versions that I have checked had it as 'by the side' and inasmuch as we have the contents listed at other times, I think they are almost certainly correct.

One interesting aspect of this legal procedure is that the Ark of the Covenant was taken captive by the Babylonians c587BC and never returned. So neither copies of the covenant are now available.

When the returnees rebuilt the temple it is noticeable that God never endorsed their efforts. What I mean is that when the Tabernacle was erected God endorsed it by a manifestation of his presence that overwhelmed the minister. The Tabernacle was filled with the Shekinah.

"And he raised up the court all around the tabernacle and the altar, and hung up the screen of the court gate. So Moses finished the work. 34 Then the cloud covered the tabernacle of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. 35 And Moses was not able to enter the tabernacle of meeting, because the cloud rested above it, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle." Ex 40:33–35 NKJV

When Solomon dedicated the Temple again God endorsed it with a manifestation of his presence that overwhelmed the priests. The Ark of the Covenant and the Sacrificial altar had been separated for c100 years at this time. When the Ark of the Covenant was brought back the Temple was filled with the Shekinah.

"indeed it came to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the LORD, and when they lifted up their voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of music, and praised the LORD, saying: “For He is good, For His mercy endures forever,” that the house, the house of the LORD, was filled with a cloud, 14 so that the priests could not continue ministering because of the cloud; for the glory of the LORD filled the house of God." 2 Chr 5:13–14 NKJV

When they rebuilt the 2nd Temple, there was a lot of excitement but no recorded presence of the Spirit.

"But many of the priests and Levites and heads of the fathers’ houses, old men who had seen the first temple, wept with a loud voice when the foundation of this temple was laid before their eyes. Yet many shouted aloud for joy, 13 so that the people could not discern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of the people, for the people shouted with a loud shout, and the sound was heard afar off." Ezra 3:12–13 NKJV

P
philologos

So far we have concentrated on Jeremiah's description of the New Covenant. Here is Ezekiel's...

"For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land. 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. 28 Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God." Ezek 36:24–28 NKJV

Here is a promise of 'entire sanctification' (I'm still wearing my helmit!) This speaks of a cleansing from ALL filthiness and ALL idols. We then have a thrilling explanation of how the dynamic of the New Covenant will work...

I will give you a new heart
and put a new spirit within you

and then so as to make things perfectly clear...
I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

This (I am still wearing my helmit) is a replacement heart. Jeremiah had said...

"Crooked [is] the heart above all things, And it [is] incurable — who doth know it?" Jer 17:9 YNG

but now we have the promise of the removal of the stoney heart on which sin was indelibly written...

"The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, With the point of a diamond, Graven on the tablet of their heart, And on the horns of your altars," Jer 17:1 YNG

this heart would be removed and a new heart of flesh (able to feel and respond to God) would be put in its place.

and then...
27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. 28 Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God.

What a gospel!!

S
sermonindex

The ten commandments were not sprinkled with blood, the sprinkling of the ark was was symbolic of a way made possible to approach God and His Law (the 10), by blood on the mercy seat. This is representative of the blood of Jesus Christ remitting sin as in the curse of the Law. He made possible a new and living way to both approach God, and walk righteously in Him and 'fulfill' the Law.

Jesus' sacrafice validated relationship with God and obedience to God's standard. He did not abolish it. He made it more comprehensive.


As stated earlier, i was not sure about everything that was stated, and i have made alot of mistakes in this. Regretfully, i must withdraw from this discussion. In communing with God, i have been chastised for not listening and writing as i was told, but have only been responding to objections and operating through my own reasoning.

After He instructs me fully in all this, clarification may or may not be forthcoming. One main thing He told me was that it is not just the ten commandments that are valid, but the all of the Mosaic Law as well. The only thing that has 'changed' is what has been discussed regarding Hebrews, but even this is 'not abolished'. i don't understand the whys and wherefores presently, however when He says, i will write according to what He says.

( If anything regarding Mosaic Law is written, it's clear to me i have got alot of growing to do first, because i have not yet put total confidence in Jesus to walk in the Spirit of His grace in this: i am at a great lack of understanding presently.)

Many are misunderstanding what being under the Law really is. If a person is under the Law, they are breaking it.
(This is in response to Jeff's question.)

Faith is above the Law, yet faith is not merely affirming something. Joseph Carroll coined a phrase for this mental agreement years ago, calling it "easy believism." In and of itself, this has nothing to do with saving faith.

Faith above the Law is denying our own intentions and ways, then dying to what is considered humanly possible, and rather placing total reliance on Jesus to walk as He lives, has lived, and will live evermore. In this we submit to our own death. Between the taking up of our cross daily, and walking in His spirit, there is the burial of self. (See Romans 6-8).

The curse of the Law is sin, death, and everything that comes through these. If the Law were already abolished, nobody is actually doing anything wrong anymore. (How can there be anything wrong if there is not a law that exists?).
To say that i am not under Law, i am implying to you that i never sin and will not die as a consequence of this.

Though we know that those in Jesus Christ sleep when earth life is over, sin being judged in the flesh, our body does die, and suffer various maladies all the way towards the end of the road. Though we sleep, we will be raised to be judged, in our bodies, Heb.9:27.

If there we no Law anymore, there would neither be a judement, for how can one be judged for good or bad done in the body if there is no standard to measure what God declares right and wrong?


Alot of folks completely miss the point of just what grace is. Without Law there is no such thing as grace, and nothing to measure faithfulness.

Grace flows through obedience to God's desires for us done in the way He prescribes. This is faith(fulness).


Much more could be said, but you will be left with something to think about:

What if you are decieved, and in this perpetuated falsehood?

What if the Law is still in effect?

What if you are wrong, when it has been explained that this is not so?

The scriptures do not say this anywhere.

When Jesus said He did not come to destroy the Law, it means He had no intentions of abolishing it. When He said He came to filfill it, he meant he came to make it completely valid. All is not fulfilled of either the Law or the prophets, because heaven and earth are still here now.

The Laws main purpose is not to show a believer failure. This is to show those who will not submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ that they are condemned. For the believer, it is humbling ourselves as men, and letting the mind of Jesus be in us...following His example, in walking as He walked, to please our Father in Heaven, and not our own opinions of what the scriptures do not say.

Parushim in english is Pharisee; but the word means, "those who seek a smoother path." They were the ones who were always upset with Jesus because he was not following this path, the traditions of those who were in the faith before them, regarding men's words higher than what God said, even re-interpreting and iminterpreting the scriptures to make it mean something more ameniable. They even went so far as to make up Laws, in english called "fence-laws", to make it easier to prevent the breaking of the Law and God's commandments--(for the Sabbath alone, they had made 39 books of rules to prevent one from breaking the 4th commandment)--this is the essence of legalism:more concern about the rules than walking in a Faithful honorable obedient relationship in God.

The Law was never intended to make a man holy, righteous, or good. It is intended as God standard towards prosperity and success. The only people under the Law are those who do not walk in faith(fulness) (above the Law) through the work of Jesus Christ which paid in full a debt we could never repay.
------------------------------------------------------------
i was shown something this very early this morning:

i saw a great white throne with primatic colors coming from it. On it sat One in light so pristine and brilliant it was blinding. His voice echoed and resounded like loud thunder.

He said, why didn't you do what i have shown in my book?

(and there was this lady in a long beautiful white robe before Him cowering)

Her voice was weak and shakey, but she had the nerve to speak, "i may not have been able to do everything you said, but i always wore clothes that weren't indecent and didn't drink or gamble or smoke cigarettes."

Thank God mercy is given to the forgiving and merciful; because this is what she was praised for, though she was sure she didn't deserve a thing.
------------------------------------------------------------

Faith is not faith if it is not diligently seeking God's way he has designed through Jesus Christ.


Pray for Israel, Jerusalem, and peace in the East.

Agape,
gregg
Acts 20:32

R
RobertW

Ron's: "But many of the priests and Levites and heads of the fathers’ houses, old men who had seen the first temple, wept with a loud voice when the foundation of this temple was laid before their eyes. Yet many shouted aloud for joy, 13 so that the people could not discern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of the people, for the people shouted with a loud shout, and the sound was heard afar off." Ezra 3:12–13 NKJV

This is utterly tragic and lamentable. This is what some call a changing of the guard. There is a generation that is 'shouting with joy' because 'something' is being built. There is a generation lamenting for the way God moved among the people in times past lamenting and weeping. The cry goes up together. What a confusion! What a picture of our times.

K
knitefall

If the Ark was missing from Jesus' day, were the priests dumping blood straight onto the ground?

S
sermonindex

Brother Ron writes......."What a gospel!!'

Amen brother, I wholeheartedly( no pun intended) agree with you. As one who had a heart of stone taken away I rejoice in the New Covenant. Here is part of a poem I wrote( never wrote a word before coming to Christ, and certainly not poetry, as you know Ron, that would not have went down well in my housing scheme :) just shorty after coming to Christ.........

My heart, my heart, it is no more
It is completely encased in steel
My God, My God, Oh help me Lord
My God, I cannot feel.

I look down in horror
No heart, no flesh , just bone
I look around in horror
My God, I’m all alone

Where is this place I thought I knew
It’s dark, it’s dimly lit
My God, My God, I’m almost at the bottom
Of the bottomless pit.

And in that moment, right where I was
My God He came to me
My son, my son, my son He cried
I have come to set you free.

Oh my God, Oh my Lord
Is it true, can I be free
Oh please dear Jesus, please dear God
Please don’t look on me

My son, my son, you are my son
And I will put you on the Rock
Be quiet now, be quiet son
Shh, do not talk

I have a Son, My only Son
He died upon a tree
He is My Son, He is your Lord
He’s the Rock that will set you free.

And so it was, and so it is
My Father took me in His Hand
Onward , ever upward
Out of the pit, into the Promised land

He set me on the Rock and I looked down
No longer a heart of steel
I could see and I could touch
I had flesh and I could feel

So come to the Rock, come to Christ
And He will set you free
If you will just open your eyes
He will let you see.

This was a living reality to me and and it changed me from the inside out and turned my life upside down. I knew very little of the Scriptures when I wrote this, it just overflowed out of such joy to know that something so fundamaental, so real to who I was, changed and I was no longer that person. When I looked at my wife I saw a person to be loved and cherised, yet prior to this new heart she was a possesion of mine. I could take my son in my arms and tell him I loved him, a sheer impossibility prior to the new heart. I so loved my Lord that I never wanted to do anything to offend Him. He was my Saviour, my Lord, my everything, and He had given me a heart that was alive!!! And so, as one who arose from the dead out of sins and corruption, as one who had been crushed and broken, what can I say about this new heart? Its life itself. Its the wellspring of all my hope and joy and love. Its the throne of my precious Saviour, and He reigns, not as a tyrant enforcer, not as one who has 613 rules to be kept upon pain of death, but as one who is served out of eternal love and gratitude, as one who can never be repaid for raising me from the dead, as one that I love beyond measure and the last thing, the very last thing, as brother Paul would say "God forbid," that I would want to do is sin and grieve the heart of my Lord. This is so beyond " the keeping of rules," that to have it ever presented to me as that, always seems completly foriegn. Praise the Living God for His New Covenant!........brother Frank

P
philologos

If the Ark was missing from Jesus' day, were the priests dumping blood straight onto the ground?

I fear they did. They were going through the motions of a Covenant that was already decaying.

R
rookie

Ron wrote:

This is our clue... the law was not made for the righteous person but for... an different group altogether. In essence the Old Covenant was made for the Old Man, the New Covenant was made for the New Man.

By God's grace I am not part of this group...

...the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers...

the Law was not 'made for' me.


You confirm that you are not under the law because you have been born from above and have been declared righteous. This Scripture still states that all who are not of God are still under the law.

Do you agree with this?

In Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

Praise the Living God for His New Covenant!........brother Frank

Frank
you encourage me to take a deeper look into the 'old heart of stone' that had to be removed.

Most evangelicals are familiar with...

"“The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" Jer 17:9 NKJV

but our evangelical habit of quoting verses has robbed us of its significance. We need to go the the beginning of this chapter to see what Jeremiah is talking about.

"“The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron; With the point of a diamond it is engraved On the tablet of their heart, And on the horns of your altars, 2 While their children remember Their altars and their wooden images By the green trees on the high hills. 3 O My mountain in the field, I will give as plunder your wealth, all your treasures, And your high places of sin within all your borders. 4 And you, even yourself, Shall let go of your heritage which I gave you; And I will cause you to serve your enemies In the land which you do not know; For you have kindled a fire in My anger which shall burn forever.”" Jer 17:1–4 NKJV

This is addressed to the southern kingdom of Judah. By this time the virgin of Israel ( the northern kingdom) had "fallen to rise no more". The house of Judah thought themselves to beyond any possibility of the same judgment because of the Davidic Covenant and its solid legal basis in the possession of the Ark of the Covenant that contained the 'signed' copies of the Covenant. Jeremiah protests against this attitude when he says..

"Do not trust in these lying words, saying, “The temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD are these.’" Jer 7:4 NKJV

They thought they were secure because they had the Davidic dynasty and the place where God dwelt. I quotation comes to mind from an old history of Israel..."Nebuchadnezzar's battering rams breached the theolgy of Judah". It is well said. But the theology that was breached was already badly faulted.

Outwardly they had so many evidences of God's favour that they felt themselves secure but in Jer 17 he shows them their inward states.

Their disposition is indelibly inscribed upon their hearts of stone. This is not a condition that can be changed with a coat of paint. It is chiselled into their character as with a pen of iron, a chisel or a diamond. There is no way that this damage can be reversed; it is incurable.

This is the significance of Jer 17:9 when Jeremiah declares...

"Crooked [is] the heart above all things, And it [is] incurable — who doth know it?" Jer 17:9 YNG

Here is an astonishing point. The word for 'crooked is derived from the word Jacob...
[url=http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6121&t=KJV]'acob[/url] It is that old 'Jacob' nature still running through the blood of his descendants.

The sin in mind as the context shows is what we might call spiritual promiscuity. This 'proneness to wander' was an inherent part of their nature. Sometimes it is portrayed with surprising earthiness...

"A wild donkey used to the wilderness, That sniffs at the wind in her desire; In her time of mating, who can turn her away? All those who seek her will not weary themselves; In her month they will find her." Jer 2:24 NKJV

That is Jeremiah likening the wandering nature of the old man to a donkey in heat. If you have ever had a female pet 'in heat' you will know their ingenuity in breaking through all the commandments ( and fences) you surround them with! It is inherent nature. You cannot cure a female donkey in heat from being a female donkey; it is inherent nature.

A word of warning here. Judah is not worse that any other ethnic group. This is 'human' nature as it has been since Adam's sin. God's dealing with the Jews do not warrant and condemnation of the 'Jews' as a people. The Jews are no different in their nature than all other groups. They had one distinction, both a privilege and a responsibility. They had greater knowledge of God's requirements because they had been spelled out in detail to them. This brought them potential blessing and opened them up to greater judgment. James in his letter says...

"My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment." James 3:1 NKJV

there is an OT version of that warning...

"Hear this word that the LORD has spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying: 2 “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”" Amos 3:1–2 NKJV

...you only have I known... therefore...

But in the Jew human nature is just brought into sharper focus. This is why the anti-semitism of people like Chrysostom is so totally misguided as well and being immoral. It was not 'the Jews' per se who crucified Christ it was the human race, and it was this unbridled passion to go our own way which was the human cause of Calvary.

Is there then no hope? Is that the final word... than the heart is crooked beyond all other things and incurable? In one sense it is but there are other ways of dealing with a stone heart than by 'curing it', by a miracle called regeneration a man or woman can receive a 'replacement' heart. It is no wonder that the Bible calls this a New Creation.

Here is Peter's comment to the New Covenant community...

"For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." 1 Pet 2:25 NKJV

but notice the tenses here...
'you were like sheep going astray' - the imperfect tense which can be translated 'you used to be like sheep going astray...'

and then a switch to the Aorist tense

but you have NOW returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. The incurable disease of being 'prone to wander' has been overcome, as Peter says as he introduces this topic...

"who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed." 1 Pet 2:24 NKJV

you were healed...for (because) you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." 1 Pet 2:25 NKJV

As we saw in the promises in Jeremiah and Ezekiel the New Covenant includes a complete change of disposition...

"I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." Jer 31:33 NKJV

"I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them." Ezek 36:27 NKJV

...sorry this was far to long for a single post!

P
philologos

Jeff

You confirm that you are not under the law because you have been born from above and have been declared righteous. This Scripture still states that all who are not of God are still under the law.

Do you agree with this?


Paul is reminding Timothy that the law had a specific purpose. You ask, and so do others, does this purpose continue to all men who are not regenerate? Certainly the 'works of law written in the heart' constantly bear witness to the unregenerate, whether or not it is a Biblical pattern that we should employ is another matter.

In all the history we have of the early preaching of the apostles etc is there a single example of the law being used to bring men to conviction? I have found none. Can God use the law in this way? God can do whatever he wants. Should we use the law in this way? I am not convinced that scripture says 'yes'.

R
rookie

Ron wrote:


Can God use the law in this way? God can do whatever he wants. Should we use the law in this way? I am not convinced that scripture says 'yes'.

The ways of God are given to us in Scripture. Paul writes about the Law and whom it applies to in this verse.

....................................................................................................................

1Ti 1:9\tknowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for [the] lawless and insubordinate, for [the] ungodly and for sinners, for [the] unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

......................................................................................................................


Paul states that the law is not made for a righteous person. This same thought is expressed by Paul about his own walk "in Christ."


.................................................................................................................
Phl 3:9\tand be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which [is] from the law, but that which [is] through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;
................................................................................................................

Paul states that his hope is that he "be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law...."
We see that following the law promotes self righteousness. Therefore God did not make the law for the righteous but for the lawless and insubordinate.

Why would Paul mention this precept if the law is no longer enforced?

Secondly why would Paul state that the law "is made" for the "lawless and insubordinate"?


In Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

Jeff

"from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm. 8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine," 1 Tim 1:6–10 NKJV

It is intriguing to wonder just how those others were 'using the law' wrongly. It is pointless to speculate, we do not have enough evidence to make even a serious guess. We have, so far as I am aware, no evidence of the preachers of hte gospel using the law in the way that some evangelicals advocate. Wesley, and I am a fan!, said you should not preach grace until law had done its work. Quite a few preachers have adopted this line but I can find no biblical evidence of it.

I think we need to remind ourselves of the nature of the Sinai law, to which Paul presumably is referring at this time. If we read the context we discover that it was uniquely given to the people of the Sinai covenant.

"And God spoke all these words, saying: 2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." Ex 20:1–2 NKJV

That is pretty clear application. We cannot simply take verses of scripture and apply them to ourselves ignoring the context. These laws were given very specifically to a very specific group of people. Of course behind the unique context of the Sinai law there is the universal law which the works of which are written in the hearts of men everywhere.

This law was given to a people to whom God had bound himself my the name Jehovah, (or better Yahweh, but for convenience I will stick to Jehovah). God brought the people of Israel through experiences which virtually redefined the name. The name had been used earlier but Jehovah is uniquely the name by which the people of the Sinai Covenant were to know him.

"And God speaketh unto Moses, and saith unto him, ‘I [am] Jehovah, 3 and I appear unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; as to My name Jehovah, I have not been known to them; 4 and also I have established My covenant with them, to give to them the land of Canaan, the land of their sojournings, wherein they have sojourned; 5 and also I have heard the groaning of the sons of Israel, whom the Egyptians are causing to serve, and I remember My covenant. 6 ‘Therefore say to the sons of Israel, I [am] Jehovah, and I have brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and have delivered you from their service, and have redeemed you by a stretched-out arm, and by great judgments, 7 and have taken you to Me for a people, and I have been to you for God, and ye have known that I [am] Jehovah your God, who is bringing you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians; 8 and I have brought you in unto the land which I have lifted up My hand to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, and have given it to you — a possession; I [am] Jehovah.’" Ex 6:2–8 YNG

So the names parties of this Covenant are very clear. The association with the 'land' are also very clear.

"“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you." Ex 20:12 NKJV

These details are very plainly specific to the people who gathered at Sinai.

It is interesting that when Paul actually quotes that commandment he detaches it from the promise of living in the land and makes it non-specific.

"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: 3 “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”" Eph 6:1–3 NKJV

What application would these laws have to people outside that Covenant?

R
rookie

Ron wrote:

That is pretty clear application. We cannot simply take verses of scripture and apply them to ourselves ignoring the context. These laws were given very specifically to a very specific group of people. Of course behind the unique context of the Sinai law there is the universal law which the works of which are written in the hearts of men everywhere.

Yes I agree with your thoughts pertaining to context. Yes Paul does indeed point to a specific time and to a specific generation that God brought out of Egypt. And we know that this generation did not enter into His rest because of unbelief. God destroyed Israel and Judah as you have pointed out. For up until this time they were prone to worship idols. God reunited His people during the times of Ezra and Nehemiah and they no longer worshiped idols. These people grew strong in their culture and their traditions. The Pharisees then created a religion based on keeping of the law and not seeking to find a God given faith. It is this errant fundamentalism which permeated the generation that lived during the time of Jesus and His apostles. In the generations leading up to this time the law which is spiritual became for them a stumbling block because their ears became dull of hearing and their eyes grew dim.


It is intriguing to wonder just how those others were 'using the law'
wrongly.

Paul states one of the outcomes or fruit of using the law wrongly is manifested in those who become self righteous. Another fruit of using the law wrongly can be seen in those who condemned Jesus. Those who seek to live by the law according to the flesh will naturally become scornful and condemning. The law was made to condemn all, therefore those who tried to live by the law took on the nature of the purpose of the law.

Again:

That is pretty clear application. We cannot simply take verses of scripture and apply them to ourselves ignoring the context. These laws were given very specifically to a very specific group of people.


And yes, Paul had to battle against those who had been trained all their lives to live according to the traditions of their fathers. They had created their own religion that was powerless because it was based on the flesh. It is these people whom Paul had to witness to constantly. In this day in south central Pennsylvania, I too am surrounded by many who have grown up under a false legalistic religion. Many congregations have established sets of laws that are meant to promote or maintain an air of righteousness. Many go to church because they have grown up in a culture where everyone goes to church.


With all of that said, Paul make this remark about himself....
..................................................................................................................

Phl 3:9\tand be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which [is] from the law, but that which [is] through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;
..................................................................................................................

There are examples in Scripture that give us a different way a new way to fulfill the law. Paul points to being in Christ, which imparts a God given righteousness which can be obtained only by faith.

A God given faith is declared in this verse.................................................

Psa 119:49\tRemember the word to Your servant, Upon which You have caused me to hope.

................................................................................................................


Paul writes the same..............................................................................

Rom 10:8\tBut what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith which we preach):
Rom 10:17\tSo then faith [comes] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
.................................................................................................................


Listen for the ways in which God gave this man a knowledge and understanding of His righteousness which is from the law.

.......................................................................................................
Psa 119:67\tBefore I was afflicted I went astray, But now I keep Your word.

Psa 119:59\tI thought about my ways, And turned my feet to Your testimonies.
Psa 119:60\tI made haste, and did not delay To keep Your commandments.

Psa 119:71\t[It is] good for me that I have been afflicted, That I may learn Your statutes.

Psa 119:75\tI know, O LORD, that Your judgments [are] right, And [that] in faithfulness You have afflicted me.

Psa 119:102\tI have not departed from Your judgments, For You Yourself have taught me.

Psa 119:175\tLet my soul live, and it shall praise You; And let Your judgments help me.

Psa 119:20\tMy soul breaks with longing For Your judgments at all times.

......................................................................................................................

The above thoughts expressed by this man speak to this Scripture in Hebrews.


.....................................................................................................................

Hbr 12:5\tAnd you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons: "My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him;

Hbr 12:6\tFor whom the LORD loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives." [fn]

Hbr 12:7\tIf [fn] you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten?

Hbr 12:8\tBut if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons.

Hbr 12:9\tFurthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected [us], and we paid [them] respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live?

Hbr 12:10\tFor they indeed for a few days chastened [us] as seemed [best] to them, but He for [our] profit, that [we] may be partakers of His holiness.

Hbr 12:11\tNow no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

.....................................................................................................................

In Psalm 119 we are given a testimony of a man who has gone through this chastening, and that he has discovered that this chastening has yielded to him "peaceable fruit of righteousness." He has come to know that the Lord is faithful and that all His ways are good.

Enough for now....

Search out Psalm 119 and find out how God gives to man His righteousness which comes by faith in Christ.

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

Ron asks:

What application would these laws have to people outside that Covenant?

Job also knew the 10 Commandments and God removed from him his self righteousness. And then God gave him a land also.....


God gave Adam and Eve a land.

And we too will be given a land in the future, New Jerusalem.

In Christ
Jeff

T
twayneb

What application would these laws have to people outside that Covenant?

If I am understanding this question right, Paul says some things in the first two chapters of Romans that answer this question. He says that the gentiles who know not the law become a law unto themselves. They make similar rules such as, do not kill, etc. and by their rules or laws accuse or excuse one another. In every man is the intuitive knowledge of God. Without this intuitive knowledge we would kill one another as simply and without thought as a coyote kills a rabbit. But Paul is saying whether one is a child of Israel to whom the law is given and known, or a pagan in a place where the law of God has never been spoken, you are without excuse because your very laws that you have invented are proof of your intuitive knowledge that there is someone higher than you with a standard to which you must answer. Both the Mosaic law and the pagan law showed man his sin and condemned him.

But, if I have been made righteous in the eyes of that one with which I have to do by the atoning blood of His son, and if I have been regenerated in my spirit with His laws now written on my heart, the written law of God does not apply to me. I am no longer judged by the written law. Its purpose was to bring me to knowledge of sin, to condemn me, and there is therefore now no condemnation because I am now in Christ Jesus. (condemnation in Rom. 8 is not at all talking about the accusation of the devil or of others around me, although it has been interpreted that way by many. In its context it is talking about the damning or condemning work of the law. I am no longer condemned or subjected to the sentence of God's wrath because I have been made righteous by the blood of Jesus.)

P
philologos

Travis

In its context it is talking about the damning or condemning work of the law. I am no longer condemned or subjected to the sentence of God's wrath because I have been made righteous by the blood of Jesus.)

Right up to this point I was 110% behind you but I think we do need to make a careful distinction between righteousness imputed and righteousness imparted. If there is no condemnation because I have been made righteous this would really be justification by sanctification. We are not 'right with God' because of sanctification we are right with God because of what Christ achieved on Calvary.

Condemnation was the last stage of a Roman Law court. It was the sentence pronounced by the judge against the man who had been found 'guilty'. If the man were found 'not guilty' then there is not sentence/condemnation. Consequently if we are justified (declared right with God) by faith there is, literally, no condemnation.

I was really pleased to see you insisting that 'condemnation' is not a feeling of being accused. We have used words so wrongly it is hard work to get back to their original meaning. Guilt, of course, in the Bible has nothing to do with how we feel but is the sentence of the judge against our crime. Condemnation, too, has nothing to do with our feelings but everything to do with the judge's pronouncement.

T
twayneb

Ron:

Semantics are interesting because words become loaded with meaning that is as varied as the experiences of those who use the words. I have found that this is especially true in the church world. If I mentioned the term "sanctification" to twenty different people from different denominational backgrounds, I would get twenty very different definitions. I make no distinction between "imputed" and "imparted". I guess I don't believe a distinction need be made. It is a doctrinal construct that I cannot find made in scripture. (There are some clear distinctions that scripture does make. One example is Paul's distinction between seed and seeds.) Before I was born again the law pronounced me guilty and I was under the sentence of condemnation for the sin I had committed.

2Co 5:21
(21) For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Rom 4:23-25
(23) Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
(24) But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
(25) Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

But because of what Jesus did, I now have become the righteousness of God in Christ. I am no longer under the condemnation. I am literally saved from wrath. Romans 5:9.

I am just thankful that I am free from the law's drudgery and constant fear of death. It is so wonderful to learn to walk in the grace of God and to stand fast in the liberty wherein Christ has made me free and to finally be free from the yoke of bondage I was entangled in.

Blessings Brother

P
philologos

Travis
The question is 'does God justify the ungodly or does God justify the righteous?'

"But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness," Rom 4:5 NKJV

A
ADisciple

Ron B said, "I think we do need to make a careful distinction between righteousness imputed and righteousness imparted. If there is no condemnation because I have been made righteous this would really be justification by sanctification. We are not 'right with God' because of sanctification we are right with God because of what Christ achieved on Calvary."

This is true, and we move off the foundation of justification by faith to our peril. But let me call attention to a danger here. It's true that "we are not right with God because of sanctification," as you said. But if sanctification is not wrought in our lives, we will not be without blame in the day of Christ.

There are a number of Scriptures that show that justification in itself will not be enough to stand us unblameable in that Day of His appearing. Or to put that better, justification by faith must bring forth the fruit God intended... if we are to stand before Him blameless in His Day. This involves a work of sanctification, of holiness.

"And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you, To the end He may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints" (1 Thes. 3.12,13).

And so, those words: "unblameable in holiness."

Here's another one.

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly: and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thes. 5.23).

Again, the work of this whole sanctification is linked to being blameless at His coming.

Peter says, "Wherefore beloved, seeing ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of Him in peace, without spot, and blameless" (2 Pt. 3.14).

It's justification by faith that is our peace with God, and which enables us to be "found of Him in peace" when He appears. And none of these other verses above imply a moving away from that foundation... of justification by faith. But there must be a continuing in that standing, and a moving onward, such that it enables us to bring forth the fruit in our lives that God is hungry for: specifically love, which to walk in is to walk in a holiness that leaves us unblameable in the day of judgment. (See also 1 Jn. 4.17).

It's possible to neglect this, apparently. And if we do, if we content ourselves with merely being justified by faith and don't cooperate with God in His purpose in justifying us in the first place, we will yet find ourselves perhaps not condemned, but "blamed," in that great Day of His appearing.

...That's a fearsome prospect, and I don't really like setting it forth negatively like that. Paul, in fact, in the the passage I quoted, spoke on the positive side reminding us of God's faithfulness, saying God will be faithful to accomplish in us this work of His that will stand us unblameable in His sight.

"Faithful is He that calleth you, who will also do it" (1 Thes. 5.24).

And here as well, where he also talks of being blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ: "God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord" (1 Cor. 1.8,9).

Also this, from Jude: "Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy..." (Jude 24).

...In other words, God is able to conclude, and will be faithful to conclude, the Covenant He inaugurated when He justified us by faith.

Edited to correct reference.

T
twayneb

The question is 'does God justify the ungodly or does God justify the righteous?'

I am not sure what point you are trying to make I guess. ???

C
Christinyou

If God did not justify the ungodly, there would be none righteous. All are ungodly and fall short. Oh, how great a salvation.

R
rookie

t's justification by faith that is our peace with God, and which enables us to be "found of Him in peace" when He appears.

and then.........

But there must be a continuing in that standing, and a moving onward, such that it enables us to bring forth the fruit in our lives that God is hungry for: specifically love, which to walk in is to walk in a holiness that leaves us unblameable in the day of judgment. (See also 1 Jn. 4.17).

Your words bring to this Scripture......

.......................................................................................................................
Rom 5:9\tMuch more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.
.....................................................................................................................

We have been reconciled to the Father through the blood of Christ. And then we shall be saved from God's wrath through Him.

...................................................................................................................
Rom 5:10\tFor if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
.................................................................................................................

Since we now have been given the Holy Spirit, we shall realize true salvation as His life is imparted into us who continue to walk with Him. These who walk with Him can expect to be transformed into the image of His Son.

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

Gal 3:22\tBut the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Gal 3:23\tBut before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.

Gal 3:24\tTherefore the law was our tutor [to bring us] to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

...................................................................................................................

Paul states that "before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law..."

Who is "we" in this Scripture?

Secondly "we" "were kept under guard by the law" How does the law guard us before a God given faith is generated in us?

Look to the writer of Psalm 119 for the answers....

In Christ
Jeff

C
Christinyou

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Galatians 3:23
Verse 23. But before faith came. That is, the system of salvation by faith in the Lord Jesus. Faith here denotes the Christian religion, because faith is its distinguishing characteristic.
We were kept under the law. We, who were sinners; we, who have violated the law. It is a general truth, that before the gospel was introduced, men were under the condemning sentence of the law.

Shut up unto the faith. Enclosed by the law with reference to the full and glorious revelation of a system of salvation by faith. The design and tendency of the law was to shut us up to that as the only method of salvation. All other means failed. The law condemned every other mode, and the law condemned all who attempted to be justified in any other way. Man, therefore, was shut up to that as his last hope; and could look only to that for any possible prospect of salvation. The word which in this verse is rendered "were kept," ejrouroumeqa, usually means to guard or watch, as in a castle, or as prisoners are guarded; and though the word should not be pressed too far in the interpretation, yet it implies that there was a rigid scrutiny observed; that the law guarded: them; that there was no way of escape; and that they were shut up, as prisoners under sentence of death, to the only hope, which was that of pardon. End:

Christ Jesus and His Cross is our pardon, by faith.

Galatians 2:16-21 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

By His Faith through His mind and His spirit, which are now mine, by God's declaration, that is in me, my Faith now directed by the Holy Spirit saves me.

1 Corinthians 1:29-31 That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, (justification by faith) and sanctification, (Holy Spirit revelation by the renewing of our minds, which, "we have the mind of Christ in us), and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

In Christ: Phillip

R
rookie

Albert Barnes wrote:

The word which in this verse is rendered "were kept," ejrouroumeqa, usually means to guard or watch, as in a castle, or as prisoners are guarded; and though the word should not be pressed too far in the interpretation, yet it implies that there was a rigid scrutiny observed; that the law guarded: them; that there was no way of escape; and that they were shut up, as prisoners under sentence of death, to the only hope, which was that of pardon. End:


Yet we have this testimony of a man who shared his God generated faith with us.

.....................................................................................................................
Psa 119:44\tSo shall I keep Your law continually, Forever and ever.

Psa 119:45\tAnd I will walk at liberty, For I seek Your precepts.
.......................................................................................................................

This man speaks of liberty and the knowing that he is right with God. We know that this Scripture has been given to us so that we might learn from his testimony.

In Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

This is true, and we move off the foundation of justification by faith to our peril. But let me call attention to a danger here. It's true that "we are not right with God because of sanctification," as you said. But if sanctification is not wrought in our lives, we will not be without blame in the day of Christ.

I am a holiness preacher and I preach it constantly but Wesley once said something like 'we should preach justification 20 times for each time we preach sanctification'. I think I understand what he meant.

Here is one of my favourite OT passages which makes my point...

"“And when I passed by you and saw you struggling in your own blood, I said to you in your blood, “Live!’ Yes, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ 7 I made you thrive like a plant in the field; and you grew, matured, and became very beautiful. Your breasts were formed, your hair grew, but you were naked and bare. 8 “When I passed by you again and looked upon you, indeed your time was the time of love; so I spread My wing over you and covered your nakedness. Yes, I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you, and you became Mine,” says the Lord GOD. 9 “Then I washed you in water; yes, I thoroughly washed off your blood, and I anointed you with oil. 10 I clothed you in embroidered cloth and gave you sandals of badger skin; I clothed you with fine linen and covered you with silk. 11 I adorned you with ornaments, put bracelets on your wrists, and a chain on your neck. 12 And I put a jewel in your nose, earrings in your ears, and a beautiful crown on your head. 13 Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your clothing was of fine linen, silk, and embroidered cloth. You ate pastry of fine flour, honey, and oil. You were exceedingly beautiful, and succeeded to royalty. 14 Your fame went out among the nations because of your beauty, for it was perfect through My splendor which I had bestowed on you,” says the Lord GOD." Ezek 16:6–14 NKJV

Notice where the cleansing comes in v9.
he embraced this founding, spread his garment over her, entered into covenant with here.... then I washed you in water; yes, I thoroughly washed off your blood, and I anointed you with oil.

P
philologos

"“The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, 16 according to all you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, “Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’ 17 “And the LORD said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. 18 I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. 19 And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him." Deut 18:15–19 NKJV

This prophecy from Moses was clearly understood by the early Christians to be fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ.

"For Moses truly said to the fathers, “The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. 23 And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’" Acts 3:22–23 NKJV

"“This is that Moses who said to the children of Israel, ‘The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear.’" Acts 7:37 NKJV

In what sense is Christ 'like me' ie like Moses? This would make a valuable study. From the onset there are powerful parallels between Moses and Christ eg. Both were targeted for destruction at birth… and many more but it is not in personal history parallels that the Scriptures have in mind. The great parallel is that they were both mediators of covenants. The Scriptures frequently refer to the law as 'Moses' Luke 24:27. The Jews of Jesus' day saw the implications very clearly;

"Then they said to him again, “What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes?” 27 He answered them, “I told you already, and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become His disciples?” 28 Then they reviled him and said, “You are His disciple, but we are Moses’ disciples." John 9:26–28 NKJV

The book of Hebrews declares very plainly that the New Covenant has a better mediator…

"But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises." Heb 8:6 NKJV

"And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." Heb 9:15 NKJV

Throughout the epistle to the Hebrews the covenants are contrasted and the New Covenant declared to be the 'better covenant'. These covenants are mutually exclusive, they cannot co-exist peacefully, hence Paul's startling words in Galatians…

"which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written: “Rejoice, O barren, You who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband.” 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free." Gal 4:24–31 NKJV

Paul declares here his recognition of 'two covenants' and says that the Sinai covenant is an allegory of Hagar; it produces bond-slaves. He goes on to show that there must be zero-tolerance in this matter; “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.”

Jesus is 'like' Moses in that he is the mediator of a covenant but he is a better mediator of a better covenant and that those who reject that mediatorship must pay the ultimate price

R
rookie

Ron wrote:

Paul declares here his recognition of 'two covenants' and says that the Sinai covenant is an allegory of Hagar; it produces bond-slaves. He goes on to show that there must be zero-tolerance in this matter; “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.”

The allegory of Hagar points to men striving in their carnal flesh, to declare righteousness of there own imaginations. Just like in the book of Galatians, the flesh wars against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh. We see that this precept is clearly distinguished when the writer of Hebrew says this in the section of Scripture you have brought before us.

.......................................................................................................................
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.
...................................................................................................................

The writer says that "we" are "as Isaac was," "children of promise" And we know that those who are born of God will always be persecuted by those who reject God. This persecution began in Genesis 3:15 when God declared that there would be hatred between Satan and the Woman, and between his seed and the Seed of the woman. The first offspring of Adam give us a clear picture of what God meant. Cane slew Abel.

If one looks to the testimony of Psalm 119 on will find that this man satisfied the law of God through the Holy Spirit. The law led him to Christ.

Christ said to His disciples:
...........................................................................................................
Mat 7:21\t"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Mat 7:22\tMany will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'

Mat 7:23\tAnd then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
.............................................................................................................

Those who 'practice lawlessness" will not be known by the Lord.

In Christ
Jeff

R
RobertW

Throughout the epistle to the Hebrews the covenants are contrasted and the New Covenant declared to be the 'better covenant'. These covenants are mutually exclusive, they cannot co-exist peacefully, hence Paul's startling words in Galatians...

We have an equally important problem also.

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; (I Corinthians 10:3ff)

Israel was identified with Moses through this baptism unto Moses. As great as Moses was, it seems to me that he himself was in 'Adam'. So one under the Old Covenant could only ever be identified with one that was in Adam.

What about those under the New Covenant? What is their experience in baptism?

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (I Corinthians 12:12ff)

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? (Romans 6:3)

This is the great difference between the Old and New Covenant that they prior to Pentecost could not experience. No one was dead to Sin under the Old Covenant.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.(Romans 8:3ff)

R
rookie

To finish the Scriptural thought that you quoted we have this................................................

1Cr 10:2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
1Cr 10:3 all ate the same spiritual food,

1Cr 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
...........................................................

Was Paul right in stating that these who were baptised into Moses all drank and eat the "same spiritual drink" which is "Christ?"

Is this true or not?

In Christ
Jeff

R
RobertW

Was Paul right in stating that these who were baptised into Moses all drank and eat the "same spiritual drink" which is "Christ?"

Is this true or not?

It is true, but that is not the question we are asking. The benefits of Christ have been in play in part since the beginning. To partake of Christ is not the same as to be baptized 'into' Jesus Christ. It is this Spirit baptism that takes a person 'out' of fallen Adam and places them 'in' the Last Adam Jesus Christ (I Corinthians 15:40ff). This takes the possibilities to a whole new level. To be in fallen Adam is to be subject to Adam's condition and experience. He fell and was a slave to Sin so we are born in Adam a slave to Sin. To be Born AGain in Christ by the Spirit enables me to share in what Christ has done through the Cross. This is the primary aspect of the exceeding great and precious promises that enable us to be partakers of the Divine Nature, etc. They under the Old Covenant could not possibly have been in Christ and therefor were alive to Sin. This is why the Law worked death in them.

R
rookie

They under the Old Covenant could not possibly have been in Christ and therefor were alive to Sin. This is why the Law worked death in them.

This thought brought this Scripture to mind:

...........................................................
Psa 116:15 Precious in the sight of the LORD [Is] the death of His saints.
...........................................................

Which then leads me to Paul's statement

..........................................................
Gal 5:24 And those [who are] Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
..........................................................


Returning to Paul's declaring that the nation of Israel was given the opportunity to eat and drink spiritual food that comes from Christ, this statement declares that that generation was not left to live a life of obedience based on only their human capabilities. And this is confirmed in many places in the Scripture.

The writer of Psalm 119 ascribes to the power of God that enables him to walk at liberty. Throughout his testimony he attributes God's work in his life for his salvation.

Likewise we see that the evidence of the spiritual work in Isaac's life created the same enmity that Christ experienced from those who live according to the flesh. If the Spirit had not worked in these men's lives, these men would not be hated by those who are not born from above.

Pentecost, according to Peter, was a time where the Holy Spirit was poured out "upon" the believers. In times of revival in the OT of both individuals and the nation of Israel we find the same example. Peter declares that this occurance is "that" what Joel prophesied. Many OT believers dreamed dreams and saw visions just like those at Pentecost.

In Christ
Jeff

R
RobertW

Many OT believers dreamed dreams and saw visions just like those at Pentecost.

This is true also. Certainly I think we need to give credit where credit is due. I think the great example of the difference between a person being under the Old Covenant and the New is in the life of the Apostle Paul. Prior to his experience he persecuted Stephen, after he became as Stephen. The difference in nature is sharp. I think the one great before/after difference is found:

I am crucified with Christ: neverthless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)

The life I 'now' live is a different life than I 'used' to live. I submit this change took place when Paul was baptized into Jesus Christ by the Spirit. Christ's experience became Paul's experience when he was baptized 'into' Christ. This is why Paul could say, "If ye then be dead and risen with Christ..." (Colossians 2:20 and Colossians 3:1).

P
philologos

Pentecost, according to Peter, was a time where the Holy Spirit was poured out "upon" the believers. In times of revival in the OT of both individuals and the nation of Israel we find the same example. Peter declares that this occurance is "that" what Joel prophesied. Many OT believers dreamed dreams and saw visions just like those at Pentecost.

Jeff
The Holy Spirit was indeed 'poured out' as at other times but 'poured out' is not the only way that Luke describes this event...

"for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”" Acts 1:5 NKJV There is an extra dimension to the work of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

R
rookie

Ron wrote:

]

The Holy Spirit was indeed 'poured out' as at other times but 'poured out' is not the only way that Luke describes this event...

I agree with you, there is much more....

First, To be more precise, the promise of the Holy Spirit was to be 'poured out" "on" those who called on the name of the Lord at Pentecost.


Secondly, this prophesy of Joel according to Peter, took place at Pentecost. But this is not the only time that this prophesy was or will be fulfilled.

..........................................................................................................................Joe 2:19\tThe LORD will answer and say to His people, "Behold, I will send you grain and new wine and oil, And you will be satisfied by them; I will no longer make you a reproach among the nations.

Joe 2:20\t"But I will remove far from you the northern [army], And will drive him away into a barren and desolate land, With his face toward the eastern sea And his back toward the western sea; His stench will come up, And his foul odor will rise, Because he has done monstrous things."

Joe 2:21\tFear not, O land; Be glad and rejoice, For the LORD has done marvelous things!

Joe 2:22\tDo not be afraid, you beasts of the field; For the open pastures are springing up, And the tree bears its fruit; The fig tree and the vine yield their strength.

Joe 2:23\tBe glad then, you children of Zion, And rejoice in the LORD your God; For He has given you the former rain faithfully, [fn] And He will cause the rain to come down for you-- The former rain, And the latter rain in the first [month].

Joe 2:24\tThe threshing floors shall be full of wheat, And the vats shall overflow with new wine and oil.

Joe 2:25\t"So I will restore to you the years that the swarming locust has eaten, The crawling locust, The consuming locust, And the chewing locust, [fn] My great army which I sent among you.

Joe 2:26\tYou shall eat in plenty and be satisfied, And praise the name of the LORD your God, Who has dealt wondrously with you; And My people shall never be put to shame.

Joe 2:27\tThen you shall know that I [am] in the midst of Israel: I [am] the LORD your God And there is no other. My people shall never be put to shame.

Joe 2:28\t"And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions.

Joe 2:29\tAnd also on [My] menservants and on [My] maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.

Joe 2:30\t"And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth: Blood and fire and pillars of smoke.

Joe 2:31\tThe sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.

Joe 2:32\tAnd it shall come to pass [That] whoever calls on the name of the LORD Shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, As the LORD has said, Among the remnant whom the.............................................................................................................


I believe that this section of Scripture teaches that we are to expect another out pouring of the Holy Spirit "on" those whom call on the name of the Lord.


The point I make is that the Scripture in Acts chapter two makes no distinction between the words "on" and "in." Scripture declares that "on" and 'In" are the same.

When Solomon writes by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit...........................

Pro 1:23\tTurn at my rebuke; Surely I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you.

The purpose for the work of the Holy Spirit that was poured out on those at Pentecost was to "make my words known to you."

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

RobertW wrote:

think the great example of the difference between a person being under the Old Covenant and the New is in the life of the Apostle Paul.

Yes, I agree....

Paul knew the OT by heart. So when he heard the Lord rebuke him in this way:

.................................................................................................................
Act 9:5\tAnd he said, "Who are You, Lord?" Then the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It [is] hard for you to kick against the goads."
...................................................................................................................

this OT Scripture must have come to mind during those 3 days of being blind.

..................................................................................................................
Ecc 12:11\tThe words of the wise are like goads, and the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd.
................................................................................................................

Jesus said to him, "It is hard for you to kick against the goads." You see Jesus declared to Paul that He knew that Paul was struggling against the penetrating power of Scripture. Only God knows what is in the heart of man. And Paul knew for the first time that God does speak to man. And the words that Paul heard that day was a "well-driven nail(s), given by one Shepherd."

Yes, hearing God speak is life changing......

The law of God, the word of God is the tutor which leads us to die to self and live for Christ. The ways of this law are explained in the Parable of the Sower...and Psalm 119.

Those whom the Father draws come to Christ.

In Christ
jeff

R
rookie

The Parable of the Sower is a description of what takes place in those who allow the word of God to have it's way in their lives.

Those who overcome Satan, trials and persecution, and the cares of this life, are those who find themselves truly dead and can say I count all things loss so that I may gain Christ.

This is the law that leads us to Him. We cannot do it in our own strength. We like the writer of Psalm 119 must call on the name of the Lord for His grace that changes all things.

In Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

Jeff

I believe that this section of Scripture teaches that we are to expect another out pouring of the Holy Spirit "on" those whom call on the name of the Lord.


The point I make is that the Scripture in Acts chapter two makes no distinction between the words "on" and "in." Scripture declares that "on" and 'In" are the same.


I don't think I have heard you say this before. Are you talking about a Second Blessing?

However there is a profound difference between 'on' and 'in'. It is similar to the difference between 'with' and in'. The former, in both cases, focuses on an external relationship while the latter focuses on the internal relationship. This is the fundamental difference between the Old and New Covenant; external v internal.

Pro 1:23\tTurn at my rebuke; Surely I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you.

The purpose for the work of the Holy Spirit that was poured out on those at Pentecost was to "make my words known to you."


There were many outpourings in both covenants but the indwelling Christ in the person of his Spirit is a uniquely New Covenant experience.

Notice this famous passage...
"For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height— 19 to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God." Eph 3:14–19 NKJV

v17 says 'that' ie. 'so that'. The purpose of the indwelling Spirit is to make the indwelling Christ a reality. There can have been no indwelling Christ, in this sense, until Pentecost.

R
rookie

Ron wrote:

However there is a profound difference between 'on' and 'in'. It is similar to the difference between 'with' and in'. The former, in both cases, focuses on an external relationship while the latter focuses on the internal relationship. This is the fundamental difference between the Old and New Covenant; external v internal.

Peter states this:
........................................................
Act 2:17 'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams.
.........................................................

Then Peter says this:

..........................................................
Act 2:33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.
.......................................................

This out pouring "on" those who call on His name is explained this way at Pentecost:

.......................................................
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
........................................................

These Scriptures state that those whom the Lord "poured out" His Spirit "on" the disciples. When this occurred these disciples were "filled with the Spirit..."

The pouring out of the Spirit on men means that they are "filled with the Holy Spirit."

In Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

The pouring out of the Spirit on men means that they are "filled with the Holy Spirit."

Jeff
There is a fault in your logic here.
Polar bears are white.
These animals are white therefore they must be Polar Bears.

but, of course, they may just be white cats.

It is true that the disciples were filled with the Spirit
It is true that the Holy Spirit was poured out on them.

it is a leap of logic to say therefore

being filled with the Spirit = the Holy Spirit being poured out.

Luke, in the gospel and in the Acts uses 'filled with the Spirit' as a generic term. We then have to read the context to see exactly what he is talking about.

Luke 1:15, 41, 67; Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9, 52

Sometimes Luke clearly means a 'state' and sometimes an 'event'. Only Luke uses this phrase. (the Eph 5:18 reference is clearly referring to a process rather a single crisis.)

The Scriptures sometimes use language which emphasises the suddenness of the event eg.

poured out: Acts 2:17–18, 33; 10:45
fell upon: Acts 10:44; 11:15
Baptised: Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Cor 12:13

We must not confuse the event with its consequence.

C
Christinyou

When does the "another Comforter", come, and where does He come to?

John 14:16-17 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

When does the Spirit of Christ come to the believer, "born again by the incorruptable Seed"?

Colossians 1:25-29 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

This is the promise of Christ, that He won't leave us alone either.

John 14:18-19 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

Without the Spirit of Christ, "we are none of His". Without the Holy Spirit we cannot know the Spirit of Christ that is our new birth.

In Christ: Phillip

T
twayneb

We often hear the term "poured out" in relationship to the day of pentecost, but I am not so sure that is a really good way to describe the event. The distinction Jesus made was one of "with" and "in". He said that the Holy Spirit, the comforter, was with us but would be in us.

The purpose according to Jesus in Acts 1 was that we would be endued with power. This is reiterated and built upon when Paul describes the power under which both he and those who were ministering alongside him operated under in 1 Cor. chapter 2. Here he also tells us the purpose of the indwelling power and presence of the Holy Spirit is that we might know the things of the Spirit of God, that we might literally have the mind of Christ or to be made partakers of His thoughts, intents, and purposes.

The comforter, literally He who comes alongside and offers assistance or help, parakletos I believe, was sent on the day of pentecost, and He has never left. From Acts 19:2 we see that for any individual person the indwelling presence of the comforter, the baptism of the Holy Spirit if you will, is separate from and subsequent to salvation. These people were believers prior to receiving the Holy Spirit in power.

So He has already come (been poured out as some say),but that does not mean He has come to indwell a particular believer. When He comes to a believer is the point at which they receive Him by faith. It would be silly to think He comes like a little person that actually folds Himself up to sit inside of me, but there is a communion, a fellowship that occurs when I receive Him that was not there prior to being baptized in the Holy Spirit.

S
sermonindex

Ps. 27:1

ok.....if this is wrong please be so kind as to correct me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The thread has been read through from start to the post prior to this one.

There still remain many unanswered questions, and after the Lord dealing with me, there's even more...kinda'. No doubt, even as former Q's remain unanswered, even so, no doubt what follows from this quarter, seveal more Q's will probably remain unanswered as well.

Some things will be gone back over as these are foundational to misunderstanding just what God's salvation entails. Still each issue will find attempt to be covered singularly.

Seeing that post from B.C. on "Who is Israel," this stomach was literally turning, but it was left to pass... though it is the epitome of many of the wrong doctrines and lying theologies in the church. (That post went from assuming one misgnomer to another, considering human opinions and rationalisations to be God's doctrine, with statements that originate and conclude in philosophy of Romanism (aka:Babylon System) propogated through human reason. (oh, it was failed to mention that there were a few scriptures, yet these were mostly to prove the point of the misunderstandings written and seldom as base or conclusion to pertinent issues in the article.)

It is now seen that such things stated are also parcel in the error of thinking that the "Fresh" Covenant is seperate from it's origins. There is no basis for the New Covenant if the Old Covenant is abolished. Without one, the other does not have any foundation, and taking away the foundation, there is nothing for the other to be laid upon: to make it complete.

(Actually, the Old Covenant is referred to as "The Everlasting Covenant" , even as is the New Covenant. See I Chron 16:13-18 for context, and note especially I Chron. 16:17 . If it is abolished, why does God promise otherwise in I Chron. 16, Judges 2:1, and Is. 54:10. These are all OT texts though Mt. 5:17-18 was only stated at first.)

Jesus was sacraficed as part of Old Covenant requirements. In doing this He proved that God's judgement is valid for not obeying His Covenant/ This is His written standard for humans to walk in His: holiness, righteousness, and goodness.

(sideline note re: "...His Covenant..." from above para.-->Jesus was the one who gave the Old Covenant to us, and we can go all the way back to Abraham to see the onset of this by considering the NT as detailed commentary of the Old Covenant. Consider Jesus' response to Abraham's intercession for Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah with one verse in John---> Gen. 18:25 / Jn. 5:22 .

( You know when Paul writes Timothy that first epistle, when he says "all scrpture..." - "is breathed out by God"- looked at in context, he is writing about only the Old Testament...think about that will ya'?)

When there is more time, it will be shown that Jesus -(you say preincarnately?)- gave the Old Covenant, and then it will be asked if Jesus is the same today as yesterday and forever.

Stick with Mr. Tozer on this one thought (because it's true): Without reformation, there will not be revival . Holding on to and promoting things that are not scripturally correct does not draw us closer to God nor His standard, but actually causes us to walk in the wrong direction. Reserving the right to rationalize something through my own sense of reason, other than what God proclaims is called iniquity. ( Ps. 66:18 )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A beginning note:
Jeff stating that there is hardly a difference at all in the word 'in' and 'on' seems correct. With and in cannot even be compared. With does not mean on. However, to prove this point, are you supposed to believe in or on Jesus Christ to be saved??? ...What is the difference between believing in and believing on?


Ron,

If our foundation is not built upon truth, everything that is built upon a false foundation is subject to fall, if not being already shakey. A false foundation is not faith, but it is unbelief.


It seems that from the start the premise behind this thread was based on a misunderstanding. Though not stated in your first post, we did get parry regarding this issue, on this thread, and on "The Sinlessness of Christ" thread.

Here there is doctrinal difference regarding being a "New Creation." It was impressed that this title of the newly redeemed is saying, "a creation that is altogether different."

It will be asserted at the onset, that being "born again' or 'born from above' in John 3 is not referring to salvation but rather resurrection. This is why Jesus in Speaking with Nic stated, "You, being a teacher of the Law, do not understand this?"


Scripture confirm that regeneration is a continual process and not a one time act. Through continual growing confidence in Jesus willing: sacrafice, burial, and resurrection we are made whole, this is called, "being changed from glory to glory." The Word of God sanctifies us , Jn. 17:17, and not we ourselves. According to what we rely on God towards, even so, God manifests His Glory in our lives. Though there may be a starting point, this is something to be continued in and walking in another direction is not continuing in this. (it is a falacy to say that someone was never saved if they do not continue. Unconditional Eternal Security was first Roman Catholic theology propogated by St. Augustine. There are plenty of scriptures that prove that one can walk away from their salvation. ("None shall pluck them out of my hand"-->(see: Jn 10) means that God will not stop acting towards you in relation to Him, whether by blessing or chastisement. It does not mean that we do not walk in other directions.)

Now you have put forth the notion that man regenerated no longer has the nature to sin. If this is the case, regenerate man never sins. Yet, you were pointed to I Jn. 1:8-9, and have not yet admitted that we have both the old man and the new man in us. (The only way we could not have both natures is after our physical resurrection.)

What is the use of Jesus sacrafice and continual cleansing if we are already made perfect?

There are two natures at work. The old man lives according to the desires of our carcass. The new man lives by the faith(fulness) of Jesus Christ.

It was explained that the sin nature is unplugged in God's redeeming us, but that does not mean that we cannot plug it back in. Case in point: read Romans chapter 7.


JESUS DOES NOT REMOVE OUR SIN

Romans 3:10-12


(On the "Who is Israel" thread, of all the wrong doctrine in it, the one thing that stuck this craw, was that false notion that Jesus removes all our sin. )


Let's see here... consider a person who is dying from cancer goes to the doctor for a check-up. The doctor says you are in remission. This does not mean that the cancer does not exist, but it is "as though it does not exist." This does not say that the cancer cannot manifest again. All it says is that at that point in time, from all visible appearances, the cancer seems to be gone.

There is not one verse that states Jesus removes our sin (nature), nor our sins. The scriptures only tell us that through acting according to what we affirm about our belief in Jesus as both our Master and Annointing, through our own dying to ourselves and walking in His ressurected life, Jesus faith(fulness) keeps our sin(s) is (are) in remission, ( I Jn. 1:7 ).

Redemption may be a one time act, but regeneration through remission is not.

Sin was not imparted into Jesus as our substitute. Even so, neither is righteousness of the redeemed imparted. Even as iniquity was laid upon Him, even so our righteousness is imputed, Rom. 3:10.


Consider all this and tell what you think.
This will end for now with a few questions:
(to be added to all the other already unanswered questions)

1. Since the Law and commandments are God's standard for holiness, Rom. 7:12, how can any man preach holiness if the Law is already abolished?

2. Jesus kept not just the letter of the Law, but manifested the very spirit of this. Jesus kept the whole Law and more. We are supposed to conform to the image of Jesus Christ, and the image we have of Jesus is one who disgarded human rationalizations and obeyed God's Law.

We worship God in spirit and in truth. God's testomony (scripture) is truth. Paul, in writing Rom. 12:1 clarifies that spiritual worship is to live in sacraficing our desires to what is holy and acceptable to God. The Law is holy and acceptable to God. Are we any better than Jesus or the Apostles after his resurrection, who kept the Law - except in regards to preisthood, sacrafice, and circumcision after Jesus resurrection? Shouldn't we be following their teachings and examples instead of some post-modern 21st century farsical existential pseudo-faith?

3. Grace flows through the channel of obedience, because faith without works is dead. Grace abounds through faith(fulness) to God our Father. God expects us to be faithful in these little things and He then gives us bigger things to handle. (It is a very small thing to obey the letter of the Law if you are walking in the spirit of it. IF you are not walking in the spirit of it: grace through faith, it becomes something impossible,)

Following Jesus example in obedience to not merely the letter, but the spirit of the Law as well, aren't we being faithful to God's ideal for holiness and not some type of decorum contrived through human rationalization?


Doing something we think is faith yet does not agree with the whole counsel of God is not faith at all. It is unbelief.

Sincerely,
gregg
Acts 20:32

p.s. It just occured to me. There is a time and a season for everything, so nothing occurs to God.

edited: missing thoughts added and grammar errors

P
philologos

Without the Spirit of Christ, "we are none of His". Without the Holy Spirit we cannot know the Spirit of Christ that is our new birth.

I agree with your post. The inevitable question is can we receive justification 'without the Spirit'?

P
philologos

We often hear the term "poured out" in relationship to the day of pentecost, but I am not so sure that is a really good way to describe the event.

Travis
However it IS one of the descriptions used of Pentecost and of the Cornelius event.

"“And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. 18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy." Acts 2:17–18 NKJV

"Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear." Acts 2:33 NKJV

... and Peter says plainly... this is that...

"And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also." Acts 10:45 NKJV

the 'outpouring' and the 'indwelling' are not opposite points of view but different ways of describing the same event. However we cannot say, as Jeff has said, that 'outpouring' is another term for 'baptism in Spirit' even though the terms are used to describe the same event.

P
philologos

Gregg

It will be asserted at the onset, that being "born again' or 'born from above' in John 3 is not referring to salvation but rather resurrection. This is why Jesus in Speaking with Nic stated, "You, being a teacher of the Law, do not understand this?"

I cannot accept this notion, the direction is all wrong. Resurrection is 'up from' while Regeneration is 'down from'. You will know, I am sure, that 'you must be born again' would better be translated 'born from above'?


Scripture confirm that regeneration is a continual process and not a one time act. Through continual growing confidence in Jesus willing: sacrafice, burial, and resurrection we are made whole, this is called, "being changed from glory to glory."

You are confusing crisis with process.


ow you have put forth the notion that man regenerated no longer has the nature to sin. If this is the case, regenerate man never sins.

How then did Adam and Eve sin?


There is not one verse that states Jesus removes our sin (nature), nor our sins. The scriptures only tell us that through acting according to what we affirm about our belief in Jesus as both our Master and Annointing, through our own dying to ourselves and walking in His ressurected life, Jesus faith(fulness) keeps our sin(s) is (are) in remission, ( I Jn. 1:7 ).

I fear you have fallen into the trap of taking your definition of 'remission' from modern usage rather than the Bible.

check out the BlueLetterBible on
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G863&t=KJV

Modern usage in terms of 'remission' are of eg. cancer and we say 'he is in remission' meaning it is held in abeyance. This was never the Bible meaning. aphiEmi means to 'send away' not to 'hold in abeyance'.

C
Christinyou

1 Corinthians 1:28-31 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

These are the things we are not; We are not wise in our own comings and goings and circumstances and situations. We are not justified to righteousness by our own doings. We are not the Sanctifier to make us Holy. We cannot redeem ourselves.

That is why God has Justified us unto righteousness by the making of His Son in us our righteousness and justification.

"Christ in you the Hope of Glory"

Christ is the Wise One, the Holy Spirit brings forth this wisdom by the teaching and revelation and wisdom of Christ and what He says for our upbuilding and sanctification, His Body the Church.

Without Christ, we cannot be justified, wise, sanctified or redeemed.

The instant God Gives Birth to His born again son's, by the Incorruptable Seed, in us, we become all these things by the Christ that is now our Spirit, life and all and in all.

This New creation life in Christ Jesus, us becoming by our on going Sanctifier and Teacher, the Holy Spirit, we are the son's of God, we are becoming the son's of God and we will be the son's of God. Full total and complete on resurrection morning but still learning throughout all eternity by the Holy Spirit who is in us forever, who God and His Christ are, who make their abode with us.

In Christ: Phillip

C
Christinyou

Where does the Holy Spirit work, in our sprit, or in our soul, (mind, will and emotions)?

He does not work in our Spirit, that was finished on the Cross, "It is finished". For we now have the Spirit of Christ, the old man out the new man, (Last Adam) in us.

The Holy Spirit is the Sanctifier of our soul.

The Spirit of Christ is our new birth, a new creature, our new life, fully Justified and Sanctified.


Our Soul-Mind is learning by the renewing of our minds, which now is the Mind of Christ and His Spirit. This is our Teachers total and complete work in the believer, to be sanctified in Christ.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

This is our ongoing process now and throughout all eternity.

This is complete, "finished".

Colossians 1:26-29 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

In Christ: Phillip

R
rookie

Gregg wrote:

It will be asserted at the onset, that being "born again' or 'born from above' in John 3 is not referring to salvation but rather resurrection. This is why Jesus in Speaking with Nic stated, "You, being a teacher of the Law, do not understand this?"

I have seen in Scripture that we are saved by His life. Paul writes in Romans 5: That we are reconciled to the Father by the blood of the Son. Much more are we saved from the wrath of the Father by the "life of the Son." Is this the precept you are speaking of?


Gregg wrote:

Now you have put forth the notion that man regenerated no longer has the nature to sin. If this is the case, regenerate man never sins.

Isn't is true that the first 3 chapters of Leviticus teach us about the various aspects of "our sin nature"?

And since we do not have perfect knowledge in the ways we are to respond to each situation...unintentional actions by us still constitues sin.

In Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

And since we do not have perfect knowledge in the ways we are to respond to each situation...unintentional actions by us still constitues sin.

Jeff
this is a crucial point to discuss. The OT 'sins of omission' were without excuse because God had revealed his law to them. They had a responsibility to 'know' what God had ordained. This is where the verse... belongs.

"“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." Deut 29:29 NKJV

This verse is saying that the Old Covenant people had no excuse for 'sins of omission'. I am not sure, as you suggest, that the first 3 chapters of Leviticus are designed to teach us about the 'various aspects of our sin nature'.

Do 'unintentional actions by us constitute sin?'

"Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin." James 4:17 NKJV

Notice how James includes consciousness as a necessary element of sin.

I often say that 'faith is right response to revelation' but there is a corollary to this little definition...'sin is wrong response to revelation'.

S
sermonindex

by philologos on 2010/7/15 2:34:25

Gregg

It will be asserted at the onset, that being "born again' or 'born from above' in John 3 is not referring to salvation but rather resurrection. This is why Jesus in Speaking with Nic stated, "You, being a teacher of the Law, do not understand this?"

I cannot accept this notion, the direction is all wrong. Resurrection is 'up from' while Regeneration is 'down from'. You will know, I am sure, that 'you must be born again' would better be translated 'born from above'?
------------------------------------------------------------
yes, it's best tranlated as born 'from above' and not 'again.'

Regeneration and resurrection are both 'down from' which results in an 'up from.' The continual regenerative process -(Are you gritting your teeth yet?)- is changing from glory to glory, even as resurrection of the believer will be this as it's finality: regeneration en toto, when faith is sight.

Right now, all we have is hope of, on which rests our trust in Him to do as He promises. Through this we have His voice and spirit as indicators that He is good for the rest of the promise of the New Covenant.

i'll still assert that Jesus was talking about the resurrection as complete regeneration through the inference He made to Nicodemus.

Through our identification, (as Paul explains in Romans 6,) with Jesus death, burial, and resurrection this very process ensues.

If these two things are different, please explain how.

It is still not understoood why there is this implication that we come to some final point of sanctification here on earth?

Jesus was resurrected for what?

Ultimately it is that He continues to live to plead the blood of His sacrafice over us in intercession. He ever liveth to make intercession. If this is not the case, we are the most wretched of humans.

As he is, so are we in the world.

If He ever liveth to make intercession, what is to be at the foundation of everything we do?

These very things prove that we have not yet seen the completeness of regeneration. Our redemption still draweth nigh, and right now, what we experience is the down-payment.

If this is all there is to the New Covenant compared to what is promised, some of which may be graced to us appropriated through faith(fulness), you need not teach any more Bible.

You think we already have what Jeremiah prophecied? Even Paul in writing Hebrews writes it in the future tense, "behole the days are coming," not "behold the days have come."

Mt. 6:
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Life in Jesus is primarily all about forgiveness, and we need be continually interceeding for others because Jesus has and is and will ever do this for us. Standing in the gap is not just prayer, but reckoning our thoughts, words and deeds in the love of Jesus Christ to others, even as we are loved.

____________________________________________________________

Scripture confirm that regeneration is a continual process and not a one time act. Through continual growing confidence in Jesus willing: sacrafice, burial, and resurrection we are made whole, this is called, "being changed from glory to glory."

You are confusing crisis with process.
------------------------------------------------------------
There is no need for any process God works in or through us without a need, without a crisis.

Everything God does in and through us is part of salvation.

Without the death and burial of our selfs, there is no work of His spirit in living in His dynamic resurection power.

____________________________________________________________

ow you have put forth the notion that man regenerated no longer has the nature to sin. If this is the case, regenerate man never sins.

How then did Adam and Eve sin?
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam and Eve were created with this ability, and we are both in Adam and Jesus Christ if one is redeemed and being regenerated closer to the ideal of the new creation---> lessening of me and He is increasing.

Jesus is the second Adam, and we still do not see what we shall be...which shows that the New Covenant has not yet come to fulness.

____________________________________________________________

There is not one verse that states Jesus removes our sin (nature), nor our sins. The scriptures only tell us that through acting according to what we affirm about our belief in Jesus as both our Master and Annointing, through our own dying to ourselves and walking in His ressurected life, Jesus faith(fulness) keeps our sin(s) is (are) in remission, ( I Jn. 1:7 ).

I fear you have fallen into the trap of taking your definition of 'remission' from modern usage rather than the Bible.

check out the BlueLetterBible on
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G863&t=KJV

Modern usage in terms of 'remission' are of eg. cancer and we say 'he is in remission' meaning it is held in abeyance. This was never the Bible meaning. aphiEmi means to 'send away' not to 'hold in abeyance'.
------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, 'aphiemi' on the NT, and in the OT, in the word "RAChaQ" we see the same thing with definition where it is used:

Psalm 103:
10 He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.

11 For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.

12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

(How is this different from the New Covenant?)


It's thought you might be reading more into removed/remitted than what it implies.

Yes, it is sent away, however, consider exactly what this entails.

It is sent away, but that hardly means it is non-existent.
Sin is not obliterated. What is sent away can return you know.

First, consider what is said to Cain by God before he sacrafices his brother Abel:

Gen. 4:
6 Yahweh declared to Cain, " Why have you kindled to burn incensed? While pleasing, you are exhalted. If you don't do good, sin is the demon laying across your threshhold: craving unto devouring craving, and (presently) you have dominion.

From the Hebrew, we see that sin is personified as a demon.

Now think about Jesus words:

Luke 11:
4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil...
............................................................
Relative but seperated:
(We would not need to pray for deliverance from evil if there were no need, such as no Adamic nature, the old man's propensity to satisfy, as M. Green says, the carton.)
............................................................

...24 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.

25 And when he cometh, he findeth it swept and garnished.

26 Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself; and they enter in, and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first.


or what about Solomon:


He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, and without walls.
CHAPTER 26
As snow in summer, and as rain in harvest, so honour is not seemly for a fool.
As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come.
~Prov. 25:28-26:2


If we do not continue to live in the faith(fulness) of Jesus through dependence, there are consequences. Walking according to the dictates of our carcass, we are under the curse of the Law. As we walk in the Spirit, there is no condemnation:

Romans 8:
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Romans 7 bears out the way of the flesh in the believer.

AGAPEO,
gregg
Acts 20:32

S
sermonindex

by rookie on 2010/7/15 9:05:09

Gregg wrote:

It will be asserted at the onset, that being "born again' or 'born from above' in John 3 is not referring to salvation but rather resurrection. This is why Jesus in Speaking with Nic stated, "You, being a teacher of the Law, do not understand this?"

............................................................
Jeff:
I have seen in Scripture that we are saved by His life. Paul writes in Romans 5: That we are reconciled to the Father by the blood of the Son. Much more are we saved from the wrath of the Father by the "life of the Son." Is this the precept you are speaking of?
------------------------------------------------------------
g:
This passage in Romans 5 is thought of in conjunction with Hebrews, I Jn., and a couple of statements elsewhere via Paul.

"the live of the Son" speaking in regards to what He lives for: He ever liveth to make intercession for us. As our faithful High Priest and Advocate, He pleads His own blood in our behalf...cause we are not the pinacle of God's perfection towards us.

One day we shall know even as we are known, yet for now, it's a process of changing from glory to glory
____________________________________________________________

Gregg wrote:

Now you have put forth the notion that man regenerated no longer has the nature to sin. If this is the case, regenerate man never sins.

............................................................
Jeff:
Isn't is true that the first 3 chapters of Leviticus teach us about the various aspects of "our sin nature"?

And since we do not have perfect knowledge in the ways we are to respond to each situation...unintentional actions by us still constitues sin.
------------------------------------------------------------

The nature to sin is inherent in us as long as we have the current make and model of flesh we dwell in.

Here, there have been deep studies into just what the sin nature is, and through this iniquity, the resulting flawed actions (sins). Yeah, Leviticus 1-3, as well as Gen. 1-4, I John, and Mt. 5-7 have been primary resources in getting to the bottom of this issue.

We do not ever really know what to do in any situation. For all we know, even if our intentions towards acting seem to have a biblical basis, if it is not done subjecting our heart to Christ, it is sin.

Is it 'good' to serve our own reason(s) over our Master?

We may have the most plausible rationalizations, yet to do something out of our reasoning, we are not following our Master. This is idolatry and we enslave ourselves to belial.

Any action stems from an inside source.

We have access to both the scriptures revealing the will and ways of Jesus from Genesis to Revelation. When we abide in His word, He and the Father dwell within us through His spirit, who teaches us just what we should do in any given situation.

When we walk in the flesh we reap the consequences of the Law, destruction.

Walking in Christ Jesus, we walk in His spirit above, and do not fulfill the condemning curse of the Law.

John 14:
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

James 1:
21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:

24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.

25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.


Agapeo,
gregg
Acts 20:32

P
philologos

Regeneration and resurrection are both 'down from' which results in an 'up from.' The continual regenerative process -(Are you gritting your teeth yet?)- is changing from glory to glory, even as resurrection of the believer will be this as it's finality: regeneration en toto, when faith is sight.

Right now, all we have is hope of, on which rests our trust in Him to do as He promises. Through this we have His voice and spirit as indicators that He is good for the rest of the promise of the New Covenant.

i'll still assert that Jesus was talking about the resurrection as complete regeneration through the inference He made to Nicodemus.

So you think resurrection is a process?!?

-------------------------------------------------------

"having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever," 1 Pet 1:23 NKJV

The Greek here, anagegenneœmenoi, is a perf mid part masc plur nom to beget again, cause to be born again. If you understand the Greek tenses you know there is no way that this could be referring to a 'process'.

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" Titus 3:5 KJV

Here 'saved' is 3 sing aor act indic to save. This salvation, which was achieved by regeneration etc, is DONE! If the salvation is DONE how can the means of it be a process?!?
-------------------------------------------------------

It is sent away, but that hardly means it is non-existent.
Sin is not obliterated. What is sent away can return you know.

This is a travesty of the Day of Atonement. The sins were 'removed' from God's presence and to suggest they might return is disgraceful. What kind of God do you think we are dealing with?

"Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man. 22 The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness." Lev 16:21–22 NKJV

"then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”" Heb 10:17 NKJV

The thought that my sins might be lurking in some forgotten place only to reappear at some future date is horrible and totally unbiblical. Don't you KNOW your sins have been taken away? Don't you KNOW in your spirit?

I really don't think you want to discuss this so this will be my last response to gregg.

R
RobertW

For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. (Hebrews 7:18)

For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit,[a] rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; (Philippians 3:2ff)

It is amazing that Paul took this a step further and counted ALL of his Old Testament accomplishments as dung (rubbish) that he might win Christ. I can't imagine stronger language than that. The contrast is almost shocking.

Paul, who was a Hebrew among Hebrews; a perfect picture of all one could expect to rise to under the Old Covenant had to include himself in this passage... counts it ALL as loss and rubbish!

Consider also this admission:

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh. Fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind and were by nature the children of wrath even as others. The ISV captures that last sentence this way... By nature we were destined for wrath, just like everyone else. The Old Covenant left those that were under it, even it's grandest achievers... at the end of the day... just like everyone else. Think of it... Paul had rose to the top and found himself smack in John 3:3... just like everyone else.

S
sermonindex

Ron:

I really don't think you want to discuss this so this will be my last response to gregg.
------------------------------------------------------------
Unnerved and trying to put words in my mouth hunh?

Did God tell you to do that, or is this based on your own rationalization?

You draw conclusions that are totally off base from what is stated. You do this with what others write you and you do it with the scriptures.

Do you pick and choose what to respond to, trying to make things go by your misleading? Do you often mis-represent what is stated, adding you own illigitimate conclusions with it?

Your logic seems flawed in more respects than one, so in all these errors observed through your various discourses, it's no wonder you cannot even hold to standard rhetoric.

It seems that you have some ill concieved theology, and base most of what you read in relation to that. Theat's called not listening, and stating only what you want to hear. The only response you give is to somehow steer others in your direction: Ron's rightWrong theology is no standard at all.

It has been seen that you ignore when you take verbs out of tense, yet if it can prove your point, you will stand by it.

(i might be wrong about this, but then again, i might just be right.)

(These beliefs you promote don't deserve to be called doctrine as they ignore the whole counsel of God (who never ever changes). Anybody can pick and choose a few verses here and there and make up something. This is kultic mentality and the way you doeal with others seems to indicate this is your approach as well. As long as everything goes according to your plan, things are fine; but, just dare to say something in contradiction and watch the sparks fly.

This may be your last response to gregg, but why? Do you consider that apple-cart you sell your wares from, (what you think is a tugboat), will get upset? Mayhaps it is a tugboat, and the cut and dried is no longer so cut and dried but cracking due to dry time and the possibility of someone coming along and checking the stability of that little boat?

You say i really do not want to discuss these things so you won't respond? Who really doesn't want to discuss if you are the one unwilling to respond? Who really is the coward that can't deal with these issues?

Surely if this were "The Perfect Sancification of Ron Show," my calls, after the first one or two would neve make it on the air; but this isn't "The Perfect Sancification of Ron Show."

You won't deal with the issues set before you from here because you just don't have what it takes to face that all those ducks you think you have in a row really are not that way at all.

This kind of attitude is one main reason the body of Christ is so splintered into denominational factions. (I promote and believe this, so that which you show from scripture will not even be discussed.

You nitpick about the exactness of the letter and ignore the spirit of the matter. Scriptural standards have to be proven IRL or they are no standard at all.

Oh, enough of this. It's boring.

I may or may not answer you, since you will no longer respond to gregg. Looks like all that can be done mostly is to make sure everything is not so tightly knit as Ron's God-story (aka:theology) will not admit.

Ready for a sidearm curveball?
............................................................

............................................................

by philologos on 2010/7/16 0:30:08

g:

Regeneration and resurrection are both 'down from' which results in an 'up from.' The continual regenerative process -(Are you gritting your teeth yet?)- is changing from glory to glory, even as resurrection of the believer will be this as it's finality: regeneration en toto, when faith is sight.

Right now, all we have is hope of, on which rests our trust in Him to do as He promises. Through this we have His voice and spirit as indicators that He is good for the rest of the promise of the New Covenant.

i'll still assert that Jesus was talking about the resurrection as complete regeneration through the inference He made to Nicodemus.


So you think resurrection is a process?!?
------------------------------------------------------------
No silly! Resurrection into His image is the completed result of being redeemed. Resurrection is regeneration, but regeneration is not resurrection. Regeneration is the type, and resurrection is the anti-type.
____________________________________________________________
gennao


"having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever," 1 Pet 1:23 NKJV

The Greek here, anagegenneœmenoi, is a perf mid part masc plur nom to beget again, cause to be born again. If you understand the Greek tenses you know there is no way that this could be referring to a 'process'.
------------------------------------------------------------
Yes,The Greek there is anagegenneœmenoi, and Jesus is talking about something different in John 3. (Check the Greek.)

Being born again is not a process. Regeneration is. You cannot equate regeneration with being born (whether it is again or not.)
____________________________________________________________

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" Titus 3:5 KJV

Here 'saved' is 3 sing aor act indic to save. This salvation, which was achieved by regeneration etc, is DONE! If the salvation is DONE how can the means of it be a process?!?
-------------------------------------------------------
Yes you are right about what you are misdirecting attention to.

(Note that regeneration is referred to as present tense continuous in the verb washing, not washed nor will wash. )

____________________________________________________________

It is sent away, but that hardly means it is non-existent.
Sin is not obliterated. What is sent away can return you know.

This is a travesty of the Day of Atonement. The sins were 'removed' from God's presence and to suggest they might return is disgraceful. What kind of God do you think we are dealing with?

"Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man. 22 The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness." Lev 16:21–22 NKJV
------------------------------------------------------------
You said yourself the Law was abolished so what are you doing trying to prove something from Leviticus that really do not believe in? (You might as well tear Genesis to Numbers out of your Bible, because that is the Law.)

Perhaps there should have been a bit more clarity than expecting a 'scholar' to do a little footwork and see if these things are not so. (The simple fact that you are not looking any further than what you have rationalized what you think you believe shows that you are not interested in getting a fuller picture than "The Gospel According to Ron."

None-the-less, we'll talk about Azazel in relation to what was stated. The goat is a shadow of what happens to our sin and the entity=daemon carrying the burden of it. Azazel wanders ...and goats do not die like your average domesticated animal, able to survive til they come to the fullest possibe age or are devoured by wild beasts.

I was not saying you former sin comes back. i was just repeating what Jesus said in relation to this, regarding the source carrying with it the potential to sin yourself back into bondage.

So now you go calling Genesis and Jesus words travesty? The sins are removed from GOD'S presence. For us though, Atonement is a covering and not a removal. We do not need to look at them anymore, but most all of us do, and this us where the words of Jesus and Elohim's words in Genesis can come true. (
Now, don't go putting words in my mouth again: i said "can" not "will")

____________________________________________________________

"then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”" Heb 10:17 NKJV
------------------------------------------------------------
"I will" NOT "I already"
____________________________________________________________

The thought that my sins might be lurking in some forgotten place only to reappear at some future date is horrible and totally unbiblical.
------------------------------------------------------------
Not the sins, but the entity that promotes the carrying out of such.

What else is potential for this? Look at Romans 7:

19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
____________________________________________________________

Don't you KNOW your sins have been taken away?
------------------------------------------------------------
i know that my sins are remitted. i still do not discount that it is my (potential) nature to sin living in this body of death. We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus... though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. (2 Co 4:13-16).

____________________________________________________________
Don't you KNOW in your spirit?
------------------------------------------------------------
Know in my breath? my pneuma?
My breath (of lives)? my NAShaMaH?

By my very breath in Jesus Christ i live.


I know that while i walk in the Spirit of His Life death and resurrection i walk in renewing life. Whenever i walk according to the old man, my body of death -('s perception, volition and affections,)- i am at emnity with God and do not please Him.

I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom. 7:25-8:4

All of it, every bit of this is about forgiveness, or being turned over to the tormenters.

(It's time to quit talking about gregg! He has done you the same already at the onset of this thread.)


Yur lil' kotz,
gregg
Acts 20:32

p.s. In the days when there is no more night, we might just look back and this will all seem funny.

P
PaulWest

The last response was most unchristlike; it appears as though we are now drifting into waters of ad hominem attacks. Please refrain from this kind of unfruitful communication in the forum. If you cannot continue this discussion without getting emotionally involved, do consider bowing out gracefully.

Brother Paul

S
sermonindex

this thread has just been wrong from the onset.

i'm not speaking of the content or opinions of men, but the spirit behind it.

It seems good to me, that this Faith and Gospel we embrace is a simple Faith, a simple Gospel, and yet (well-intentioned) teachers and intellects must take it all to a place where it is indeed inacccessible, yielding it all of very little profit.

what causes me no little grief, is that many know the LETTER of the law, (the theo-intellect) but not the Spirit, which is the Small Still Voice of Jesus, that speaks into a yielded heart.

Furthermore, what causes me no end of grief were two words i read in this thread "Pauline Christianity". i understood that the poster was 'shorthanding' a theo-concept, but Paul was a man, as we are men and/or women. To even breath such, the way God has revealed Messiah in me, is to lift Paul above Jesus?

BANISH THE THOUGHT.


Would to God we become "sealed in the forehead" and embrace a simple Faith, dependent, child-like, using the whole Bible as our Food for soul, seeking the unity of the brethern, rather than this seeming tendency of constructing sheep pens of theology and religion to wall each other off from one another, dividing and devouring, contention and fleshly intellectual ego's flashing like swords, is this what Jesus suffered for?

tell me, is it?

(i desire to start another thread on something that has been bothering me greatly)

S
sermonindex


It strikes me from some of the word expositions encapsulated in New Testament Greek grammar that have appeared in this and other threads, that the writers all said exactly what they meant to say, and they knew it would mean precisely and only what they had written.

Therefore if: 'All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness', (2 Timothy 3:16), and, 'Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation' (2 Peter 1:20) agree, then the battle 'we' all engage, is the renewing of the spirit of our minds, that we may find ourselves in agreement with God.

No doubt we don't 'like' it, when He brings to our attention, those big and little details in which we (in our previous thinking) differ from His mind, but what are we to do, except to entertain the possibility at least, that God is 'right' and 'I' am 'wrong'?


R
RobertW

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; (Titus 3:5ff)

The New Covenant brings to the table possibilities that never before existed. One of them is the possibility of Regeneration. Our Greek word is παλιγγενεσίας (palingenesia). It comes from the words πάλιν meaning 'again' or 'anew' and then familiarly the Greek word for Genesis. A re-genesis or a new-genesis if you will. The word is only used twice in the New Testament. The first use is very informative:

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28)

Notice... in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory. This is possibly the best definition of regeneration (παλιγγενεσίας), "...when the Son of Man shall sit in the throne of His glory." When old Adam fell in the Garden it came about because the enemy, Satan, side stepped God's order. He went to the woman in an attempt to deceive them away from their loyalty and obedience to God. Satan is ambitious. He wants to rule and reign. This is important.

Regeneration places God back in His rightful place as reigning King. Before a person is regenerated Sin reigns. (Romans 5:21, 6:12) According to Ephesians 2 Paul tells us this is ALL peoples experience. There is a spirit that is now working in the children of disobedience. We were ALL at one time children of disobedience. Paul places himself in that category. The solution is regeneration. This is a definite experience in which the spirit of disobedience is supplanted with the Holy Spirit of God. The unregenerate walk in the spirit of disobedience fulfilling the desires of the flesh- but they that are regenerate have the ability to walk in the Holy Spirit yielding the fruit of the Spirit. This is more than a mental assent to scriptures- it is a definite experience as miraculous as if Jesus raised Lazarus or walked on water.

For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. (Romans 6:20, 21)

Notice ye 'were' the servants of Sin free from righteousness. What is the effect of New Covenant regeneration? Ye are now servants of righteousness and free from Sin.

A
ADisciple

Robert said, "The New Covenant brings to the table possibilities that never before existed."

Amen, Robert. I've appreciated this thread. The New Covenant to me... it's like finding great spoil, rich treasure. It's full of wonders. But obviously-- the confusion apparent in some of the posts here confirms this-- we are living in a day when its wonders and riches are scarcely understood. Here we are some two thousand years down the road from the time when this awesome covenant was "cut" ...and we find ourselves in a day when there is little New Covenant reality to be found in most of what is called Christendom. I continue to be much perplexed, and saddened, when I read posts by those who set themselves forth as defenders and champions of things written under the Old Covenant... when those very things have been brought into their true significance and reality-- the reality God had in mind when He set them forth in the first place-- in a NEW Covenant.

"But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the mediator of a BETTER covenant, which was established upon BETTER promises" (Heb. 8.6).

Lord, help us all with the scales that are on our eyes. Anoint our eyes with eyesalve that we might SEE.

T
twayneb

However it IS one of the descriptions used of Pentecost and of the Cornelius event. "“And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. 18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy." Acts 2:17–18 NKJV "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear." Acts 2:33 NKJV ... and Peter says plainly... this is that... "And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also." Acts 10:45 NKJV the 'outpouring' and the 'indwelling' are not opposite points of view but different ways of describing the same event. However we cannot say, as Jeff has said, that 'outpouring' is another term for 'baptism in Spirit' even though the terms are used to describe the same event.


I am not trying to say that scripture does not use the expression "poured out". The implication of the way it is used is that God "pours out" His Holy Spirit afresh each time someone is baptized in the Holy Spirit. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit was a one time event. It happened on the day of Pentecost and does not need repeating. The comforter has come, is here, and need only be received. That is the reason for saying that "poured out" may have not been the best way to describe what happened. Notice that those of the circumcision were astonished, not at a new or different pouring out, but at the fact that the pouring out applied to gentiles as well as Jews. It amazed them that those who were not the "covenant people" were also included in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

P
philologos

There is no doubt that there is no need for extensive study of the scriptures to become a true child of God, however we are expected to... grow up...

"Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature." 1 Cor 14:20 NKJV

We are enjoined to...

"So he answered and said, ““You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’ ”" Luke 10:27 NKJV

... and that includes bringing our thinking into line with God's. One of the ways of doing that is to study the Scriptures to understand what God has done.

It is often said that the gospel is simple and it is but what sin has done to the human race is very complex because human beings are complex creatures. The cross, as a principle and as a dynamic reality in personal life, touches everything that sin has spoiled. God's method of dealing with Sin as the root, sins as the consequence and 'I' that needs daily dealing are all different. I am convinced that many saints struggle it differentiating just how God deals in different ways. Let me illustrate...

you may pray 'Lord, crucify my desires and choices'. However, the scripture says that 'I must crucify them, through the Spirit'. This is my responsibility not God's.

you may pray 'Lord, crucify my old man'. However Paul, speaking in the Spirit, says that for those 'in Christ' 'our old man has already been co-crucified with Christ'. This is God's responsibility not mine.

The reason I launched this thread was because I am constantly thrilled with the comprehensive way in which God has provided for my need. Because sin impacted my in many different ways God has made different provisions for those impacts. Some are still in the future, my new body will have to wait. However the New Covenant shows how God purposes to work his salvation in each life.

Jer 31 shows that my inward condition of a stoney heart and spirit dead to God are wonderfully changed by the gift of a new heart and a new spirit. My need of power to live as God intended is met by the gift of his own Spirit to dwell within me. And all this is based on God being 'just and the justifier of those who believe on Jesus'. My sins are forgiven and God has chosen to remember them no more. All this excites me. To share this with others in our pilgrimage is my deepest joy.

The Brethren Bible scholar Thomas Newberry believed in what he called 'the lights and perfections' of revelation in the inspired scriptures. By that he meant that there are exquisite details and precisions that God has built into the Book. The Bible is a thrilling network of promises and truths. It has a unique feature in that it coheres on the surface and the deeper you dig the more this extraordinary cohesion is revealed.

I believe passionately that the Bible is the inspired word of God and while we are on the topic I believe that every word was inspired and the the Bible is without error or fault. Part of the reason I believe that so passionately is the daily discovery of the miracle of inter-connectedness in this Book. It was written over 2000 years in 3 different languages by men who never knew each other and who often had no knowledge of what the others had written and yet it coheres. This is a miracle.

I know that my style annoys some. I am sorry for that but this is who I am and like the lepers of old I cannot stumble upon staggering treasures and keep that knowledge to myself. My diggings in the scripture only increase my personal love and devotion to the one who love me and gave himself for me. My relationship with God is simple, I rely upon the Spirit's energies and an Advocate in the heavens.

Do not be afraid of examining this book. If you do it in dependence upon God you will not become a theological egg-head. If I were a world class meteorologist that fact would not stop me appreciating the wonders of a sunset, it might even add to the pleasure.

T
TheophilusMD

From the very beginning, this thread has been a blessing to me. More and more the promise of God's rest has become clearer. Indeed it is in believing that we obtain the promise because in the new covenant He said, in essence, "you believe, I will do."

I thank Bro. Ron B. for starting this thread. As far as sin is concerned I can relate with what he said:

The reason I launched this thread was because I am constantly thrilled with the comprehensive way in which God has provided for my need. Because sin impacted my in many different ways God has made different provisions for those impacts. Some are still in the future, my new body will have to wait. However the New Covenant shows how God purposes to work his salvation in each life.

There is a deepening sense of that need of God, even now, and I can only run to Him in worship and thanksgiving. If only for that deeper understanding, the laying hold of the truth, yes, of God Himself, this thread is worth more than words could ever express.

R
rookie

Robert quoted:

Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; (Philippians 3:2ff)

Please look carefully to what Paul says at the end of this thought...

"that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law..."

Paul's desire was to be found not having any self righteousness that comes from following the law. He points to a faith that is God given.

Paul was writing this letter to the Philippians to spure them onto maturity. We know that the Galatians had the same problem. They began in the Spirit but sunk back living according to the strength in the flesh.

Paul writes to the Romans, in chapter 8 that only those who put to death the deeds of the body by the Spirit will live. The issue is that as long as we choose not to listen to the Spirit we will no fulfill the law as Christ fulfilled the law.

He is the author of salvation, therefore it is by the power of the Spirit that we too can know the "life" that saves.

IN Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

twayneb wrote:

That is the reason for saying that "poured out" may have not been the best way to describe what happened. Notice that those of the circumcision were astonished, not at a new or different pouring out, but at the fact that the pouring out applied to gentiles as well as Jews. It amazed them that those who were not the "covenant people" were also included in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said this to His disciples:
...........................................................

Act 1:4 And being assembled together with [them], He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, "which," [He said], "you have heard from Me;

Act 1:5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

..........................................................

and then

..........................................................
Act 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me [fn] in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."
.........................................................

Jesus declares that the "Promise of the Father" is this...
"you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit (has come upon you;) brackets added to focus reader on Jesus's words.

The dispensational teachings of men are not supported by the Holy Scriptures.

Secondly, Pentecost is not the only time, according to Scripture, that this out pouring is to occur. Go back to the book of Joel, does Pentecost satisfy the entire prophesy that Peter declared?

In Christ
Jeff

S
sermonindex

Reply to Philologos; What I enjoy enjoy must about the testimony of a Christian, such as yourself, is the spirit of prophecy (Rev.19;10) which is not about you! Don't you tire of hearing about their days in taverns,etc. that passes off today as testimony; when Saint Paul says; "For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret." (Eph.5:12) ....and yet they speak of them! The Spirit is the instrument that God uses to seal us and uses our lips to offer praise and recognition to one who died fro us. Too often today people think that the emphasis is directed toward the Holy Ghost(worthy of praise)but Jesus Christ directs in John 16:13 that God is glorified when all our eyes are on Jesus Christ, glorifying him . I enjoy when someone tells about the "simplicity" in Christ, knowing that the gospel of our salvation can be understood and accepted by "a child" or as the Lord said in Matt. 18:3 we excercise "child like" faith/ both ways it brings us to Christ...old or young. Thank you Philologos for bringing us back to the cross of Calvary! Tractsman

S
sermonindex

The new covenant; Please forgive me I respond in the wrong section of a thread, i got a little lost in the small print. Here comes my thooughts; Regarding The New Testament...testament is the right word, when you write out a will you call it your last will and testament. (read Hebrews 10:15-180"the death of the testator." In the matter of semantics, I would disagree that Christ did not iniate the New Covenant/Testament at the cross...he confirmed it. God purposed before the foundation of the world that a body of believers, Jew and Gentile, see Isa. 42:1/49"6 and thru the Book of Acts that the Gentiles were not an afterthought in the New Testament; Samaritian women, Centurions sevant and the Syrophoenician women all Gentiles dealt with by Christ during his "supposed" Jewish ministry. The Book of Hebrews is predicated on the principle that as was afore.mentioned that Christ was better in every way starting with Hebrews 1:4; "Better than the angels." I will leave you with that as my grandfather was scared by a loquacious linguist and I was left with the gift of gab. Handy for preaching, but only if a shepherd's hook is handy. Remember that that those that opposed Christ said; "The old is better." (Luke 5:339) Tractsman

P
philologos

The dispensational teachings of men are not supported by the Holy Scriptures.

Jeff, unless you are still making animal sacrifices you believe in dispensations.


Secondly, Pentecost is not the only time, according to Scripture, that this out pouring is to occur. Go back to the book of Joel, does Pentecost satisfy the entire prophesy that Peter declared?

The 'latter times' terminus quo is the day of Pentecost. The last days stretch from the coming of the Seed to the end of time. Peter, quoting Joel, is declaring that the last times have begun.

P
philologos

In the matter of semantics, I would disagree that Christ did not iniate the New Covenant/Testament at the cross...he confirmed it. God purposed before the foundation of the world that a body of believers, Jew and Gentile, see Isa. 42:1/49"6 and thru the Book of Acts that the Gentiles were not an afterthought in the New Testament;

If you buy a house and take out an insurance policy there will be a point at which the policy becomes active. Up until that time you may examine the legal documents and find much comfort in the promises it contains but it is not 'in force' until the date on the policy...

check out these scriptures and see if you can identify the 'date' on the policy. ;-)

““Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; Galatians 4:2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Galatians 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, Galatians 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” (Galatians 4:1–5 KJV)

“In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)” (John 7:37–39 KJV)

R
rookie

philologos quoted Gal 4:2

to focus on this thought:

were in bondage under the elements of the world:

Was this man according to Scripture held "in bondage under the elements of the world"?
.........................................................
Psa 119:1 Blessed [are] the undefiled in the way, Who walk in the law of the LORD!

Psa 119:2 Blessed [are] those who keep His testimonies, Who seek Him with the whole heart!

Psa 119:3 They also do no iniquity; They walk in His ways.
...........................................................

also
......................................................

Psa 119:18 Open my eyes, that I may see Wondrous things from Your law.

Psa 119:19 I [am] a stranger in the earth; Do not hide Your commandments from me.

Psa 119:20 My soul breaks with longing For Your judgments at all times.
..........................................................

Does this testimony represent a man who is held "in bondage under the elements of the world"?

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

tractsman wrote:

Too often today people think that the emphasis is directed toward the Holy Ghost(worthy of praise)but Jesus Christ directs in John 16:13 that God is glorified

Only those whom the Father draws comes to Christ. The Life, the Light of men, has from the beginning been the mediator of a better Covenant. No one has seen the Father except the Son. It is the Son whom we see thoughtout the OT. He is the Holy One of Israel. He is the High Priest of God Almighty, Melchizedek.

The doctrine of the Trinity is true. And the entirety of Scripture point to the existence of the Trinity.

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jhn 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.

Jhn 1:3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

Jhn 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.


The testimonies of the OT saints reveal the work of Christ in them. Read the testimony of a man who experienced the work of God through the Holy Spirit. Psalm 119

I enjoy when someone tells about the "simplicity" in Christ, knowing that the gospel of our salvation can be understood and accepted by "a child" or as the Lord said in Matt. 18:3 we excercise "child like" faith/ both ways it brings us to Christ...old or young.

How does your thought about simplicity align with this Scripture?

...........................................................
Pro 1:2 To know wisdom and instruction, To perceive the words of understanding,

Pro 1:3 To receive the instruction of wisdom, Justice, judgment, and equity;

Pro 1:4 To give prudence to the simple, To the young man knowledge and discretion--

Pro 1:5 A wise [man] will hear and increase learning, And a man of understanding will attain wise counsel,

Pro 1:6 To understand a proverb and an enigma, The words of the wise and their riddles.


and then this exhortation........

Pro 1:20 Wisdom calls aloud outside; She raises her voice in the open squares.

Pro 1:21 She cries out in the chief concourses, [fn] At the openings of the gates in the city She speaks her words:

Pro 1:22 "How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, And fools hate knowledge.

Pro 1:23 Turn at my rebuke; Surely I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you.
..........................................................

How does the Scripture treat "simplicity" in this section.

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

philologos wrote:

The 'latter times' terminus quo is the day of Pentecost. The last days stretch from the coming of the Seed to the end of time. Peter, quoting Joel, is declaring that the last times have begun.

Has this time which is said to precede the out pouring upon His people happened yet?
.........................................................
Joe 2:10 The earth quakes before them, The heavens tremble; The sun and moon grow dark, And the stars diminish their brightness.

Joe 2:11 The LORD gives voice before His army, For His camp is very great; For strong [is the One] who executes His word. For the day of the LORD [is] great and very terrible; Who can endure it?

Joe 2:12 "Now, therefore," says the LORD, "Turn to Me with all your heart, With fasting, with weeping, and with mourning."

Joe 2:13 So rend your heart, and not your garments; Return to the LORD your God, For He [is] gracious and merciful, Slow to anger, and of great kindness; And He relents from doing harm.

Joe 2:14 Who knows [if] He will turn and relent, And leave a blessing behind Him-- A grain offering and a drink offering For the LORD your God?

Joe 2:15 Blow the trumpet in Zion, Consecrate a fast, Call a sacred assembly;

Joe 2:16 Gather the people, Sanctify the congregation, Assemble the elders, Gather the children and nursing babes; Let the bridegroom go out from his chamber, And the bride from her dressing room.

Joe 2:17 Let the priests, who minister to the LORD, Weep between the porch and the altar; Let them say, "Spare Your people, O LORD, And do not give Your heritage to reproach, That the nations should rule over them. Why should they say among the peoples, 'Where [is] their God?' "

Joe 2:18 Then the LORD will be zealous for His land, And pity His people.

Joe 2:19 The LORD will answer and say to His people, "Behold, I will send you grain and new wine and oil, And you will be satisfied by them; I will no longer make you a reproach among the nations.

Joe 2:20 "But I will remove far from you the northern [army], And will drive him away into a barren and desolate land, With his face toward the eastern sea And his back toward the western sea; His stench will come up, And his foul odor will rise, Because he has done monstrous things."

Joe 2:21 Fear not, O land; Be glad and rejoice, For the LORD has done marvelous things!

Joe 2:22 Do not be afraid, you beasts of the field; For the open pastures are springing up, And the tree bears its fruit; The fig tree and the vine yield their strength.

Joe 2:23 Be glad then, you children of Zion, And rejoice in the LORD your God; For He has given you the former rain faithfully, [fn] And He will cause the rain to come down for you-- The former rain, And the latter rain in the first [month].

Joe 2:24 The threshing floors shall be full of wheat, And the vats shall overflow with new wine and oil.

Joe 2:25 "So I will restore to you the years that the swarming locust has eaten, The crawling locust, The consuming locust, And the chewing locust, [fn] My great army which I sent among you.

Joe 2:26 You shall eat in plenty and be satisfied, And praise the name of the LORD your God, Who has dealt wondrously with you; And My people shall never be put to shame.

Joe 2:27 Then you shall know that I [am] in the midst of Israel: I [am] the LORD your God And there is no other. My people shall never be put to shame.
........................................................

and

.........................................................
Joe 3:12 "Let the nations be wakened, and come up to the Valley of Jehoshaphat; For there I will sit to judge all the surrounding nations.

Joe 3:13 Put in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe. Come, go down; For the winepress is full, The vats overflow-- For their wickedness [is] great."

Joe 3:14 Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision! For the day of the LORD [is] near in the valley of decision.

Joe 3:15 The sun and moon will grow dark, And the stars will diminish their brightness.

Joe 3:16 The LORD also will roar from Zion, And utter His voice from Jerusalem; The heavens and earth will shake; But the LORD will be a shelter for His people, And the strength of the children of Israel.

Joe 3:17 "So you shall know that I [am] the LORD your God, Dwelling in Zion My holy mountain. Then Jerusalem shall be holy, And no aliens shall ever pass through her again."

Joe 3:18 And it will come to pass in that day [That] the mountains shall drip with new wine, The hills shall flow with milk, And all the brooks of Judah shall be flooded with water; A fountain shall flow from the house of the LORD And water the Valley of Acacias.

Joe 3:19 "Egypt shall be a desolation, And Edom a desolate wilderness, Because of violence [against] the people of Judah, For they have shed innocent blood in their land.

Joe 3:20 But Judah shall abide forever, And Jerusalem from generation to generation.

Joe 3:21 For I will acquit them of the guilt of bloodshed, whom I had not acquitted; For the LORD dwells in Zion."
.........................................................

Has this event passed?

In Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

Psa 119:18 Open my eyes, that I may see Wondrous things from Your law.

Psa 119:19 I [am] a stranger in the earth; Do not hide Your commandments from me.

Psa 119:20 My soul breaks with longing For Your judgments at all times.
..........................................................

Does this testimony represent a man who is held "in bondage under the elements of the world"?

“Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:” (Galatians 4:3 KJV)

(Galatians 4:21–25 KJV)
“Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? Gal. 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. Gal. 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Gal. 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. Gal. 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.”

Paul, speaking as a Jew says 'we were children, we were in bondage...
The Old Covenant, says Paul, produces bondage.

P
philologos

Has this time which is said to precede the out pouring upon His people happened yet?

Has this event passed?

It has not passed but it has arrived.

R
rookie

philologos wrote:

Paul, speaking as a Jew says 'we were children, we were in bondage...

If I may, would you please focus on the Scripture that you have quoted. Specifically Gal 4:23
........................................................
Gal. 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
.......................................................

Paul states that Isaac is "of the freewoman was by promise." And then

..........................................................
Gal 4:26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
.........................................................

So Isaac is of the "Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all." For Paul states that Isaac was treated poorly by those who were born of the flesh. This precept begins in Genesis 3:15. We see that Abel who was a child of God was killed by Cain who became a child of Satan.

...........................................................
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac [was], are children of promise.

Gal 4:29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him [who was born] according to the Spirit, even so [it is] now.
...........................................................

So Paul says that the Galatians have the same standing as Isaac.

Likewise your comment that Paul was speaking of the Jews is not aligned with what Paul is teaching here. For Paul declares with OT Scripture that those who are of the bondwoman are cast out. Isaac was not of this group.

..........................................................
Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." [fn]

Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.
...........................................................

Was Isaac subject all his life to the "elements of the world"?

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

philologos wrote:

It has not passed but it has arrived.

This thought is not subject to the Scriptures in Joel. I am sure you are aware that prophesy has both minor and major applications throughout the entirety of Scripture.

Here is an example of what I mean.
........................................................

Isa 7:11 "Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; ask it either in the depth or in the height above."


Isa 7:12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!"


Isa 7:13 Then he said, "Hear now, O house of David! [Is it] a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also?


Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. [fn]


Isa 7:15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good.


Isa 7:16 For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.


Isa 7:17 The LORD will bring the king of Assyria upon you and your people and your father's house--days that have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah."
.......................................................

King Ahaz saw this prophesy come true in his own day....

In Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

So Isaac is of the "Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all." For Paul states that Isaac was treated poorly by those who were born of the flesh. This precept begins in Genesis 3:15. We see that Abel who was a child of God was killed by Cain who became a child of Satan.

I don't know that the scripture ever designates Cain as a 'child of Satan'.

“Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.” (Gal 4:21–31 KJV)

Paul is using this story as an allegory. He is seeing spiritual principles at work in it; that is what an allegory is. In an allegory like the Good Shepherd of John 10, Christ is not a door, he is like a door etc. So Isaac is not 'born of the Spirit' but is LIKE someone born of the Spirit in certain ways.

HIs real point is that the Sinai Covenant could not produce 'free born' sons, it only produces 'bondslaves'. Just 'as' Isaac was a 'son of promise' so those born of the Spirit are not qualified by being under the Sinai Covenant but because they too are 'children of promise'. This is part of Paul's theme in Galatians and Romans; it is of faith that it might be of grace.

Neither is Paul saying that Isaac is of 'the Jerusalem which above'. He is comparing the earthly Jerusalem, as it then was, with its dependence upon the sacrifices enjoined by the Sinai Covenant and is saying that those from that system cannot share the inheritance which is by promise.


Was Isaac subject all his life to the "elements of the world"?

Isaac was pre-Sinai. This question has no relevance to those before the Sinai Covenant nor to those who are outside that covenant in any way.

R
rookie

philologos wrote:

I don't know that the scripture ever designates Cain as a 'child of Satan'.

We often look for Scriptures which emphatically say that "this is that." We often say that we believe a certain aspect which Scripture states. The Pharasee of Paul's day knew the Scriptures by heart. Yet that knowledge did not save them from being 'self righteous."

There is another aspect of Scripture which says that true belief will show evidence of that belief. Belief will generate action. Thus we are given this testimony of Cain.

..........................................................
1Jo 3:11 For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another,

1Jo 3:12 not as Cain [who] was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother's righteous.
..........................................................

In the above Scripture we see that "Cain (who) was of the wicked one" murdered his brother. So first we see that Scripture says that Cain was of the wicked one. What evidence are we given that Cain "is of the wicked one?"
This Scripture then gives this precept to the reader. Those whose "works are evil" will have enmity for those whose works are righteous.

Now to further illustrate this precept about Cain let us look to the following Scripture..

..........................................................
Jhn 8:39 They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham.

Jhn 8:40 But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.

Jhn 8:41 You do the deeds of your father." Then they said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father--God."

Jhn 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me.

Jhn 8:43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.

Jhn 8:44 You are of [your] father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own [resources], for he is a liar and the father of it.
...........................................................

In the above Scripture we see that Jesus repeats this precept to the Pharasees who hated Him. In the last verse Jesus declare that their "father" is "the devil." Jesus states that "the desires of your father you want to do." So again we see that "evidence" of the nature of the "works" points to whom one follows.

And again, we must keep in focus that man is either influenced by the Holy Spirit or the spirit of Satan. The word used in Acts 2 speaking to recieving the "power" of the Holy Spirit is dunamis (sp). In Scripture this word "dunamis" is attributed to the Holy Spirit and Satan.

So I believe Scripture clearly states that Cain's father is the devil.

IN Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, wh" 1 Pet 2:9–10 NKJV

We need to ask, I think, who Peter (by the Spirit) has in mind when he makes this statement. It seems to me that there can be little doubt that it is the Church that Peter has in mind. Not a smaller grouping of a local assembly but the whole family of God.

We need too to remind ourselves of the passage that the Spirit has brought to Peter's remembrance.

"Now when she had weaned Lo-ruhamah, she conceived and bore a son. 9 Then God said: “Call his name Lo-ammi, For you are not My people, And I will not be your God. 10 “Yet the number of the children of Israel Shall be as the sand of the sea, Which cannot be measured or numbered. And it shall come to pass In the place where it was said to them, “You are not My people,’ There it shall be said to them, ‘You are sons of the living God.’ 11 Then the children of Judah and the children of Israel Shall be gathered together, And appoint for themselves one head; And they shall come up out of the land, For great will be the day of Jezreel!" Hos 1:8–11 NKJV

I have purposely continued with the quotations so that we can see the direct reference to both the children of Judah and to the children of Israel. This is a theme that is present in several other OT prophets and, as we have seen, it is not the entire nation of Israel or of Judah in mind but the 'remnant' who would be the carriers of the promise and the destiny of God's purposes entrusted to Abraham.

The Hosea passage speaks of an event of the dissolution of the nation of Israel (the northern kingdom) and then, apparently goes on to speak of the re-establishment of a people called that in Jer 31:31ff is called 'the house of Israel'. Surely the Spirit's use of this language in 1 Peter is drawing our attention to a 'new Israel'?

R
rookie

philologos,

Do you see that man is a product of either the spiritual influence of the devil or of the Holy Spirit?

Do you see that Scripture teaches that Cain is the product "seed" of the devil?

This is critical to understanding "what man becomes." Cain was condemned by the Law, and Able became a child of God.

This all started in Genesis 3:15. Those who are the "Seed" of the woman will experience enmity by those who are the "seed" of the devil. Upon what "dunamis" do we hope for?

In Christ
Jeff

R
RobertW

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Galatians 3:16)

I believe it is impossible to rightly understand the New Covenant without this most important verse. The promises were made to Jesus Christ, the last Adam. The plurality of the seed are they that are heirs to the righteousness of God that is by faith- made possible only by the finished work of the cross. Nonetheless, we must understand that the promises were made to the Seed, which is Jesus Christ.

This opens the door to a host of questions. But first we have another important definition:

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:15, 16)

I have a translation note from the NET:

The word “and” (καί) can be interpreted in two ways: (1) It could be rendered as “also” which would indicate that two distinct groups are in view, namely “all who will behave in accordance with this rule” and “the Israel of God.” Or (2) it could be rendered “even,” which would indicate that “all who behave in accordance with this rule” are “the Israel of God.” In other words, in this latter view, “even” = “that is.”

The latter seems right. I buttress this view with two like passages:

For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. (Galatians 5:6)

If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. (Galatians 5:25)


These are characteristics of a certain group of people. But who?


For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:27-29)

This is an 'if-then' statement. IF you are Christ's THEN you are Abraham's seed. This seems to make clear that the promises are to Jesus Christ in particular and by virtue of one having belonged to Christ and are 'IN' Christ they are the seed also. It is by this association with Jesus Christ that one is Abraham's seed. One cannot possibly reject Jesus Christ and retain the status of Abraham's seed. This is the clear warning of John Baptist:

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. (Matthew 3:9, 10)

This passage squares completely with Galatians 5. Since the beginning God has been setting about bringing many sons (and daughters) unto glory. Circumcision or uncircumcision means nothing. A person could be circumcised and act like the devil himself. God did not want that. He wanted 'sons'. He wanted creatures that were in His likeness; that is, of His loving and Godly nature. The Law gave us a picture of God's personality and is spiritual; but what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:3, 4)

This is made possible by the New Covenant to those that are 'IN' Christ Jesus. They are enabled by the Spirit to bring forth good fruit because Christ has dealt with the root (old Adam). If one is not in Christ- the AXE is laid to them and there is no hope but to be cast into the fire. They are not producing fruit because they are not 'in' the right root. They produce after the root of old Adam no matter if they are in remote jungles with no light or if they sit and hear the word every week.

For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. (Hebrews 6:7ff)

The remedy for Hebrews 6:7-9 is to be 'In' Jesus Christ.

C
Christinyou

Her seed is the ovaries of the woman, The enmity is Christ by the Seed of God The Father of us all, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit that Mary would conceive the Son of God, the only Begotten who would be the first born among many brethren, which are the Born Again believers the The Father has given the Son, He the Only Begotten, the born again, by the Father's same Seed, Jesus Christ in you the Hope of Glory, of whom He only lost One, the son of perdition, Judas, to fulfill the scriptures.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Genesis 3:15
I will put enmity between thee and the woman - This has been generally supposed to apply to a certain enmity subsisting between men and serpents; but this is rather a fancy than a reality. It is yet to be discovered that the serpentine race have any peculiar enmity against mankind, nor is there any proof that men hate serpents more than they do other noxious animals. Men have much more enmity to the common rat and magpie than they have to all the serpents in the land, because the former destroy the grain, etc., and serpents in general, far from seeking to do men mischief, flee his approach, and generally avoid his dwelling. If, however, we take the word nachash to mean any of the simia or ape species, we find a more consistent meaning, as there is scarcely an animal in the universe so detested by most women as these are; and indeed men look on them as continual caricatures of themselves. But we are not to look for merely literal meanings here: it is evident that Satan, who actuated this creature, is alone intended in this part of the prophetic declaration. God in his endless mercy has put enmity between men and him; so that, though all mankind love his service, yet all invariably hate himself. Were it otherwise, who could be saved? A great point gained towards the conversion of a sinner is to convince him that it is Satan he has been serving, that it is to him he has been giving up his soul, body, goods, etc.; he starts with horror when this conviction fastens on his mind, and shudders at the thought of being in league with the old murderer. But there is a deeper meaning in the text than even this, especially in these words, it shall bruise thy head, or rather, הוא hu, He; who? the seed of the woman; the person is to come by the woman, and by her alone, without the concurrence of man. Therefore the address is not to Adam and Eve, but to Eve alone; and it was in consequence of this purpose of God that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin; this, and this alone, is what is implied in the promise of the seed of the woman bruising the head of the serpent. Jesus Christ died to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, and to destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. Thus he bruises his head - destroys his power and lordship over mankind, turning them from the power of Satan unto God; Ac 26:18. And Satan bruises his heel - God so ordered it, that the salvation of man could only be brought about by the death of Christ; and even the spiritual seed of our blessed Lord have the heel often bruised, as they suffer persecution, temptation, etc., which may be all that is intended by this part of the prophecy.

Jesus Christ the Seed of the Father and the seed of the woman. To Him be glory for ever and ever. Amen

In Christ: Phillip

C
Christinyou

Oh! By the way;

Perfect post Robert W. in every aspect of the truth in Jesus Christ our God, Savior and Brother to our Father.

In Christ: Phillip

P
philologos

This is critical to understanding "what man becomes." Cain was condemned by the Law, and Able became a child of God.

The 'Law' did not exist in the time of Cain and Abel.

P
philologos

I am with you all the way with this Robert.

R
rookie

Robert wrote:

This is an 'if-then' statement. IF you are Christ's THEN you are Abraham's seed. This seems to make clear that the promises are to Jesus Christ in particular and by virtue of one having belonged to Christ and are 'IN' Christ they are the seed also. It is by this association with Jesus Christ that one is Abraham's seed. One cannot possibly reject Jesus Christ and retain the status of Abraham's seed.

Yes, yes, yes.

Paul teaches about how this promise is appropriated to those who become the children of God....through the Seed of the woman....

.......................................................................................................................Rom 4:13\tFor the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
......................................................................................................................

Abraham and all who learn to live by faith take on His righteousness. Faith has always been the means by which God has freed men from the bondage of sin and death. And Christ has always been the mediator between the Father and those who submit their lives to Him. Christ is the wisdom of God, Christ is the power of God unto salvation. Those who are transformed by the Holy Spirit's power, those who experience the grace which changes the hope for which they live, these will take on the righteousness of Christ. Therefore we grow into the "image" of Christ. This is done through the "dunamis" of the Holy Spirit.

For Paul differentiates those who are of the flesh and those who are of God.

...................................................................................................................
Rom 9:8\tThat is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.
..................................................................................................................

The children of the promise are counted as the seed. When the Holy Spirit comes upon a person, it is God working to secure that promise in the individual. Only those who are born from above are removed from Satan's grasp and are adopted as children of God. Abel was a child of God. Cain was a child of Satan.

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

Robert wrote:

This passage squares completely with Galatians 5. Since the beginning God has been setting about bringing many sons (and daughters) unto glory. Circumcision or uncircumcision means nothing. A person could be circumcised and act like the devil himself. God did not want that. He wanted 'sons'. He wanted creatures that were in His likeness; that is, of His loving and Godly nature.

Again, yes, yes, yes.

The history of saints who walked with God is glorious. And this history of God's work, His lovingkindness extended to man which enabled man to know Him is wonderful. I can only imagine when Jesus expired on the cross, and then went to preach the gospel, how those saints in Abraham's bosom understood more fully that is was Christ whom they had learned to love in their generation. It was Christ who enabled man to know God. It was Christ who spoke to Abel and Cain. It is Christ who was the mediator, the High Priest Melchizedek.

Christ and only Christ.

In Christ
jeff

R
rookie

philologos wrote:

The 'Law' did not exist in the time of Cain and Abel.

Why does Scripture testify of the offering of sacrifice?

But this is only a side thougth to the question I asked of you...

The power of the Holy Spirit and the power of the devil which is "dunamus"(sp) acts upon all men in all generations. What does this precept mean to us?

Paul is always talking about the weakness of the flesh in comparison to the power of the Holy Spirit when defining who are the children of God, who are the "adopted"

In Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

Paul is always talking about the weakness of the flesh in comparison to the power of the Holy Spirit when defining who are the children of God, who are the "adopted" [/quote

adoption is a very rich and wonderful topic but not to be confused with modern day adoptions. Today we think of adoption as a means of providing protection for the infant. This is not the idea in the Biblical use of adoption. Julius Caesar 'adopted' Octavius who became Augustus but Octavius was a man when he was adopted. In ancient times a man was adopted to maintain the dynasty or line. Hadrian said that 'adopted sons were better than natural children because they were chosen'.

The Greek word for adoption is 'son placing'; it refers to a public acknowledgment that the adopted person was now the heir of the one adopting him The adopted person lost all his previous 'rights and responsibilities' but inherited all those of his adopted father.

There was an interesting case in the UK recently. A man was traced who was the nearest relative of someone who had died without making a will. The deceased relative had left several thousand Briish pounds. They traced the natural son and he was very excited at the prospect of the inheritance, but there was a hitch. The man's mother and father divorced and the woman remarried. The young son stayed with the mother and was adopted by his 'step father'.

This had the effect that he became legal heir to the new father but lost all his rights to the estate of his natural father. He was not eligible for the inheritance. Adoption is not a pretty picture of care but a legal change in inheritance and destiny.

S
sermonindex

by philologos on 2010/7/20 9:22:31

(Galatians 4:21–25 KJV)
“Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? Gal. 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. Gal. 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Gal. 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. Gal. 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.”

Paul, speaking as a Jew says 'we were children, we were in bondage...
The Old Covenant, says Paul, produces bondage.
------------------------------------------------------------
That last statement is dead wrong.

Have you not read in this thread that the Old Covenant is the Everlasting Covenant even as the New is now giving reality to the shadow? (They are tied together as one thing. It started with Abraham and was made completely valid in Jesus Christ.)

Paul never said the Old Covenant produced bondage. Paul always said sin produced bondage, and the Law just made it recognizable: like a mirror.


In Him,
g
Acts 20:32

S
sermonindex

by philologos on 2010/7/22 1:34:08

This is critical to understanding "what man becomes." Cain was condemned by the Law, and Able became a child of God.

The 'Law' did not exist in the time of Cain and Abel.
------------------------------------------------------------

Be specific which Law.

There is the moral Law of God which always has existed.

The Mosaic Law brought the shadow of Jesus Christ into view, even as the ten commandments are from His very hand.

The Mosaic Law was a shadow of God's ten commands.

P
philologos

Be specific which Law.

There is the moral Law of God which always has existed.


We established that many pages ago.

P
philologos

Paul, speaking as a Jew says 'we were children, we were in bondage...
The Old Covenant, says Paul, produces bondage.
------------------------------------------------------------
That last statement is dead wrong.

Have you not read in this thread that the Old Covenant is the Everlasting Covenant even as the New is now giving reality to the shadow? (They are tied together as one thing. It started with Abraham and was made completely valid in Jesus Christ.)

Paul never said the Old Covenant produced bondage. Paul always said sin produced bondage, and the Law just made it recognizable: like a mirror.

"For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—" Gal 4:24–25 NKJV

S
sermonindex

by philologos on 2010/7/22 12:13:58

Be specific which Law.

There is the moral Law of God which always has existed.


We established that many pages ago.
------------------------------------------------------------
ok?

That must have been missed. i apologize.

My wrong...i'm sorry.

i don't know how to say it...

so i'll sit back and read until He shows me what it exactly is.

So, is it established already in this thread that only circucision as sign of, and the old priesthood and regimen of that have been the only thing to change?
(Hebrews is recalled and how we had not gotten into the full details of this.)


Still conforming to Him,
g
Acts 20:32

S
sermonindex

Paul, speaking as a Jew says 'we were children, we were in bondage...
The Old Covenant, says Paul, produces bondage.
------------------------------------------------------------
That last statement is dead wrong.

Have you not read in this thread that the Old Covenant is the Everlasting Covenant even as the New is now giving reality to the shadow? (They are tied together as one thing. It started with Abraham and was made completely valid in Jesus Christ.)

Paul never said the Old Covenant produced bondage. Paul always said sin produced bondage, and the Law just made it recognizable: like a mirror.

"For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—" Gal 4:24–25 NKJV

------------------------------------------------------------

This may be semantic differences and what the verbs are referring to, rather than what they appear to be compared to the context in which they are stated.

It can be seen easily enough how following any of God's Covenant instead of the Author thereof 'gives birth' to bondage, however in context of Galatians (and Hebrews), it is about going back to the old Levitical regimens.


See Abraham believed God first and then he did things in obedience(like circumcision) to confirm the shadow of what had transpired.

Galatians is going to be closely scrutinized because something about this does not 'check' right inside.
(Col. 3:15)

Still conforming to His image,
g
Acts 20:32

R
RobertW

So, is it established already in this thread that only circucision as sign of, and the old priesthood and regimen of that have been the only thing to change?

This thread has established that the Old Covenant has passed away with the advent of the Seed (Jesus Christ).

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. (Galatians 3:19)

The New Covenant brings the possibility of establishing the Law through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit.

Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. (Romans 3:30, 31)

How? If we are not now working at keeping the law how can we establish it? Answer: by bearing the fruit of the Spirit- something one could never do under the Law.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (Galatians 5:22, 23)

It is the positive production of the fruit of the Spirit that keeps the regenerate within the boundaries of God's revealed character (as it is articulated in the form of positive and negative commandments commonly known as the Law). This is how Paul could say with conviction and without contradiction:

And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. (I Corinthians 9:20, 21)

If Paul is walking in the Spirit- bearing the fruit of the Spirit (as a matter of course) he need not fear being contrary to the precepts of the Law. Why?

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:3, 4)

The regenerate are walking, living, breathing expressions of Jesus Christ because they are the generation of Jesus Christ. Having been Born of God they do by nature those things contained in the Law because it is God working in them both to will and to do His good pleasure. The Law is only a written expression of the personality of God- Jesus Christ is the express image of His person. When we walk even as He walked we will not sin against the Law.

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. (ROmans 13:9, 10)

R
rookie

Robert wrote:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (Galatians 5:22, 23)

It is the positive production of the fruit of the Spirit that keeps the regenerate within the boundaries of God's revealed character (as it is articulated in the form of positive and negative commandments commonly known as the Law). This is how Paul could say with conviction and without contradiction:

Yes, yes, yes.

I took about 20 minutes to go through Psalm 119. The fruit of the Spirit is present in this man's life.

Here is a list that is far from perfect, but if you are honestly seeking the truth you will find:

Love: verses...10,11,12,20,34,47,57,68,77,97,131,132,174

Joy: verses...14,24,54,103,111,127,129,162,164,171

Faith: verses...26,32,35,49,59,61,62,67,81,82,102,105,109,112,116,117,123,144,152,166,173

Meekness: verses...28,71,75,80,88,107,136,141,145,146,147,168,176

Peace: verses...23,42,87,92,93,114,142,160,161,165

Temperance: verses...29,36,37,45,101,104,128,133,163

Longsuffering: verses...50,51,61,69,84,86,98,110,143,153

Gentleness: verses...126,115,95,86,134


How does an OT Saint obtain the fruits of the Spirit?

In Christ
jeff

R
rookie

Earlier in the thread I stated that Job knew the 10 commandments....

No one said anything, so does that mean that everyone is in agreement with this statement?

In Christ
Jeff

R
RobertW

Here is a list that is far from perfect, but if you are honestly seeking the truth you will find:

Love: verses...10,11,12,20,34,47,57,68,77,97,131,132,174

I would suggest that when we move into the New Covenant we are moving in a much higher revelation of love than had ever been revealed.

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

This is agape. This is not to say that men and women have not at times exhibited certain characteristics of God's nature, but none were ever as was Jesus Christ. The bar has been greatly elevated. Jesus Christ is the express image of the invisible God. To see Him is to have seen the Father. And yet we read:

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (Romans 8:29)

God's desire is to bring many sons unto glory. He wants individuals to have the personality of Christ. His will is that were become partakers of the Divine Nature.

I think the challenge is to know that although God often accepts imperfection He expects perfection and is relentlessly pursuing it in our lives. Thank God for that. Unless we are perfected in the character of Jesus Christ we will fall short of God's original plan to make man in His image and likeness. To fall short of perfection is to have a believer name the name of Christ and at the same time misrepresent Him. And this is where the Old Covenant falls woefully short. The Law is only able to give precepts designed to create a sense of love for God and ones neighbor. If one were to absolutely follow the Law they may well 'seem' to be loving. Certain animals can actually be trained to appear civilized; yet their true nature will come out at certain times. Training can work to restrain their nature. The law can only ever seek to restrain man's nature by giving guidelines for behavior and penalties for breaking those guidelines.

This is utterly different than a demonstration of the Divine Nature made possible in the New Covenant. If one is 'in' Jesus Christ they are supernaturally enabled to be expressions of the invisible God in such a way that Christ is not ashamed to call us brethren. (Hebrews 2:11) We can be rightfully called 'the sons of God.'

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. (I John 3:1)

The very people that made their boast in the Law did not know Jesus Christ. They did not recognize Him. They were moving in a different spirit (Ephesians 2:1ff) that would just as soon call fire down from heaven and destroy people than show them mercy. They may have been in compliance with the Law- but they knew not what manor of Spirit they were of. God has called us to love even our enemies and do good to them. This is not the experience of folk under the Old Covenant, especially in the 1st Century. They were forever looking for ways to circumvent the precepts of God's law in order NOT to love. This only proves that one can teach all they want to- but until the heart is replaced and a New Spirit given- the selfish nature of old Adam is still in play. The Law cannot but restrain old Adam. We needed a New Man. We needed God's man- Jesus Christ.

R
RobertW


Earlier in the thread I stated that Job knew the 10 commandments....

No one said anything, so does that mean that everyone is in agreement with this statement?

I would not concur with the view. Certain Rabbis believed that Job lived contemporary with Jethro and Baalam. They believe he refused to counsel Pharaoh and as a consequence suffered the punishment we read of in Job.* This is impossible because we are told in Job 42:16-17 that Job lived 140 years after his trial. This would have meant Job was still alive in the time of the Judges. If so he was living totally independent of the Old Covenant and its sacrificial system and priesthood. That would not have made for a righteous man. So at the very most he would have known the so-called 7 Noahchide laws as it is my view he lived contemporary with the patriarchs.


______________________________________________________________________
*Footnote

R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Simai: There were three in that plan,28 viz. Balaam, Job and Jethro. Balaam who devised it was slain; Job who silently acquiesced was afflicted with sufferings; Jethro, who fled, merited that his descendants should sit in the Chamber of Hewn Stone,30 as it is said: And the families of scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, the Sucathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab;31 and it is written: And the children of the Kenite, Moses' father-in-law etc.32 (Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sotah Folio 11a Various opinions are expressed in the Talmud regarding the age in which he lived. According to one view he was born in the year that Jacob settled in Egypt and died at the time of the Exodus, v. B.B. 15a-b.)


R
rookie

Robert wrote:

That would not have made for a righteous man. So at the very most he would have known the so-called 7 Noahchide laws as it is my view he lived contemporary with the patriarchs

Are the Noahchide laws the same as the 10 commandments?

Secondly in the section of Scripture below...does this represent the Noachide laws?

..........................................................
Job 31:1 "I have made a covenant with my eyes; Why then should I look upon a young woman?

Job 31:2 For what is the allotment of God from above, And the inheritance of the Almighty from on high?

Job 31:3 Is it not destruction for the wicked, And disaster for the workers of iniquity?

Job 31:4 Does He not see my ways, And count all my steps?

Job 31:5 "If I have walked with falsehood, Or if my foot has hastened to deceit,

Job 31:6 Let me be weighed on honest scales, That God may know my integrity.

Job 31:7 If my step has turned from the way, Or my heart walked after my eyes, Or if any spot adheres to my hands,

Job 31:8 Then let me sow, and another eat; Yes, let my harvest be rooted out.

Job 31:9 "If my heart has been enticed by a woman, Or if I have lurked at my neighbor's door,

Job 31:10 Then let my wife grind for another, And let others bow down over her.

Job 31:11 For that would be wickedness; Yes, it would be iniquity deserving of judgment.

Job 31:12 For that would be a fire that consumes to destruction, And would root out all my increase.

Job 31:13 "If I have despised the cause of my male or female servant When they complained against me,

Job 31:14 What then shall I do when God rises up? When He punishes, how shall I answer Him?

Job 31:15 Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One fashion us in the womb?

Job 31:16 "If I have kept the poor from their desire, Or caused the eyes of the widow to fail,

Job 31:17 Or eaten my morsel by myself, So that the fatherless could not eat of it

Job 31:18 (But from my youth I reared him as a father, And from my mother's womb I guided the widow [fn]);

Job 31:19 If I have seen anyone perish for lack of clothing, Or any poor man without covering;

Job 31:20 If his heart [fn] has not blessed me, And if he was not warmed with the fleece of my sheep;

Job 31:21 If I have raised my hand against the fatherless, When I saw I had help in the gate;

Job 31:22 Then let my arm fall from my shoulder, Let my arm be torn from the socket.

Job 31:23 For destruction from God is a terror to me, And because of His magnificence I cannot endure.

Job 31:24 "If I have made gold my hope, Or said to fine gold, 'You are my confidence';

Job 31:25 If I have rejoiced because my wealth was great, And because my hand had gained much;

Job 31:26 If I have observed the sun [fn] when it shines, Or the moon moving in brightness,

Job 31:27 So that my heart has been secretly enticed, And my mouth has kissed my hand;

Job 31:28 This also would be an iniquity deserving of judgment, For I would have denied God who is above.

Job 31:29 "If I have rejoiced at the destruction of him who hated me, Or lifted myself up when evil found him

Job 31:30 (Indeed I have not allowed my mouth to sin By asking for a curse on his soul);

Job 31:31 If the men of my tent have not said, 'Who is there that has not been satisfied with his meat?'

Job 31:32 (But no sojourner had to lodge in the street, For I have opened my doors to the traveler [fn]);

Job 31:33 If I have covered my transgressions as Adam, By hiding my iniquity in my bosom,

Job 31:34 Because I feared the great multitude, And dreaded the contempt of families, So that I kept silence And did not go out of the door—

Job 31:35 Oh, that I had one to hear me! Here is my mark. Oh, that the Almighty would answer me, That my Prosecutor had written a book!

Job 31:36 Surely I would carry it on my shoulder, And bind it on me like a crown;

Job 31:37 I would declare to Him the number of my steps; Like a prince I would approach Him.

Job 31:38 "If my land cries out against me, And its furrows weep together;

Job 31:39 If I have eaten its fruit [fn] without money, Or caused its owners to lose their lives;

Job 31:40 Then let thistles grow instead of wheat, And weeds instead of barley." The words of Job are ended.
..........................................................

In Christ
Jeff

R
RobertW

Are the Noahchide laws the same as the 10 commandments?

Well, if Rabbinic sources are to be trusted they are the system of basic moral laws that existed after Noah's time. Personally I view any non-biblical source on these things as suspect.

We do know that there was at least a sense of right and wrong as it pertains to covenants.

And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What [is] this [that] thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she [was] thy wife? (Genesis 12:18)

After Noah there seemed to be a sense of certain do's and don'ts. It seems plausible that these were passed down. I doubt they were codified into 7 though. That is just my opinion. In time the Law had to be added because of transgressions until the Seed should come. This made Israel a unique people in the earth. This enforcement' of Law through the Old Covenant was akin to embalming a dead carcass. It could not give life- it could only attempt to preserve something already dead. Old Adam was alienated from the life of God making it impossible for him and those in him to consistently fulfill by nature the righteousness that is in the Law. They could only be restrained and guided by precepts.

S
sermonindex

Jesus was the express image of the invisible God, and He obeyed the Mosaic Law, and is fulfilling it today ...tthough the priestly order has been renovated.

Yes, the fruits of the Spirit are evidence of God's regenerative work in us, and who will say that this work of regeneration does not draw us closer to conforming to the ways and will of Jesus Christ?

The Torah and every book thereafter is in revealtion a clearer and clearer expression of God's will.

The Law never ended. Only the ordinaces against us were nailed to the cross: namely, the curse of the Law. This is how we cannot be UNDER it('s penalty) anymore.

------------------------------------------------------------

I'm still not done with Galatians yet the key is evident.

...and it is not the Old covenant that was the producer of bondage. It is the producer "of children" unto bondage.

How can Paul say Torah and commandment is holy, right and good in one letter, and call the Covenant a producer of bondage in another?

Is bondage holiness, righteousness, and good?


Galatians is talking to a lesser extent the lawful use of the Law, right?


Agape,
g
Acts 20:32

p.s. will read your posts closer when time is available Rob.

R
RobertW

Galatians is talking to a lesser extent the lawful use of the Law, right?

Galatians is a book about a people that had begun in the Spirit (Galatians 3:3) but had been bewitched (Galatians 3:1) into thinking they could be made perfect by the flesh. They did run well, but had been hindered by this false teaching. They built again the things they had destroyed and were at risk of becoming transgressors. (2:18)

They were reminded that they received the Spirit NOT by the works of the Law, but by the hearing of faith (3:2). In fact, the people that were moving in the power of God were not doing it under the Law either but by the hearing of faith.

He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? (Galatians 3:5)

Paul was afraid of them that he had labored there in vain and the people had run in vain. The people had BEGUN in the Spirit and were expected to continue in the Spirit. But some had come in to introduce the Law once again in an attempt to somehow find a higher level of perfection.

Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (Galatians 3:3)

This is a rhetorical question. How can people that are under the curse of the law be perfected by it?

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. (Galatians 3:10)

No one on the face of the earth today is continuing in all things that are written in the book of the law, period. End of story. The entire covenant was connected to the sacrificial system that has not been rightly in place since at least prior to the Babylonian captivity. They have no Ark and no sacred fire. So it is impossible to continue in all things that are written in the law. And if one is attempting to be under that Old Covenant and are not continuing in all things that are written in the Law- they are cursed. That is the plain reading of Galatians 3:10.

What adds to the curse is that if one is promoting this alternative as opposed to life in the Spirit they are preaching a different Gospel and are in the cross-hairs of Galatians 1.

R
rookie

Robert wrote:

Well, if Rabbinic sources are to be trusted they are the system of basic moral laws that existed after Noah's time. Personally I view any non-biblical source on these things as suspect.

So why then did you bother to even mention this when I asked about Job knowing the 10 Commandments?

When Paul taught the Bereans this is what he said of them....

..........................................................................................................................Act 17:11\t \tThese were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
.......................................................................................................................

Let us go directly to the Holy Scriptures with a readiness of mind and search to see if what I see in Scripture is true...

Going once again for the fourth time, Job speaks of some of the 10 commandments in this section of Scripture. This time I will segregate the Scriptures into distinct divisions.

................................................................................................................
Exd 20:3\t¶\tThou shalt have no other gods before me.
.................................................................................................................

this is that

...................................................................................................................
Job 31:24\t"If I have made gold my hope, Or said to fine gold, 'You are my confidence';
Job 31:25\tIf I have rejoiced because my wealth was great, And because my hand had gained much;
Job 31:26\tIf I have observed the sun [fn] when it shines, Or the moon moving in brightness,
Job 31:27\tSo that my heart has been secretly enticed, And my mouth has kissed my hand;
Job 31:28\tThis also would be an iniquity deserving of judgment, For I would have denied God who is above.
....................................................................................................................


...................................................................................................................
Exd 20:14\t"You shall not commit adultery.
....................................................................................................................

this is that

.......................................................................................................................
Job 31:9\t"If my heart has been enticed by a woman, Or if I have lurked at my neighbor's door,
Job 31:10\tThen let my wife grind for another, And let others bow down over her.
Job 31:11\tFor that would be wickedness; Yes, it would be iniquity deserving of judgment.
Job 31:12\tFor that would be a fire that consumes to destruction, And would root out all my increase.
....................................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................................
Exd 20:7\t"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
.....................................................................................................................

this is that

...................................................................................................................Job 31:1\t"I have made a covenant with my eyes; Why then should I look upon a young woman?
Job 31:2\tFor what is the allotment of God from above, And the inheritance of the Almighty from on high?
Job 31:3\tIs it not destruction for the wicked, And disaster for the workers of iniquity?
Job 31:4\tDoes He not see my ways, And count all my steps?
Job 31:5\t"If I have walked with falsehood, Or if my foot has hastened to deceit,
Job 31:6\tLet me be weighed on honest scales, That God may know my integrity.
Job 31:7\tIf my step has turned from the way, Or my heart walked after my eyes, Or if any spot adheres to my hands,
Job 31:8\tThen let me sow, and another eat; Yes, let my harvest be rooted out.
......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................
Exd 20:17\t"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's."
.....................................................................................................................

this is that

.....................................................................................................................
Job 31:16\t"If I have kept the poor from their desire, Or caused the eyes of the widow to fail,

Job 31:17\tOr eaten my morsel by myself, So that the fatherless could not eat of it

Job 31:19\tIf I have seen anyone perish for lack of clothing, Or any poor man without covering;

Job 31:21\tIf I have raised my hand against the fatherless, When I saw I had help in the gate;
Job 31:22\tThen let my arm fall from my shoulder, Let my arm be torn from the socket.
Job 31:23\tFor destruction from God is a terror to me, And because of His magnificence I cannot endure.
...................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................
Exd 20:13\t"You shall not murder.
..................................................................................................................

this is that

......................................................................................................................
Job 31:29\t"If I have rejoiced at the destruction of him who hated me, Or lifted myself up when evil found him
Job 31:30\t(Indeed I have not allowed my mouth to sin By asking for a curse on his soul);
....................................................................................................................

also this is also that

....................................................................................................................
Mat 5:21\t"You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, [fn] and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.'

Mat 5:22\t"But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause [fn] shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.
.....................................................................................................................


In Christ
Jeff

C
Christinyou

Gaebelein's Annoted Bible
Galatians 5:1

CHAPTER 5

1. Stand fast! Be not entangled! 1-6
2. Exhortations and the law of love. 7-15
3. Flesh and Spirit. 16-21
4. The Fruit of the Spirit. 22-26
The first exhortation is to maintain, by faith, the liberty which is found in Christ, to stand fast in that liberty where with Christ has made the believer free and not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage. The believer has perfect liberty in Christ; he is absolutely dead to the law and the law is not to be used by him in any way. But verse 13, where the apostle speaks again of this liberty, must be brought in connection with the opening statement of this chapter. "For, brethren, ye have been called into liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another." The liberty the believer has in Christ is to be used for holiness. When God redeems from the curse of the law it is a redemption unto holiness, to live a righteous and holy life; the holy Spirit indwelling the believer does not give license to live after the flesh.

But as being in Christ, dead to the law, if they become circumcised Christ would profit them nothing and they were bound to fulfill the whole law. Going back to the law for righteousness, they had fallen from grace. This is the only time "fallen from grace" is used in the Bible. It has been strangely misapplied by a certain system of theology to deny the security of the believer in Christ. It is generally used to describe a Christian who has fallen in sin and, as it is claimed, lost his relationship as a child of God and is, therefore, once more under judgment. Falling from grace does not mean this; it means to give up the grace of the gospel in order to satisfy the requirements of the law. To go back under the law and its bondage is falling from grace. Verse 5 does not mean that a believer hopes for righteousness; he possesses righteousness by faith. Indwelt by the Spirit, the believer waits not for righteousness, but for the hope of righteousness by faith. And the hope of righteousness is the coming glory, when all those who are saved by grace will be glorified and be like Christ.

Then the earnest pleadings and warnings. They had run well; who hindered them? It was Satan who had led them astray. Once more leaven is used. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Even so it is today in Christendom. The leaven of a perverted gospel has well nigh leavened everything. He was deeply concerned about the spiritual condition of these Galatian Christians. But while he was in doubt about them and he was overwhelmed with grief because they abandoned grace, his heart, after all, was also in peace about them. "I have confidence in you through the Lord that ye will be now otherwise minded." He cast them as his burden upon the Lord and he knew the Lord, who loveth His own, would after all bring it about that they would surely not be otherwise minded.

He who troubled them and bewitched them with that spurious gospel, whosoever he would be, would bear his judgment; and he wishes that these troublers were cut off. "And I, brethren, if I preach yet circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then is the offence of the cross ceased." He had probably been charged by some of endorsing circumcision and preaching it. If such were the case, what further excuse was there for the Jews to persecute him? If he were still preaching circumcision the offence of the cross would have been done away. Circumcision stands for the religion of the natural man. The religious spirit of the natural man is always in opposition to the true gospel. Difficulties will cease and the world will even applaud the preaching if the religion of the flesh, the "do-religion" -- "observe" -- "keep" -- "reform", etc., is proclaimed. Of this we see much today. The true gospel of grace, proclaimed upon the finished work of Christ, with nothing to do and nothing to pay, is still the same stumbling-block.

The believer possesses in Christ true liberty (verse 13); a liberty, as already stated, not to sin, but to walk and serve God in holiness. It is the liberty of the new nature, the divine nature, which gives power over sin. The law seeks to constrain the old nature, which is impossible; but it is the mighty constraint of love, given by the Holy Spirit. And that love is the fulfillment of the law. The law, as a rule, for the believer's life is, therefore, not needed. The gospel of grace sets the believer free and makes him happy in the assurance of God's love and his own salvation; and the Holy Spirit is there. Under His guidance and power, walking in the Spirit, the lust of the flesh will not be fulfilled. And the believer, walking thus, has the blessed assurance that sin shall not have dominion over him. "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the law, but under grace" (Ro 6#14). The law had not the power to do this, but grace has delivered us from the law of sin and death (Ro 8#1-4).

In the preceding part of the Epistle he had set forth Christian justification by faith, in contrast with works of the law. He here shows that God produces holiness. Instead of exacting it, as did the law with regard to human righteousness, from the nature which loves sin, He produces it in the human heart, as wrought by the Spirit.

"This life, produced in us by the operation of the Holy Spirit through the word, is led by the Spirit who is given to believers; its rule is also in the word. Its fruit is the fruit of the Spirit. The Christian walk is the manifestation of this new life, of Christ our life, in the midst of the world. If we follow this path--Christ Himself--if we walk in His steps, we shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. It is thus sin is avoided, not by taking the law to compel man to do what he does not like; the law has no power to compel the flesh to obey, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither, indeed, can be. The new life loves to obey, loves holiness, and Christ is its strength and wisdom by the Holy Spirit. The flesh is indeed there; it lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit lusts against the flesh, to prevent man from walking as he would. But if we walk in the Spirit, we are not under the law." (Notes on Galatians--J. N. Darby)

The works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit are given in verses 19-23. In a more literal rendering, the works of the flesh, sixteen in number, are as follows: Fornication, uncleanness, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, strifes, jealousies, angers, contentions, disputes, factions, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revels and things like these. Such is the old nature of man and such the fruit it bears. They that do such things, living according to the flesh, shall not inherit God's kingdom. And only the power of the Spirit of God can deliver from the outworking of this fallen nature, the flesh, which is still in the believer. The Holy Spirit is in the child of God to manifest this power, but it means subjection to Himself.

The Spirit also produces His own blessed fruit in the life of the believer. The first three parts: Love, joy and peace. These give the blessed consciousness the believer has in his heart of his relationship to God, which consciousness comes through the Spirit. The other six parts: "long-suffering, kindness, goodness, fidelity, meekness, self-control," witness in the believer's walk to the fact that the love, the joy and peace of God are realities in the soul. The believer who walks according to the Spirit manifests in his walk the fruit of the indwelling Spirit and against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh and its lusts. They have accepted the sentence of the cross which has put the old man with its lusts into the place of death. God declares us as dead with Christ and looks upon us thus (Col 3#3). And this great truth must be lived. The believer lives in the Spirit and is called upon to walk in the Spirit so that the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in him. "Let us not be desirous of vain-glory (the law fosters such a spirit, but grace humbles), provoking one another, envying one another"--which is the sad effect of vain-glory, provocation and envy.

In Christ: Phillip

R
RobertW

So why then did you bother to even mention this when I asked about Job knowing the 10 Commandments?


Because I'm not convinced Job knew the 10 Commandments as they were delivered by Moses. In my view Job lived long before Moses.

I would expect Job to walk in the revelation that he had. We know that there was a sense of right and wrong long before Moses. God instituted the death penalty for murder as a 'measure' to slow the spread of violence. There is even the concept of priesthood and propitiation in Job's time. What I believe is uncertain is that there were a codified 7 Laws the people were under as the Rabbi's have suggested. I tend to think they did not. You will know that the Rabbi's also suggest that there was an Oral Law passed down 'orally' from Moses also that was not written down till much later. I view that with utter suspicion. I do not trust them. As for the so-called Noachide or Noachain laws the list is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

The Rabbi's eventually codified the Law of Moses into 613 Laws (365 Neg and 248 Pos). They did a lot of things that destroy almost all confidence I could have had in their suggestions. I am more apt, again, to believe that Noah was a preacher of righteousness and passed down his understanding of right and wrong; not as a list of do's and dont's but as basic teachings of all that he understood about God. After all, the world had just been destroyed for it's lawlessness. It would only be reasonable that Noah would have passed to his progeny everything he knew.


S
sermonindex

Bob and Ron,

herein lies the difference between our non-disuasions about issues disagreed regarding the New Covenant and the Old Covenant:

You think the Old Covenant is not God's grace ...yet it is the ultimate expression of God's grace in this kosmos, finally revealed in it's fullest expression through Jesus Christ, coming into complete fullness when this age ends.

You two do not think Law is grace, but Law is Grace:

Think not I AM come to abolish the law, or the prophets:
I AM not come to destroy, but to validate. Amin.

I say unto you, "Till heaven and earth pass away, one yud or one kotz in no manner shall pass away from the Law, till all has occured"

Not everybody that says to me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he who is doing the will of my Father in heaven.

Many will say to me in that day, "Lord, Lord..."

and then I shall declare to them, "I never knew you. Get away from me, you transgressors of the Law."

Mt. 5:17-18, 7:21, 22a, 23

Without God's grace, there would be no former nor freshening of the Everlasting Covenant.


Agape,
g


edited: 4clearnessity

R
RobertW

You think the Old Covenant is not God's grace ...yet it is the ultimate expression of God's grace in this kosmos...

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

John 1:15 ¶ John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

John 1:16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

The Old Covenant was in play until Jesus Christ (the Seed) came.

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. (Galatians 3:19)

Consider how much greater the New Covenant than the old in that it is given by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. (Hebrews 1:4)*

The problem for Israel is that many did not want even the Glory revealed in the Old Covenant. New Covenant means one thing for certain- MORE of God. If a person does not want MORE of GOd then the New Covenant is not for them.

2Cor. 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

2Cor. 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

2Cor. 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

2Cor. 3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.

2Cor. 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.


_____________________________________________________________________
*Footnote
It is not denied that the Son was essentially and eternally superior to the angels; but his glorification was conditioned upon his fulfillment of the requirements of his human state, and it is this that is emphasized. After having passed through the experience described in Philippians 2:6–8, he sat down on the right hand of the divine majesty as messianic sovereign, and so became or proved to be what in reality he was from eternity, superior to the angels. Τοσούτῳ— ὅσῳ so much - as. Never used by Paul. Κρείττων better, superior, rare in Paul, and always neuter and adverbial. In Hebrews thirteen times. See also 1 Peter 3:17; 2 Peter 2:21. Often in LXX. It does not indicate here moral excellence, but dignity and power. He became superior to the angels, resuming his preincarnate dignity, as he had been, for a brief period, less or lower than the angels (ch. 2:7). (Vincent)

P
philologos

by Phanetheus on 2010/7/22 18:57:43

So, is it established already in this thread that only circucision as sign of, and the old priesthood and regimen of that have been the only thing to change?

It certainly isn't established in my mind. A distinction is often made between the moral and the ceremonial 'law' but I question whether we have the authority to do this.

Hbr 7:12\tFor the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

This seems to be declaring that the 'moral' and the 'ceremonial' cannot be divided and that where one is affected the other must also be affected. But the Levitical priesthood had not been modified or added to, it has been ended.

The moral law and the priesthood were an inseparable unit. The covenant would not have lasted a day without the priestly functions which enabled atonement and forgiveness. When the Levitical priesthood ended the Sinai covenant was unworkable.

P
philologos

by Phanetheus on 2010/7/24 2:04:35

You two do not think Law is grace, but Law is Grace:

Not so. The law was an expression of God's love...

And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand [went] a fiery law for them. Yea, he loved the people; all his saints [are] in thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; [every one] shall receive of thy words. Moses commanded us a law, [even] the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob. Deut 33:2-4

...from his right hand went a fiery law. Yea, he loved the people...

R
rookie

robert wrote:

Because I'm not convinced Job knew the 10 Commandments as they were delivered by Moses. In my view Job lived long before Moses.

In chapter 31 of Job we find 5 of the 10 commandments in just 40 verses.

Are you convinced by the Scripture in Job 31 that Job knew 5 Commandments?

Remember that all Scripture is given to us by the power of the Holy Spirit...

In Christ
Jeff

Add thought....yes Job lived long before the time of Moses...the whole book of Job is a problem for those who "think" dispensationally.(sp)

R
RobertW

Are you convinced by the Scripture in Job 31 that Job knew 5 Commandments?

I believe Job knew God's mind on the matter, but I don't believe Moses was the source of that revelation.

L
Lysa

I wanted to say that I loved reading the beauty of "adoption" and also its ramifications. Thank you for posting this. I never knew this.

God bless you,
Lysa


philologos wrote on page 20_2010/7/22 11:19:
Paul is always talking about the weakness of the flesh in comparison to the power of the Holy Spirit when defining who are the children of God, who are the "adopted"

adoption is a very rich and wonderful topic but not to be confused with modern day adoptions. Today we think of adoption as a means of providing protection for the infant. This is not the idea in the Biblical use of adoption. Julius Caesar 'adopted' Octavius who became Augustus but Octavius was a man when he was adopted. In ancient times a man was adopted to maintain the dynasty or line. Hadrian said that 'adopted sons were better than natural children because they were chosen'.

The Greek word for adoption is 'son placing'; it refers to a public acknowledgment that the adopted person was now the heir of the one adopting him The adopted person lost all his previous 'rights and responsibilities' but inherited all those of his adopted father.

There was an interesting case in the UK recently. A man was traced who was the nearest relative of someone who had died without making a will. The deceased relative had left several thousand British pounds. They traced the natural son and he was very excited at the prospect of the inheritance, but there was a hitch. The man's mother and father divorced and the woman remarried. The young son stayed with the mother and was adopted by his 'step father'.

This had the effect that he became legal heir to the new father but lost all his rights to the estate of his natural father. He was not eligible for the inheritance. Adoption is not a pretty picture of care but a legal change in inheritance and destiny.

S
sermonindex

Hopefully, there will be no more chasing rabbit trails after this. It detracts from the primary objective and message: why Jesus died and rose again.

Focus on any issue denigrating the completeness of all Jesus has done towards making us able to walk with God in all things is neither profitable nor beneficial.

i may not have all my p's and q's in the right places yet, but i'm learning.

Can we just force whatever ideas and rationalizations we suppose to be true with only certain scriptures that SEEM TO match the rendition of what we think God reveals through His testimony?

Who gave anybody authority to do this.

Bob, you stated as premise to one of your respondent posts:
"This thread has established that the Old Covenant has passed away with the advent of the Seed (Jesus Christ)."

Oh, Really? How do you define advent?

Here's the advent of the Seed (Jesus Christ) as seen by these eyes:

You were ransomed with the precious blood of Christ, like a lamb without spot or blemish, pre-known and established before the foundation of the world. By Him all things were created in heaven and earth...all things were created through Him and for Him.

i have been wrong in claiming it is merely ten commandments that are in force, because the prophets state in His established kingdom on earth, even the sacrafices and Holy Days will be enforced in righteousness and justice, as it has been meant to be ever since these holy, perfect, and good things were brought to light.

Does that sound like abolished?

That hardly sounds like anything has even passed away. In this very fact, i can boldly state that the Old Covenant has never passed away.

Jesus stated plainly that NOTHING WILL PASS AWAY FROM THE LAW until both earth and heaven pass away, Matthew 5:18. In this very fact, i can boldly state that the Old covenant has never passed away.

Have heaven or earth passed away?
How does that square with what Bob and Ron claim this thread has proven...and where are all these verses that prove this claim?

Rather, how about a verse from one of the Bible books that seems to be misconstrued to mean something other than what is stated?

'Brothers, to give a human example,
even with a man-made oath in covenant,
nobody annuls or adds to it
once it has been ratified.'
Gal. 3:15

Now if we deny that Jesus ratified...
--as in made 'fresh' and completely valid--
...the Covenant that was initiated as a promise to Abraham and foreshadowed through the Old, there is still a major flaw in saying that the Law is either passed away or abolished. According to Jesus, since heaven and earth have not passed away, neither has any of the Torah.

There are far to many scriptures which contradict what this thread claims to be truth... and we can start with Galatians 3: Jesus ratified (not abolished) the Old Covenant. This is the foundation to that whole book and the very basis for the Bible. Jesus ratified the Old Covenant, because it was God swearing covenant-oath to God, and not merely man-made. Nothing ever changed, but actually was clarified, because God is not a man that He should lie. God never changes and He honors His Word above His very name.

Ron you said that it was love is manifested through (the giving of) Law and either imply in that grace is not part of love or are you just nitpicking again? If grace is not love and love is not grace, you have alot of explaining to do.

Let's go back to Jesus and realize that keeping the commandments are relative to the flow of grace (which is loves expression). John 14 is just one chapter explaining that in keeping His commandments, our Heavenly Father, as well as Jesus and His spirit comes to be with/in us, but look at the imperative cause:

v. 15 If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

v. 17 This is what I command you:keep loving each other.
(Love is the Law manifested, right Ron?)

v.21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me...

v.23 ...Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one that loves me...

Youz guys can keep on picking apart fine points ignoring context toward the whole of scripture, but doesn't this mislead others as well to miss the main point.

What benefit to anyone is there in this?

Jesus leading up to obeying God in the spirit of the Law as in it's letter began and in conclusion clarified, "For this reason, whoever will break one of the tiniest commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven... Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that say to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord... ...then will I proclaim to them,'I never knew you: leave my presence you Law breakers.' "


Think seriously about what you are claiming to be truth to other readers, and ignoring such passages as:

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous... 1 Jn. 5:2-3


What part of the Old covenant has passed away?

It has been ratified (aka: made fresh) and nothing of it has passed away because neither heaven nor earth has passed away.

Here's the way erronious conclusions on this thread are seen. Compared to what is attempted to be made true without infallible proof, still, scripture does not contradict itself. Human reasonings and rationalizations, on the other hand, tend to contradict both the thinker, and always the scripture.


Some of this threads conclusions leave three possibilities:

1.) Conclusions already established on this thread are like a faulty foundation on which other erronious conclusions are built.

2.) Paul is contradicting Jesus, the Law, and the prophets...

3.) Jesus is confused or lying about what He says...


Who has the most authority?

1.) Us

2.) Paul

3.) Jesus


Who agreed with His/our Father about this plan and knows all the fine nitty gritty details about it?

1.) Us

2.) Paul

3.) Jesus


There are some things on this thread that stand in direct contradiction to what scripture plainly states, and of this, only one main issue has just been given more light.

More is coming...DV

Getting this to stop now is like getting a pitbull to let go when fixated ...a death-gripped jaw locked as teeth are tearing and digging deep.


It's time to re-establish what is actually true without contradicting scripture.

Love, Faith, and Hope,
gregg


...I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
Acts 20:31-32

A
ADisciple

Gregg said, "i have been wrong in claiming it is merely ten commandments that are in force, because the prophets state in His established kingdom on earth, even the sacrafices and Holy Days will be enforced in righteousness and justice, as it has been meant to be ever since these holy, perfect, and good things were brought to light."

Surely you are not trying to suggest, Gregg, that God will call for the sacrifices of the Law again in His "established kingdom on earth"? That's what C.I. Scofield taught... that when Ezekiel's temple is built, those sacrifices-- of lambs and goats and bulls and heifers-- will be instituted again, but as "memorial" sacrifices that look back at the sacrifice of the Cross, just as at one time they looked ahead to it. That's... I just shake my head at that.

And is that what you are teaching as well?

...Gregg, you seem to have a good heart, and a love for the Lord, as near as I can tell from your posts. But you have a blind spot there, dear brother. There is something you are just not seeing.

S
sermonindex

by ADisciple on 2010/7/24 14:36:44

Gregg said, "i have been wrong in claiming it is merely ten commandments that are in force, because the prophets state in His established kingdom on earth, even the sacrafices and Holy Days will be enforced in righteousness and justice, as it has been meant to be ever since these holy, perfect, and good things were brought to light."

Surely you are not trying to suggest, Gregg, that God will call for the sacrifices of the Law again in His "established kingdom on earth"? That's what C.I. Scofield taught... that when Ezekiel's temple is built, those sacrifices-- of lambs and goats and bulls and heifers-- will be instituted again, but as "memorial" sacrifices that look back at the sacrifice of the Cross, just as at one time they looked ahead to it. That's... I just shake my head at that.

And is that what you are teaching as well?
------------------------------------------------------------
No, i have never thought or taught of Ezekiel's vision regarded memorial sacrafices.

The Holy Day Shabbat's of Isaiah has not been thought or taught to be such either.

I just know that this is what scripture says and who are we to even think we can change anything.

i have taught that there are specific things i do not yet completely understand nor do i know the answer. i have been wrong about alot before and there is no doubt at all that even if i dared proffer explanation beyond what is very clear, i am probably wrong... as well, even about things that SEEM very clear.

(None of us are completely clear just how deceitful our hearts really are. Thanks to God, we experience His mercy and love in Jesus Christ.)

i do instruct that if we do not both do and teach we are only speculating and it is not actually true in us, so all it amounts to is speculation ...and there are alot of things that even though we think are obvious to us, we will some day realize we were wrong.

i do think and teach that this is what God says and it is not good to speculate beyond what God has stated if He has not given COMPLETE revelation to understand matters such as:

1.) These two prophecies;

2.) What are the specifics beyond what is written about God preparing to slay Moses;

3.) Jephthah's oath and what exactly the sacrafice of his daughter entailed;

4.) The Revelation of Jesus Christ to John...

There are alot of things i still wonder about beyond these, but as has occurred in the past, revelation comes through obediently trusting God in His service.

Farther along we will know.
___________________________________________________________

...Gregg, you seem to have a good heart, and a love for the Lord, as near as I can tell from your posts. But you have a blind spot there, dear brother. There is something you are just not seeing.
------------------------------------------------------------

My heart has been corrupted and it is only the goodness of Jesus Christ that has placed this love in my heart. If it were not for the prayers and support of other members in His body through obedience to His Headship, i would be a real hot mess. I'm stilll 'a piece of work' in processing.

Yes, i have alot of blind spots, yet i can not go and say that things have changed when Jesus says they haven't and will not until heaven and earth pass away...as the Everlasting Covenant shadowed through and in the Old is promised to a thousand generations, even so, this has not even transpired half-way yet.)

There are alot of things i just am not seeing, and i just shake my head at my own failure to comprehend. I know it's because of my own unfathfulness to serve Him as i should.

Blind spots are an understatement. How about??? "gregg, you are a dumb sheeple and Jesus is the only one that makes you right."

He loves you and me!


May all the Love, Hope, and Faith
manifest through Jesus Christ
flow through our hearts
and out into the world
as we continue in pursuit of Him,

gregg

T
twayneb

A distinction is often made between the moral and the ceremonial 'law' but I question whether we have the authority to do this.

Have been away from this thread for some time. I have heard people discuss a "moral" and a "ceremonial" law, but I can find no such concept scripturally. Hebrews 7:12 that you quoted is part of a wonderful explanation of the two covenants.

Another scripture that applies to the discussion is James 2: 8-12. Notice that the thing that convinces us as transgressors is the law and that if a man keeps 99% of the law yet offends in one part becomes guilty of breaking ALL the law. The law is like a large plate glass window. Shoot a BB through it or drive a truck through it and it is broken just the same. Such a window could not be repaired and would need to be replaced in either case. So with the law. It does not matter if you fail to keep a "ceremonial" part of the law or a "moral" part of the law, you have broken the whole of the law. So there can be no distinction between two "parts" of the law in which we are required to keep one but not required to keep the other. Even if we were able to make such a distinction, if we keep what we call the "moral" part and offend in what we call the "ceremonial" part, we are guilty of breaking the "moral" part of the law as well.

If we take the New Testament teaching on the law found in Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, Colossians, and several other mentions, we find overwhelmingly that the purpose of the law was, like James says, to convince us of sin. But the law was totally inadequate to do anything about that sin. The law and the prophets witnessed of Christ. The law did so by showing us that we could not be righteous by any actions of our own. Keeping the law is of no redemptive purpose. Galatians 2:16 states this explicitly. But faith in Christ brings redemption from the wrath and judgment that we deserved.

I think the primary problem some have with the idea that we are no longer required to keep the law is the fear that we will be unrestrained. The law served a purpose of restraining sin by fear of punishment and wrath before the redemptive work of Christ. But after a man is born again, he no longer needs the restraint of the fear of punishment for breaking the law. Romans 6:14, Romans 8, Hebrews 2. We are constrained by the transforming and regenerating work of Christ in our own spirits. I have been born again and now I am no longer under the dominion of sin. I am dead to sin and alive unto God. If I have to tell someone, "Thou shalt not commit adultery", or thou shall go to hell in order to keep that person on the straight and narrow and prevent them from committing adultery, then I question whether that person has been born again.

I am obeying the perfect law of liberty. I am no longer bound by the law given to Moses. It was just a shadow of God's holiness anyway. Jesus made this clear in Matthew 5 when he told the people that their righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and pharisees or they would not enter His kingdom. The Pharisees were renown for their observance of the law. But Jesus said that one must exceed their righteousness to be right before God. Jesus then proceeds to give examples of the law falling short of God's true holiness. You have heard it written...but I say.... He sums it up by saying that if you are going to make it on your own you will have to be perfect just as God is perfect. That is impossible and in one fail swoop Jesus obliterated all hopes in these people that they could somehow be good enough by keeping laws to please God. He demonstrated that God's holy standard far exceeded the law.

The law was good and the law was righteous, but the law was not nearly as great a standard as God's own righteousness. God does not desire us to keep out of obligation what is only a shadow of His holiness. He wants to make us righteous and allow His Holy Spirit to live out through us His life, the fruits of His righteousness, which are in the life of a believer true holiness.

A
ADisciple

Travis said, "Another scripture that applies to the discussion is James 2: 8-12. Notice that the thing that convinces us as transgressors is the law and that if a man keeps 99% of the law yet offends in one part becomes guilty of breaking ALL the law. The law is like a large plate glass window. Shoot a BB through it or drive a truck through it and it is broken just the same. Such a window could not be repaired and would need to be replaced in either case. So with the law. It does not matter if you fail to keep a "ceremonial" part of the law or a "moral" part of the law, you have broken the whole of the law. So there can be no distinction between two "parts" of the law in which we are required to keep one but not required to keep the other. Even if we were able to make such a distinction, if we keep what we call the "moral" part and offend in what we call the "ceremonial" part, we are guilty of breaking the "moral" part of the law as well."

Excellent comparison, Travis!

A
ADisciple

Gregg said, "No, i have never thought or taught of Ezekiel's vision regarded memorial sacrafices. The Holy Day Shabbat's of Isaiah has not been thought or taught to be such either."

The question then is, how do you expect those prophecies that call for animal sacrifices to be fulfilled?

For you also said, "i have been wrong in claiming it is merely ten commandments that are in force, because the prophets state in His established kingdom on earth, even the sacrafices and Holy Days will be enforced in righteousness and justice, as it has been meant to be ever since these holy, perfect, and good things were brought to light."

?

R
rookie

Robert wrote:

I believe Job knew God's mind on the matter, but I don't believe Moses was the source of that revelation.

I see that you are not willing to discuss with readiness of mind the Scriptures...

so be it...

This reminds me of a time when Jesus asked the Pharisees about what they believed of John the Baptist. The Pharisees reasoned among themselves and found that they were caught in a predicament.

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

A distinction is often made between the moral and the ceremonial 'law' but I question whether we have the authority to do this.

.........................................................................................................................Mar 12:28\tThen one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving [fn] that He had answered them well, asked Him, "Which is the first commandment of all?"

Mar 12:29\tJesus answered him, "The first of all the commandments is: 'Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Mar 12:30\t'And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. [fn]

Mar 12:31\t"And the second, like it, is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

Mar 12:32\tSo the scribe said to Him, "Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He.

Mar 12:33\t"And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, [fn] and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."
........................................................................................................................

To love God and to love your neighbor satisfies the law of God. From the beginning in the Garden of Eden this has always been the purpose for which God created man.

There is only one God. Man has been given the choice to believe this precept or to find his own god.

Man is called to love God with every ounce of his being. Without God's grace, His supernatural lovingkindness man is condemned by this first and greatest commandment.

Man is called to love one's neighbor. Yet if man does not love God and has created for himself another god without power or worse yet has sold his soul to the devil. This man is condemned to strive with his neighbor.

We have this progression......

The two great commandments encompass the 10 commandment. The first 4 commandments defines the ways which man is to love God. The second 6 commandments defines the ways which man is to love his neighbor.

These 10 commandments then are subdivided into the more extensive descriptions of both the 4 and 6 commandments found in books of Leviticus, Exodus, Numbers, and Dueteronomy. These describe in more detail what it means to love God and neighbor.

I have to go

In Christ
Jeff
Jeff

S
sermonindex

Gregg said, "No, i have never thought or taught of Ezekiel's vision regarded memorial sacrafices. The Holy Day Shabbat's of Isaiah has not been thought or taught to be such either."

The question then is, how do you expect those prophecies that call for animal sacrifices to be fulfilled?

For you also said, "i have been wrong in claiming it is merely ten commandments that are in force, because the prophets state in His established kingdom on earth, even the sacrafices and Holy Days will be enforced in righteousness and justice, as it has been meant to be ever since these holy, perfect, and good things were brought to light."

?
------------------------------------------------------------

How will they be fulfilled?

i don't know, but indeed they will.

What it says is true.

How we currently understand this is mere speculation.

Until this is an active daily part of life (to come) we may not ever understand.

i am not going to say anything about it except what the scripture promises will be.

God said it.

That settles it.

R
RobertW

I believe Job knew God's mind on the matter, but I don't believe Moses was the source of that revelation.

I see that you are not willing to discuss with readiness of mind the Scriptures...

so be it...

Just because I don't believe Moses was the source of Job's revelation does not mean I am not prepared to discuss the scriptures. It is my view that the revelation of God's will was known to some degree since the beginning. For example, adultery and murder were crimes long before Moses. Cain slew his brother and then acted evasive when God questioned him. Why? He knew what he had done was a crime.

P
philologos

Ron you said that it was love is manifested through (the giving of) Law and either imply in that grace is not part of love or are you just nitpicking again? If grace is not love and love is not grace, you have alot of explaining to do.

Where have I ever implied that grace is not part of love? Grace is love in action.

S
sermonindex

Ron:

Where have I ever implied that grace is not part of love? Grace is love in action.
------------------------------------------------------------
g:

This thread, page 23, 2nd post, like this:

by Phanetheus on 2010/7/24 2:04:35

You two do not think Law is grace, but Law is Grace:

and you reply:

Not so. The law was an expression of God's love...

(w/ Duet. 33:2-4 following to prove it)


R
rookie

Scripture in Job points to the existence of the 10 commandments which called on that generation of love God and to love your neighbor. Yet no one is willing to acknowledge this requirement of God of men before Moses. So let us examine the generations that followed the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

....................................................................................................................

Mar 12:29\tJesus answered him, "The first of all the commandments is: 'Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Mar 12:30\t'And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. [fn]

Mar 12:31\t"And the second, like it, is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
........................................................................................................................

Have these commandments passed away?

In Christ
Jeff

C
Christinyou

Why in the name of God would He begin all over again? God has layed all the sacrifices of man and animal at the blood soaked foot of the Cross and to return to animal blood sacrifice is sacriledge and is putting all under bondage again. Christ has come to set us free, never to be in bondage again.

John 8:35-36 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. John 8:35-36 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

In Christ: Phillip

R
rookie

Why in the name of God would He begin all over again?

God begins in every generation starting with Adam unto the last day of the 1000 year reign of Christ.

The call of God upon man is this....

To love God and to love one another. This precept has never changed. There is always in every generation the requirements of man that he obey the 10 commandments which are a sum of the greatest commandments.

Only by faith through the power of the Holy Spirit are we transformed into the image of His Son Jesus Christ. This faith is given to man by the effective working of God in man. Read Psalm 119 for the detail.

In Christ
Jeff

S
sermonindex

Hundreds of years before Moses ever was merely a twinkle in his parents eyes God has always provided a standard of walking uprightly before Him.

Though we do not read anything of some recorded specific act, there are things that point to this very fact. For example, how did Abel know to sacrafice the fattest of the fat lambs to please God... and everybody born after him conforming to God's standard leading to finding grace in the eyes of the LORD.

It has always been through faith(fulness) towards God's expectations.

Here is a little tidbit found in Genesis 26.5 :

...because that Abraham:
1.) obeyed my voice,
2.) and kept my charge,
3.) my commandments,
4.) my statutes,
5.) and my laws...

If God did not before Moses talk to men telling them to preserve His revelations and obey His: commands, laws, statutes, and ordinances...
how could have Abel pleased God, Enoch walk with God, Noah find grace, Lot be found rightoeus, Abraham trust and obey... and so on?

If there were no Law and ordinances before Moses how could God justly consider human's imaginations only towards devising evil and through a cataclysmic flood -Gen. 6- destroy the whole old world exept for 8 people?

If there were no rules to obey, how could He in justice rain down a sulfurous firestorm on Sodom and Gomorrah?

If God was not heard speaking to those who obey Him, how could Noah have known what to do?

In fact, if God had not provided a ways and means of living in love towards Himself and mankind He created, how could He be right(eous) in judging anyone for anything?

Not mercy nor rewards are even recognized to exist if there were no vindication in justice or an absolute standard of expectation.


Jeremiah 9:

22 Speak out, "This is what Yaweh says, 'Even the carcases of men shall fall as excrement on open field, and akin to the handful remaining after the harvestman is finished, noboby will gather.

23 Says Yaweh, "The wise man should not boast in his wisdom, neither the mighty man brag about his strength, nor the rich man glory in his riches:

24 One who exhalts should celebrate this: that he is understanding and knowing Me that I Am Unchanging I Am delighting in exercising merciful lovingkindness, judgment, and uprightness throughout the earth," says Yaweh.

These three verses provide revelation on the thoroughness of God's justice through what He delights in doing.

Without God providing and expecting some standard to obey, these things cannot be.

Because God does not change neither has the fact of God giving absolutes He expects to be followed.

This has been a fact since God first told Adam the rules to living life in the garden of Eden.

Sin has just so complicated things, that what once was a choice of two rules to obey, now is a plethora of expectations that we shall never be able to fulfill in the flesh; but if we could not keep just two in Adam, and the human race has continually deteriorated since that time, what makes anybody think they can even keep one?

James clearly reveals that all the Laws are interconnected in the fact: if you break one, you have broken them all.

The Spirit of our Master Jesus Christ enables us to walk even as He walked.

When we take up our cross and die, the life we live is by the mighty power of His resurrection, walking in His Spirit.

We may try to change the way things have been made to function but we have 2 outs and 3 strikes against us from the git-go.


You might think you have a different way that seems better. The problem is, you are going to have to create your own universe to test it out.

Love, Hope, and Faith,
gregg

...I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
Acts 20:31-32

edited: 4 clarity

C
Christinyou

Christ cannot be crucified ever again. Those that are under the Law would dictate because of sin that He be crucified again.

Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Indeed, the moral influence which such warnings are designed to exert, is a part of the system of means by which God fulfils his design, very distinctly made known in other passages, (Joh 17:2; Ro 8:29-30; 1Pe 1:4-5,) effectually to keep those who once truly given to Christ by the Father and they who give themselves up to his care.

Either the crucifixion of Christ was enough or we must add something to it be saved. If The Cross was not enough we of most people are most misirable and lacking in salvation and keeping man on his own throne.

In Christ: Phillip

R
rookie

Phillip wrote:

Christ cannot be crucified ever again

Yes, this is according to Scripture. And His death covers all generations. All those who lived by the faith imparted to them by Christ through the Holy Spirit are the adopted sons of God.

In Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

by Phanetheus on 2010/7/25 19:43:15

Ron:

Where have I ever implied that grace is not part of love? Grace is love in action.
------------------------------------------------------------
g:

This thread, page 23, 2nd post, like this:

by Phanetheus on 2010/7/24 2:04:35

You two do not think Law is grace, but Law is Grace:

and you reply:

Not so. The law was an expression of God's love...

(w/ Duet. 33:2-4 following to prove it)

When I say 'not so' I am saying that 'it is not so that 'you two do not think the law is grace'.

I do not presume to speak for Robert W but 'this one' certainly believes that every act of God towards the human race is an act of grace, and that grace is 'love in action'.

R
RobertW

You two do not think Law is grace, but Law is Grace.

Every measure God has used to reestablish relationship with man since the fall has been an act of grace. In fact, it is because of God's tender mercy that we are not consumed. The Law was not able to impart life. No rules can impart life.

Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. (Galatians 3:21 NASB)

T
twayneb

Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. (Galatians 3:21 NASB)

Robert quotes a wonderful passage. The law was not contrary to the promises of God. The law pointed to the promises. The promise was of a coming righteousness that was through the grace of God, not through the observance of the law. Jeremiah 31:33. If any true righteousness could have been obtained by keeping the law then the promise would have been superfluous and unnecessary.

When we make a statement like, "we are no longer under the law", or a statement like, "we do not have to keep the law anymore", we do not mean that New Testament believers are lawless or rebellious or licentious. Lets use, for example, the commandment, "thou shalt not commit adultry." I do not have to keep this law. This law does not apply to me. Why?

When I was born again, my spirit was regenerated. I am no longer a sinner. The transaction that took place was much deeper and much more than mere forgiveness of past sins, it was total regeneration of my spirit. My born again spirit does not desire to sin. If I walk in the Spirit, my spirit in agreement with the Holy Spirit, I will not have to worry about this law. One who is not an adulterer does not have to worry about keeping a law against adultery. This was the promise the law pointed to, having His laws written in our hearts.

Under the law, a man was guilty before God if he committed adultery. But what if he lived with lust for many women in his heart and mind all of his life? As long as he did not act on his lust he was legally free to lust. But what did Jesus say in Matthew 5. What made us think that simply avoiding the action of adultery was God's perfect standard anyway? His standard is His own righteousness, something that is totally unattainable by any effort of mankind. Avoiding adultery was never the standard. It is good and righteous to avoid adultery, but it was never a code of conduct that if kept somehow made us sexually pure before God. It was never God's standard of righteous conduct. It was, however, high enough a standard that people struggled to keep it in their own power and were convinced that they were not righteous and needed atonement.

A born again person, however, is convicted of lustful thoughts as they are inconsistent with the born again spirit made righteous by God. A born again person realizes these thoughts are inconsistent with the "law" of God written in his heart and desires to avoid not only adultery, but also lust. The law was made for the law breaker, not for a righteous man. 1 Tim. 1:8-10. I have been made righteous by Christ, 2 Cor. 5:21, under a new and living covenant, Heb. 10:20. We live and are righteous by the Spirit, not by the letter.

I am convinced that a man who truly realizes who he is in Christ and dies to self will live a far more holy life than even a Pharisee attempted to live because that man is governed by the life of the Holy Spirit. That man will live and act in accordance with who He has become, righteous and holy before God through the blood of Jesus Christ. No law is now necessary because the author of the law now live through him. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. The life I live in the body, I now live by the power and direction of the Holy Spirit.

S
sermonindex

"The law was given through Moses: grace and truth was realized through Jesus Christ." " For His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace." What the Law demands, grace supplies.

The contrast that John pointed out is expounded by Paul: " The law came in so that the transgressions would increase" and the way be prepared for the abounding of grace more exceedingly. The law points the way but gives no strength to walk in it. The law demands , but makes no provision for its demands being met. The law burdens and condemns and slays. It can awaken desire but cannot satisfy it. It can rouse to effort but cannot secure success. It can appeal to motives, but it gives no inward power beyond what man himself has. And so, while warring against sin, it became its very ally in giving the sinner over to hopeless condemnation. "The power of sin is the law." (1Cor 15:56) (The Two Covenants, Andrew Murray, page 98)

S
sermonindex

Why all this emphasis on Paul and converting the words he wrote through the Holy Spirit's directives into opinions or other people's commentaries.

Paul's writings do not even comprise .08 of the Bible.

Something is way out of kilter when we cannot even come to terms with the whole of scripture without seemingly contradicting the over emphasised less than 8% of the Bible.

Did Paul contradict Jesus?

No he did not; yet, if our rendition of what Paul is saying does not align with the other over 92% of the scriptures, we are wrong and our idea of what (we think is) scriptural doctrine is dead in the water.
------------------------------------------------------------

Giving scripture after scripture, pointing out the objects and subjects, meanings, verb tenses and so on seems to be going nowhere.

There will be no going back to chase rabbit trails running in so many circles.

See, virtually every arguement that is brought foreward against the differeng POV from here first of all, tends to leave Jesus out of the picture as the Who for the why the old covenant is merely ratified and not over, even as the Law is still intact.

Because there has been so much pre-occupation towards removing obstacles --(thing is, many times this has just been answers in different ways to repeated questions asked differently)-- this is just moving foreward too slowly for the time available here at present.

i really do not like debate; however, when whoever writes whatever that stands in contradiction to the whole of God's counsel, there will be little further movement foreward for that person or those who adhere to what is claimed. Faith in something that is not in alignment with what God actually says is no faith(fulness) towards God at all.

It's suggested, if there are doubts or questions regarding this POV---> (that this is 'new'
-as in formerly ignored until AD commented and i asked God-
to me, too.)

C
Christinyou

Mercy, Old Testament, forgives. Grace New Testament, Transforms. Animal sacrifice covers sin with mercy. Christ's sacrifice, transforms with new life.

In Christ: Phillip

C
Christinyou

This is what Jesus told Paul to teach His brethren, that the Father had, is and will give Him unto perfect salvation, unto a perfect man in Christ Jesus. No other person in the bible had this message. Paul makes it clear and this is what he preaches in all his epistles, The Mystery, Christ in you the Hope of Glory, who could not be born again in the believer until His resurrection, assention, and return, rebirthed in every believer, making this new life, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ Jesus, and also son's of God.

Colossians 1:23-29 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister; Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

This is why the circumcission hated Paul, and hating him also hating the Christ that was in him.

In Christ: Phillip

P
philologos

Why all this emphasis on Paul and converting the words he wrote through the Holy Spirit's directives into opinions or other people's commentaries.

Paul's writings do not even comprise .08 of the Bible.

Something is way out of kilter when we cannot even come to terms with the whole of scripture without seemingly contradicting the over emphasised less than 8% of the Bible.

Did Paul contradict Jesus?

No he did not; yet, if our rendition of what Paul is saying does not align with the other over 92% of the scriptures, we are wrong and our idea of what (we think is) scriptural doctrine is dead in the water.

You are not reckoning on the progressive nature of Biblical revelation.

S
sermonindex

Phillip,

i am not claiming anything in contradiction to Paul. i may write things that stand in contrast, yet these things do not conflict or God in His testimony is contradicting Himself.

We are on the same page on what you have written the last three pages except for two things:

1. Grace is the result of, and as such, flows from mercy.

God says "I would have mercy and not sacrafice...," and the ramifications to this seem infinite.

In this, grace and mercy contrast, yet they hardly stand in contradiction of one another.


2. When a stoning was done according to Jewish custom, it is the offended party that holds the garments of the legalists who think they are following God, but really are putting themselves under the Law, for God has said, "Judge not, and you shall not be judged," and again, "if we judge ourselves we shall not be judged," and again "forgive and you will be forgiven," and finally,"mercy shall be onto the one who shows mercy."

Paul was offended with Stephen's message, and although his instructor Gamaliel suggested it best (to the whole council of 70(+5) ) to leave the follower's of Jesus alone, Paul holding -as coat checker STS- the garments, (and so many that they were laid at Paul's feet,) indicates that he was heading up the vehement opposition to what Stephen through the inspiration of the Spirit of Christ had accused these Jewish leaders of having done.

Paul was not the exclusive recipient of the whole of the message he preached. The foundation of Paul's message was laid by Stephen.

God chose Paul to carry on where Stephen had left off.

Read Stephen's proclamation before his stoning, and consider the events that transpired during this. Then take the time to read the Pauline Epistles always considering what Paul says in relation to Stephen's last hour. Anyone doing this will clearly realize that most everything Paul taught is contained, in some way, shape, or form, in that very message Stephen preached.

If one looks closely, the specifics of exactly what it was that God gave revelation exclusively to Paul can be understood when all related to Stephens message is filtered out and considered seperately.

You have virtually nailed it completely on he head in your quote of Col. 1: 23-29, yet there is a bit more to it than that.

You have posted regarding the exact place God is currently directing me in study, having just completed Galatians.

What is continually being requested of God in this is to be able to see and tell others how Paul is not saying anything at all that contradicts the other over 92% of the Bible, instead of what Protestantism has degraded into:

a church that is no longer adhering to the philosophies and dictates from the world through either legalism or antinomianism, which are idolatry;
no longer coveting a way that is other than what God dictates as His absolute standard through the coming fullness of the New Covenant...
...where spirit and letter meet as one, as the grace of God is expressed in His Love: and Love is the Law;

...where mercy and grace walk hand in hand and the glory of Jesus Christ fills the universe as reality of His immortal magesty consumes all the heavens and the earth.

Our God is love, a consuming fire!

Glory to God forever and ever!

Amen!

S
sermonindex

by philologos on 2010/7/27 0:48:09


You are not reckoning on the progressive nature of Biblical revelation.
------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe you might not be doing this, as speaking in terms of the progressive nature of Biblical revelation, this is a consideration regarding linear time, past to present.

Who wrote first: Paul or John, Jude, and so on?

again:

Who is the beginning and the end?...yet John repeats in the book of Revelation the same message he gave in John14:15, 17, 21, 23 as in I John (particularily the start of chapter 5), in total agreement with Jesus as He proclaimed in the beginning and end of His Sermon on the Mount.

and finally:

God does not change.
Further revelation never (before Paul) contradicted anything that God formerly said or did. What would give any man the right to claim that God has changed through what he says or does afterwards?

More could be said about Peter and Jude and James, yet the clear evidence is that something is being misunderstood from Paul's message.


edited: for greater clarity

R
RainMan

Hebrews 8:6-20

6 But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said[a]:
"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.
9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."[b]

13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

R
rookie

travis wrote:

Under the law, a man was guilty before God if he committed adultery. But what if he lived with lust for many women in his heart and mind all of his life? As long as he did not act on his lust he was legally free to lust. But what did Jesus say in Matthew 5. What made us think that simply avoiding the action of adultery was God's perfect standard anyway? His standard is His own righteousness, something that is totally unattainable by any effort of mankind. Avoiding adultery was never the standard. It is good and righteous to avoid adultery, but it was never a code of conduct that if kept somehow made us sexually pure before God. It was never God's standard of righteous conduct. It was, however, high enough a standard that people struggled to keep it in their own power and were convinced that they were not righteous and needed atonement.

especially this point.....

t was, however, high enough a standard that people struggled to keep it in their own power and were convinced that they were not righteous and needed atonement.

......................................................................................................................
Psa 119:29\tRemove from me the way of lying, And grant me Your law graciously.

Psa 119:30\tI have chosen the way of truth; Your judgments I have laid before me.

Psa 119:31\tI cling to Your testimonies; O LORD, do not put me to shame!

Psa 119:32\tI will run the course of Your commandments, For You shall enlarge my heart.
.....................................................................................................................

Also

...................................................................................................................
.Psa 119:35\tMake me walk in the path of Your commandments, For I delight in it.

Psa 119:36\tIncline my heart to Your testimonies, And not to covetousness.

Psa 119:37\tTurn away my eyes from looking at worthless things, And revive me in Your way. [fn]
......................................................................................................................

Also

......................................................................................................................
Psa 119:44\tSo shall I keep Your law continually, Forever and ever.

Psa 119:45\tAnd I will walk at liberty, For I seek Your precepts.
........................................................................................................................

This man lived in a generation that was under the covenant given on Mount Sinai.

How does this man know that God's grace can free him from the curse of the law?

In CHrist
Jeff

R
rookie

What many fail to recognize or understand is that a God given faith, the promise given to Abraham and in all the generations that followed him is not anulled by the covenant given on Mount Sinai.

The promise of the Father is given through faith.

The law of God
......................................................................................................................
Mar 12:30\t'And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. [fn]


Mar 12:31\t"And the second, like it, is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
......................................................................................................................

can only be known through the grace of God that is given to man through faith. Man cannot obey the Law of God without the power of God.

Do you understand what God given faith does to a man?

In Christ
Jeff

T
twayneb

How does this man know that God's grace can free him from the curse of the law? In CHrist Jeff

Jeff: There were several men who lived under the old covenant who caught a true glimpse of the coming day of Christ and what His atonement would do. Two that come to mind specifically are Abraham and David.

Jesus said, "Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad." If you take all OT and NT scriptures pertaining to the promises and covenant God made with Abraham, you realize that Abraham's believing God and it being counted for righteousness was a seeing and believing of something far greater than simply, "OK, I believe we will have children." Abraham believed in the seed that would come through which atonement for sin would take place. God had, I believe through the covenant He made with Abraham and the testing of the covenant by the willingness of Abraham to offer his "only begotten son" that allowed God to reciprocate to legally keep His part of the covenant that, shown to Abraham what would be the end of this covenant, Jesus Christ and atonement for sin.

David was a man after God's heart. Why would this statement be made? I believe because David caught a glimpse of God's plan of atonement, of redemption through one sacrifice for all men for all time. How he caught hold of this I don't know other than that fact that David was himself prophetic. Many of his Psalms are very prophetic of Christ's coming and what would be accomplished.

P
philologos

More could be said about Peter and Jude and James, yet the clear evidence is that something is being misunderstood from Paul's message.

or something is being misunderstood about the whole nature of the scripture. The coming of Jesus Christ has changed everything. His death has inaugurated a New Covenant which is fulfilment of the prophecy of Jeremiah is 'not like' the Old Covenant.

The Old Covenant is now dead in the water. It is no longer in force; its blessings and curses which were specifically aimed at Israel are no longer operational. The New has come and the Old has gone. He took away the first so that he might establish the second.

A
ADisciple

Quote: "There were several men who lived under the old covenant who caught a true glimpse of the coming day of Christ and what His atonement would do."

And the writer of Ps. 119 was well aware of that... was aware that something was missing.

"Mine eyes fail for thy salvation, and for the word of thy righteousness" (Ps. 119.123).

P
philologos

One of the key words of Hebrews is 'better'. The writer expounds the New Covenant not by 'adding it' to the Old Covenant but by contrasting it to the Old Covenant.

for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. Hbr 7:19

The ministry of the New Covenant is better than that of the Old Covenant because it has a different kind of priest. During the time when the Levitical priesthood was functioning David prophesied that God would bring in another priesthood.

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. Heb 8:6

It is a better covenant because it is based on better promises and because it is serviced by a better high priest who is operating under a better priesthood.

For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, 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: Heb 8:7,8

If the first (Sinai) Covenant had been perfect it would not have been replaced. But the writer carefully points out the problem with the Old Covenant when it says God 'found fault with them' - not with 'it'. The weakness of the Old Covenant was caused by the members of 'the house of Israel and the house of Judah'.

I don't know how much more plainly the writer could have shown that the the 'first covenant' has been superseded by 'the second'.

Writing somewhere round about 64 AD the writer goes on to say…

In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Heb 8:13

Less than a decade had passed before the Old Covenant last vestiges were swept away in the destruction of the temple and its Levitical ceremonies. The Old Covenant cannot function without a Levitical priesthood. The prediction of Heb 8:13 was tragically fulfilled. The Old Covenant now only exists in the minds of some men and women. Even if its outer ceremonials were recreated it would just be an elaborate fake. It had always had a specific shelf life…

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Gal 3:19

…it was added… until… The Seed,says Paul categorically, is Christ.

The Old Covenant was a parenthesis is the unfolding drama of redemption.

R
RainMan

Carrying on from hebrews 7 and 8
Here are just a few scriptures to ponder

Galatians 4:21-31

21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.

24 These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:
"Be glad, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud,
you who have no labor pains;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband."[b]

28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now.

30 But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son."[c]

31 Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.


Ephesians 2:12-15

12 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. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.

14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace

Romans 7

1Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
Struggling With Sin
7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[b] 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

R
RobertW

Continuing on with our original subject, just to rehash, God is bringing many sons unto glory. He has never swerved from His plan to make man in His image and likeness.

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. (II Peter 1:4)

Notice the context of this passage:


Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: (II Peter 1:2, 3)

The source of the promises is Jesus Christ. Perhaps equally so, 'the revelation of Jesus Christ.' It was not until Jesus Christ came into this world, died and rose again that the fulness of the promises were even possible. Notice this passage:

At that day ye shall know that I [am] in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. (John 14:19)

This was a future event. This is the great summary of the New Covenant, "ye in me, and I in you." This is what makes being a new creature possible. We are born 'in Adam', but we are born from above 'in Jesus Christ.' Therefor if any man be 'in' Christ...

The Old Covenant simply could not take us to the place and do what was done at that day (when) ye shall know that I [am] in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

R
redbaileyboy

The TRUTH of the NEW Covenant is Christ Himself! Just as HIS lovingkindness is new every morning,so is his presence, as he is the same yesterday,today and forever.

We are NEW creatures with a NEW nature under a New convenant of HIS love and grace! Life truly is a New adventure with the beginning of each NEW day!

In Christ Jesus, we can never have more and we should never enjoy less!

"Contentment is realizng that in Christ we have all we need"

Glenn

R
rookie

Travis wrote:

God had, I believe through the covenant He made with Abraham and the testing of the covenant by the willingness of Abraham to offer his "only begotten son" that allowed God to reciprocate to legally keep His part of the covenant that, shown to Abraham what would be the end of this covenant, Jesus Christ and atonement for sin.

The example of Abraham's life is given to us so that we might understand how a God given faith enabled Abraham to obey God's commandment.

We find this testimony of how Abraham had come to trust the Lord with his only Son.

.......................................................................................................................
Hbr 11:17\tBy faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

Hbr 11:18\tof whom it was said, "In Isaac your seed shall be called," [fn]

Hbr 11:19\tconcluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.
.....................................................................................................................

You see that Abraham "concluding that God was able" is the key to this testing. During the course of Abraham's life, we see that God first speaks to Abraham and expects a response. Because Abraham did what God asked of him, (belief equals obedience), he was able to actually experience the faithfulness of God. God proved to Abraham that His word is stayed and true.
So after years of interacting with God, Abraham could "conclude" that God's covenant would always be true for him. This example is given to us so that we too might recognize what a "God given faith" can overcome in our own lives.


But that is a side issue in my question.

Do you see that the man who wrote Psalm 119 could also expect that God through His Holy Spirit enable him to overcome lying and covetousness?

This man's testimony states with confidence like Abraham that God would enable this man to.....
.......................................................................................................................Psa 119:44\tSo shall I keep Your law continually, Forever and ever.

Psa 119:45\tAnd I will walk at liberty, For I seek Your precepts.
.......................................................................................................................

Is this man's testimony, inspired by the Holy Spirit, delusional or true?

In Christ
Jeff

S
sermonindex

Obedience to Torah is something Jesus expects and Paul did not mince words about it either:

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision nothing, but (what matters is) keeping God's commandments-and-precepts.
I Cor. 7:19
(trans-literated fr. gk)

Through this verse, amongst several others, we see that Paul never advocated breaking God's prescribed way to live in love towards God and our neighbor.

It's sad to see teachers who say the Law is abolished when Jesus said it would not be done with until everything in the Prophets had been fulfilled and heaven and earth passed away.

It tears me up inside to see so many deluded souls who tell others that the Old Covenant is abolished.

Jesus gave specific details as to when this would happen, and that time has not yet come---> Rev. 19.10.

To how many will Jesus declare on that day "depart from me, i never knew you, you law-breaker?"

Why are so many confused about the NT's references to the Law?

Though i may never piece it all together congruently...
though i may never fully understand...
though i will never in this life be able to abide by all of it...
...is that any reason to avoid it?

You certainly will never come closer to understanding God's Law by running from it. Jesus said to keep it, not run from it.

How will you observe and keep what you do not know?

Do you really Love Jesus?
Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments."


Some fail to understand Paul's writings as a comprehensive whole, so they choose what they like and ignore the rest.

Why do some only adhere to what scriptures support their way of thinking and ignore the rest?
(Is this what faith(fulness) towards God is all about?)


Some say and think "well let's move foreward," yet the verses that Paul used to claim the validity of what God expects through His written code of conduct are ignored, or won't hardly mention John and Peter and James and Jude wherever law-biding is mentioned (except to prove that you can't be righteous by keeping the Law), and then: slap God in the face by not even giving credit to the Author and Finisher of our Faith when he says: all the Law shall not pass away til heaven and earth do and "if you will see eternal life, keep the commandments/precepts.
(What kind of faith is that?)

What's wrong with that picture?

Teaching others that you disregard obeying our Father's rules for good living, then telling others that they can just ignore what God has given for our benefit is like biting the Hand that feeds you. At it's best, it is turning your back on God's designed way to live in love.

Some top it off by avoiding what Jesus taught and promised those who disobeyed.

Well, turning a blind eye will not change the facts. Ignoring God's rules towards living will not make them go away.

It is wholeheartedly agreed with anybody who has stated that there is nothing in the Law that makes us right(oeus) before God; however, since Jesus says it is still valid, it does serve other purposes besides what most who post to this thread are over-emphasising.

You know, there is a good reason God provided the teachings (aka:Torah), and he never expected any fallen human to attain rightoeusness through it. (This is the reason he has always provided a proxy sacrafice to suffer the consequences to our 'missing the mark.')

God's Law is not legalism, neither is following His lead in it.

Legalism is when we think that by doing anything other than what God prescribes towards Covenant in Him we are making a way for ourselves into God's favor. It is by thinking that we can do anything through our own efforts to please God, that we walk legalistically...and there are alot of folks bound in legalism that do not keep one bit of God's code of conduct.


Much of what has been proclaimed on this thread is a comprehensive misunderstanding of the fact that the Old Covenant actually was never abolished, but made more valid, more real through Jesus' Sacrafice.

The old is fading: yes!, but hardly has it been abolished. It will not come to completion then accordingly pass away for quite some time either.

How much this will have to be repeated remains to be seen:

to be "under the law" is in reference to "the curse of the law," and in Jesus' annointing, we do not come under the Law's curse as we are then not walking in the flesh.

People who say they are only under or of grace are missing the point.

The Law of God is His grace revealed to those he has chosen to reign with Him: kings and preists of His holy nation...

...or would you prefer to hear: "LEAVE ME LAW-BREAKER!"


Romans 8:
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

To claim that you are not under (the curse of the) Law is to claim that you are always walking in the Spirit, right???

Now look at the Romans 8 verses re-versed, just to get a better perspective on what is actually being said there:

They that live according to the flesh concern themselves with satisfying the flesh. They that are in the flesh cannot please God because their carnal mind is at war against God: those who walk after the flesh are condemned for to be carnally minded is death.

What the Law could not do because of the weakness of our flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and (by a sacrafice) for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteousness of the Law could be fulfilled in us who walk after the Spirit: for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus who walk according to the Spirit.


The Spirit of the Law long ago provided the letter of the Law.

The more your life conforms to walking as Jesus walked, the more closely you live in the Spirit, the more the Law will be recognizable in your life.

God only gave one standard of righteousness: taking up your cross and dying daily, and living your life in the Spirit of Jesus Christ's resurrection power.

God gave us a standard of conduct: conformity to the image of Jesus Christ. Jesus never said, "just do what i say and don't do as i do." Jesus kept the spirit and letter of the Law, told us to do the same, and provided the means, that we, in Him, might accomplish this.

You be imitators of God, just like dearly loved children:
For the grace of God bringing salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all law-breaking, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

~Ephesians 5:1 in affiliation with Titus 2:11-14


Faith, Hope, and Love,
gregg

edited: for too many resons worth listing

R
rookie

Robert wrote"

The Old Covenant simply could not take us to the place and do what was done at that day (when) ye shall know that I [am] in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Only the covenant made 430 years before the Mount Sinai covenant enables man to be known by God. It is only by Faith.

Why do many fail to consider how God imputes faith into a man?

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

RainMan quoted Hebrews 8:6-20

specifically:

9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

Have you seen that God only gave the Covenant of Mount Sinai to Israel after they rejected Him while still in Egypt?
.......................................................................................................................
Eze 20:5\t"Say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD: "On the day when I chose Israel and raised My hand in an oath to the descendants of the house of Jacob, and made Myself known to them in the land of Egypt, I raised My hand in an oath to them, saying, 'I am the LORD your God.'

Eze 20:6\t"On that day I raised My hand in an oath to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt into a land that I had searched out for them, 'flowing with milk and honey,' the glory of all lands.

Eze 20:7\t"Then I said to them, 'Each of you, throw away the abominations which are before his eyes, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.'

Eze 20:8\t"But they rebelled against Me and would not obey Me. They did not all cast away the abominations which were before their eyes, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt. Then I said, 'I will pour out My fury on them and fulfill My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.'

Eze 20:9\t"But I acted for My name's sake, that it should not be profaned before the Gentiles among whom they were, in whose sight I had made Myself known to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt.

Eze 20:10\t"Therefore I made them go out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness.

Eze 20:11\t"And I gave them My statutes and showed them My judgments, 'which, if a man does, he shall live by them.' [fn]

Eze 20:12\t"Moreover I also gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between them and Me, that they might know that I am the LORD who sanctifies them.
.......................................................................................................................

So we see first the Covenant made to Abraham, in which God speaks this way to Abraham:

......................................................................................................................
Gen 17:7\t"And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.
......................................................................................................................

In the covenant made with Abraham, this covenant not only was made with Abraham but also to Abraham's descendants beginning with Isaac and every generation that followed Isaac. This covenant is an "everlasting covenant" in which God promise to "be God to ....your descendants..."

We know from Paul's teaching that this covenant contains the "promise." And that the "promise" was extended to Abraham as well as us in this generation. This promise is that God would be God to us in an everlasting covenant.

Going back to Ezekiel 20:5, we see that God extends once again "the everlasting covenant" to the generation living in Egypt. And then the Scriptures declare that God called upon them to cast off the idols of Egypt. We see that Scriptures states that this generation did not obey God. We see then that Scriptures state that God thought to destroy that generation. We see then that Scriptures states that God then relented and still brought them out of Egypt. We seen then that Scriptures states that then God gave them the "Old Covenant" which the book of Hebrews is citing in the section you have quoted from.

Based on Ezekiel 20, why did God see the need to "spell out" to Israel what God expected of them?

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

Mar 12:29\tJesus answered him, "The first of all the commandments is: 'Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Mar 12:30\t'And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. [fn]

Mar 12:31\t"And the second, like it, is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these.
.........................................................................................................................

Does Paul teach that the commandments in the above section of Scripture are annulled by the New Covenant?

In Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

by redbaileyboy on 2010/7/27 20:43:36

The TRUTH of the NEW Covenant is Christ Himself! Just as HIS lovingkindness is new every morning,so is his presence, as he is the same yesterday,today and forever.

This is a theme that I am glad to see brought up.

I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; Is 42:6

Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages; Is 49:8

In both of these verse from Isaiah, which are clearly messianic, Christ himself is described as The Covenant. The scripture describes him as the mediator of the covenant but that is not the whole story; he is the personification of the Covenant.

When scripture speaks of the blood of Christ it is referring to 'the life that is in the blood' which was poured out in atoning sacrifice at Calvary. The Sinai Covenant was declared but not in force until the blood of animals was shed and sprinkled on people and book and altar. That covenant was ratified with the words of Moses...

And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled [it] on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words. Ex 24:8

Christ consciously echoed these words in the upper room when he said...

Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. Lu 22:20

The Covenant was manifested in his life and that life was poured out in atoning sacrifice. It is only as we are connected with that sacrifice and that life that the New Covenant becomes operational in the life of the believer.


We are NEW creatures with a NEW nature under a New convenant of HIS love and grace! Life truly is a New adventure with the beginning of each NEW day!

but this is only true if it is true. It is not true because we have understood it or read it in the scripture but when his life has been imparted to us by the Spirit that the New Covenant becomes a reality in our lives. It it only true when we are 'in Christ' and that not as a theological statement but a living experience.

P
philologos

by rookie on 2010/7/27 22:24:30

In the covenant made with Abraham, this covenant not only was made with Abraham but also to Abraham's descendants beginning with Isaac and every generation that followed Isaac. This covenant is an "everlasting covenant" in which God promise to "be God to ....your descendants..."

The Abrahamic covenant needed to be renewed in every generation. It is specifically renewed with Isaac and Jacob. Hence he is the God of Abraham AND Isaac AND Jacob.

R
RobertW

{quote]Jeff's: Why do many fail to consider how God imputes faith into a man?

I don't view faith in that way. Faith is my response to God when He reveals His will.

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17)

I'm not just talking about scripture verses. I'm referring to God specifically speaking forth His word to my heart in real time. Jesus said it like so:

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word (ῥήματι ) that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)

Man is to live by every word that 'is proceeding' from the mouth of God. How? Don't we need God to generate faith in us? Are we not utterly dead to respond to God?

For with God nothing shall be impossible. (Luke 1:37)

Notice what this verse really says:

For with God no 'word' shall be impossible. The word 'nothing' in the KJV is the same root as ῥήματι in Matthew 4:4 (root rhema) and means 'word'. When God speaks the word itself carries with it the ability to accomplish what God is saying. In other words the word spoken by God contains the grace to do what God is saying. When God speaks things become possible that were not possible before.

The difference between faith and flesh or faith and sin has to do with these facts. Faith is right response to God's spoken word (His quickened word). When God speaks- 'faith cometh.' Galatians described children of the flesh by using the example of Ishmael. Ishmael was the consequence of response to a different revelation than what God had said. God had indeed spoken, but Sarah spoke also.

And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. (Genesis 16:2)

God revealed His will and Sarah offered an 'alternate' option. The result? It was an act of the FLESH. It was NOT an act of faith. Isaac was Abraham responding to the promise of God. Ishmael was Abraham responding to the voice of Sarah.

And this is what characterizes the New Covenant believer- they HEAR what 'GOD' is saying in real time and are led by the Spirit of God in a life of faith. They hearken to GOd not some alternate 'word' or 'suggestion' or 'idea'.

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. (Romans 8:25ff)

It is impossible to improve on God's revelation of His will. This is critical to understand. We are helpless to please God except to do what He has said. Without God speaking there can be no faith and without faith it is impossible to please God. To move in our own will and seek to please God from our own will and mind when God has not spoken is presumption. This is NOT what Jesus revealed as our example. The level of direction in the life of Jesus Christ was amazing. In fact He stated-

Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. (John 8:28ff)

Christ is our example. His life was characterized by being led of the Spirit. He was not moving in His own will- He was moving in the will of the Father at all times. The devil tried to tempt Him to divert from this path and Jesus would not so much as convert stones to bread without having clear direction from the Father. Obedience is better esteemed with God than acquired knowledge, it is the most important lesson -fundamental to the gaining of all spiritual knowledge from God. (GW North)

If we truly BELIEVE God and respond RIGHTLY to what He has said - it is 'faith'. This is what the people of Nineveh found. They did not need commentary. They believed and reacted. This is faith. The GROUND of our faith is God's conviction 'that we mean it' when we respond. God is watching and He has to be able to believe us. We can't fake God out.

The key to God's will being done in earth and it is in heaven is that we HEAR and respond rightly and convincingly. When the angels hear God's will they don't hesitate or rationalize it- they react. They do it! They don't believe and tremble as do the devils- they believe and OBEY because to them there is no other option. They don't 'halt between two opinions.' They are moving on the words of their King.

R
RainMan

“Christ is our example. His life was characterized by being led of the Spirit. He was not moving in His own will- He was moving in the will of the Father at all times. The devil tried to tempt Him to divert from this path and Jesus would not so much as convert stones to bread without having clear direction from the Father. Obedience is better esteemed with God than acquired knowledge, it is the most important lesson -fundamental to the gaining of all spiritual knowledge from God.” –Robert

That is kinda where ive been trying to allude to with so many word lol.

For those would rather read the scripture references first and take to time to pray over these scriptures with the view to the spirit increasing the revealation of what remarkable work Christ has done for us i have pasted a couple of references below. No matter how many times i have read Gods i always see something new. For me knowledge of God is koinoia and intimate fellowship with him that produces fruit in our lives.

Hebrews 7,8,9 Eph 2:15, Romans 7,8 Galatians 3,4,5 , 2Co3, Col 2

Read the following as an article and post any response also as a PM. Please read with an open heart and pray over what you are about to read.

I am fan of Paul for a number of reasons. Primarily his ability to expound upon mysteries of the old covenant in light of the new. Pauls exegesis (Spirit led exegesis) is a standard to us all. If my understanding of covenant theology does not line up with that expressed directly as an exposition by an apostle I throw it away and start again in prayer.


an Example would be when he says "No adulterer will inherit the kingdom of God" if i am an adulterer then can i claim eternal security of the saints because i professed with my lips christ is lord? I could look to other scriptures that say we are all sinners and try and justify human frailty. But as much as i dance around the theological implication of my adultery the scripture clearly articulates that i will have no place in Gods kingdom.

In the light of such an example i will try to re iterate to the best of my limited ability what paul taught about covenant theology with regards to the New vs The Old i.e. continuation or new covenant.

Continuation Theology

Gods ultimate desire in his covenants is that he would be our God and we would be his people. This objective has never changed. Gods nature has not changed either he is still the same God. The blessing of abraham is justification through faith. God set out a paln to be a covenant God to humanity that started with Abraham was legalized in the letter of the law with mosses and ended in Christ. The objective was always Christ. Thats why he swore it would be an "everlasting covenant" or as i like to see it a "covenant of eternity" we often think that "everlasting" means Gods methodology of the covenant is everlasting but it is not the methodology but the relationship between God and his people that is everlasting as you can read in Hebrews 9. In Hebrews 7 paul talks about this change of methodology by first illuminating of the change of priesthood that is required because of the mediation of a new convenant.

So many of the questions we ask are in the new testament as plain as day and they have been expounded upon for us.

In Hebrews 7 and 8 the writer talks about a change of priesthood from the levitical priesthood of the torah to that of Christ. In 8 he says Jesus is a mediator of a much better covenant. God promised in Ezekiel he would “cut” a "new covenant" that would not be according to the old also it would have better promises. Before Looking at Hebrews 9.

Question
What is the purpose of the law for new testament belivers?

Galatians 3:22-27
22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.
[24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[a] that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. ]
26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Answer : The law was suppose to lead us to Christ. All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for our education in the knowledge[instruction] of God.

*Now that faith has come we are no longer under the law*

Question
Are we supposed to completely disregard the torah?
No!!!!
The new testament doesnt say we are to ignore it says its our teacher. When we walk in the spirit we will fulfil the law. When we love God and mankind we fulfil the law automatically. The numerous laws of the Torah are fufilled with one commandment

Christ has paid the price and the Holy spirit enables us to walk in love which in turn fulfill the law.

Question
Jesus said not one thing will pass from the law until it is all fulfilled. Are the righteous requirements of the law fulfilled when we walk in the spirit and are lead of God?

John 19:30
30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, [tel-eh'-o]"It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
When jesus said tel-eh'-o he did’nt mean his ordeal was over. Some say he meant hus work as now complete (I agree). But as he had not yet been raised from the dead. The logical implication is that the debt of sin had been paid in full.
In those days when a contract was satisfactorily completed it would be marked as ‘tel-eh'-o’
tel-eh'-o: to end, that is, complete, execute, conclude, discharge (a debt): - accomplish, make an end, expire, fill up, finish, go over, pay, perform.
The whole essence of the New covenant God promised in Ezekiel is that the Torah is no longer written on Stone, parchment, or PDF files it is now written in our hearts by the Spirit that inspired the torah and we have been empowered by the same Spirit to walk in love and fulfil the laws of God by walking in the Spirit not by walking in the flesh because the flesh results in death.

Question
What was Pauls direct opinion of living by the letter as opposed to living by the Spirit?
2 Co 3
4Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. 5Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6He has made us competent as ministers of [a new covenant]—not of the [letter =(Torah)] (by implication torah) but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
(When crossed reference with Romans we see that the very purpose of the law is that all men stand condemned before God not that anyone can be justified by it. )
[ 7Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses ]
(Torah)

because of its glory, fading though it was, 8will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!
10For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the *surpassing glory*.

11And if what was *fading away* came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!
12Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away.

14But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.

15Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect[a] the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
Torah =death
Spirit = life
The writer of Hebrews 9 delves in a bit deeper
Hebrews 9
Worship in the Earthly Tabernacle
1Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover.[a] But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.
6When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
The Blood of Christ
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,[b] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
16In the case of a will,[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."[e] 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

To break Gods law in the new testament is to walk in the flesh and not in the Spirit. It is to have no true love for God and his people. Lawlessness is

The torah in the words of #Paul was the school master God uses to bring people to Christ. Christ walked on the earth as the law incarnate Romans 7. The Law became flesh and came to the very bride he was married to Israel who was unfaithful to him. He said hey you were unfaithful to your husband and that us punishable by death. But I will die in your stead. When he died on the cross he the adultery of his bride was paid for and she was released from the marriage. When he resurrected his marriage became to all those who believe both Jew and gentile. This is the summary of ROMANS 7
The Spirit causes us to walk upright before God. The Torah was never able to produce that
Some will say that’s just Paul but I wont paste the scripture but peter said “His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.”
Divine dunamis=Holy Spirit


Question other than paying for sin did the cross achieve anything else?

Ephesians 2:15

15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,

Colossians 2:13-14

13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature,[a] God made you[b] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

Summary
Galatians 5:18-23
18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Being under the law produces fruits of the Flesh but being led by the Spirit produces fruits of the Spirit.


Stay Blessed

[edited for clarity]


P
philologos

by RainMan on 2010/7/28 8:10:32

Are we supposed to completely disregard the torah?
No!!!!
The new testament doesnt say we are to ignore it says its our teacher. When we walk in the spirit we will fulfil the law. When we love God and mankind we fulfil the law automatically. The numerous laws of the Torah are fufilled with one commandment

No, it doesn't. Paul writing as a Jew in Galatians says

Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. Gal 3:24,25

that says quite plainly that for a Jew in Christ, the law is no longer his tutor/paedogogos.

Rainman, I am not sure which translation you are using but it is taking some liberties with the text.

R
RainMan

"Rainman, I am not sure which translation you are using but it is taking some liberties with the text."

forgive me if i wasnt clear in what i was saying but If you follow the chain of thought down you will see Gal 3:24,25 is part of the text i posted.

I have not implied that the law is still supposed to be our teacher after we (Jew/Gentile) have come to Christ. What i am saying is all scripture is inspired for our education and so we cant simply divide our bible in half and throw one half away. The summary was not we are still in bondage to the law the scriptures i posted to the exposition. Any text or paraphrasing done by me is not exposition of scripture its simply ongoing commentary so its easier to read thorough. its the spirit of what i am trying to articulate not the letter of it ignore my commentary and read just the scriptures and you will see what i am saying

R
rookie

Robert wrote:

I don't view faith in that way. Faith is my response to God when He reveals His will.

What I mean by impute is the same as you have written of in this post. God must initiate the interaction, He must first speak, before I choose to do. Without Him speaking, I am left to the weakness of my own mind. Without Him speaking I can not know what pleases Him. Without Him speaking, I am lost in my own vain imagination.

For with God no 'word' shall be impossible. The word 'nothing' in the KJV is the same root as ῥήματι in Matthew 4:4 (root rhema) and means 'word'. When God speaks the word itself carries with it the ability to accomplish what God is saying. In other words the word spoken by God contains the grace to do what God is saying.

Yes this is true. So why, when I ask many here on this thread, to read the testimony of a man who gives us a detailed view of what you are speaking of, no one admits or recognizes that the man who wrote Psalm 119 is our example of the New Life of which you speak?

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

Christ is our example. His life was characterized by being led of the Spirit. He was not moving in His own will- He was moving in the will of the Father at all times.

Christ has always been our example, from Adam onward. Job who lived during Abraham's time knew Christ.

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

I have not yet seen anyone seek to answer this question...

We are called to Love God and our neighbor according to the words Christ pointed to in the OT. Have these two commandments passed away?


You see we have another "predicament"

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

Rainman

You are correct in what you said of the Scriptures. We cannot cut the word of God in two.

You are also correct in that Christ's work in us through the Holy Spirit does fulfill the law. From the very beginning of this thread, there a those who do not see or understand the depth of this truth.

Christ is always pleased when we allow the Holy Scriptures to have it's ways in our lives.

In Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

by RainMan on 2010/7/28 8:44:30

What i am saying is all scripture is inspired for our education and so we cant simply divide our bible in half and throw one half away.

I don't think anyone has suggested this, I certainly haven't. The question is not the inspiration of the scripture but the interpretation. I believe it is essential that we interpret the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament. The NT and the writings of Paul and others in that canon provide the definitive exposition of the Old Testament.

I spend as much time in the Old Testament as I do in the New. I created a Bible Reading programme designed to do just that.

Tyndale, quoting Luther, in his prologue to the letter to the Romans says

"foreasmuch as this epistle is the principal and most excellent part of the new testament, and most pure evangelion, that is to say glad tidings and that we call gospel, and also a light and a way into the whole scripture..."

that last clause is Luther, endorsed by Tyndale, telling us that the letter to the Romans is a light and a way into the whole scripture. The letter to the Romans is the best possible introduction to the OLD TESTAMENT.

P
philologos

by rookie on 2010/7/28 9:19:06

We are called to Love God and our neighbor according to the words Christ pointed to in the OT. Have these two commandments passed away?

I am not sure why this would be considered a predicament as you call it.

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Gal 5:14

'thou shalt love' in Greek is literally one word...Ἀγαπήσεις

We fulfil the law of Christ not by endeavouring to keep the commandments as prescribed in Exodus 20 but by love. In so doing we fulfil the righteous requirement of the law without being subject to the law.

R
RobertW

We are called to Love God and our neighbor according to the words Christ pointed to in the OT. Have these two commandments passed away?


You see we have another "predicament"

Men are also told to love their wives as their own bodies. I'm sure the wife would desire to be loved on the basis of the man's own desire and 'not' out of a commandment. The thing that the New Testament brings to the table is God working in us both to will and to do His good pleasure. We don't love God merely because we are commanded to- we love God because we want to. Likewise we don't return to sin because God commanded us NOT to- we don't return to sin because we don't want to. That's the difference. We have what the old timers used to call, "the expulsive power of a new affection."

R
RainMan

"I believe it is essential that we interpret the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament. The NT and the writings of Paul and others in that canon provide the definitive exposition of the Old Testament."

I most certainly agree old chap on the issue of old testament exposition being done in the new. I think allot of confusion results when words like covenant and testament are interchanged. I see events up until Malachi as pre new testament and events up until the death and resurrection as pre new covenant. Often if this subtle difference is not understood then the result can be misunderstanding. Thought testament and covenant are the same thing i look at the cross as the start of the new covenant.

Starting in the new testament and going back to the old will certainly open our eyes to the numerous types and shadows through time that point to Christ and this is remarkable. In fact like most of people i in fact do love the old testament and often read it in the illuminating light of the New testament. Like a wise guy said all revelation should point to Christ. All Rhema we have should point to and glorify Christ and not ourselves. like the old hymn says "in your church lord be glorified" The very Spirit of God within us glorifies Christ and nothing else.


I think we are agreed on many things in closing "The NT and the writings of Paul and others in that canon provide the definitive exposition of the Old Testament." this somes up my sentiments exactly. I dont think anyone is saying burn the law and the prophets. A litmus test i use is to do an exposition on something like faith from the old testament and compare it to and Hebrews 11 and other new testament exposition this has helped me to rid myself of myself in exposition. But thank God he didnt leave us comfortless and has blessed us with a counselor that knows his way around scripture.

This is an interesting subject area for me anyway and i apologist if any of my postings have been construed as contentious in any way.

S
sermonindex

Robert writes.......

"Men are also told to love their wives as their own bodies. I'm sure the wife would desire to be loved on the basis of the man's own desire and 'not' out of a commandment. The thing that the New Testament brings to the table is God working in us both to will and to do His good pleasure. We don't love God merely because we are commanded to- we love God because we want to. Likewise we don't return to sin because God commanded us NOT to- we don't return to sin because we don't want to. That's the difference. We have what the old timers used to call, "the expulsive power of a new affection."

This is really the essence of the NC. I have followed this thread with interest. I think the simple truth of the New Covenant can get lost in the " weeds,' of much explaining. Yet what Robert has written above captures the true essence of what God has done.

The reason I have followed it with such interest is because I believe that this very subject is the major stumbling block to revival in America. Onlhy wen men realize that they cannot fulfill the commandmentsm will they come to Jesus who can. Yet, when you come to Him He will require your whole heart, holding nothing back. Come to the end of yourself, as in Romans 7 and you are ready to enter into the fullness of God.........brother Frank

P
philologos

appolus on 2010/7/28 15:11:17 wrote...
"The reason I have followed it with such interest is because I believe that this very subject is the major stumbling block to revival in America. "

I have long held the view that what we have called revival is simply a return to the pristine power and life of the New Covenant.

R
rookie

Robert wrote:

The thing that the New Testament brings to the table is God working in us both to will and to do His good pleasure. We don't love God merely because we are commanded to- we love God because we want to.

You are correct, man cannot love God according to the law. Also we cannot love our wives or our neighbor if all that we have is the letter of the law. It is impossible for man according to Scripture to satisfy the law of God.

With that said, do you believe the following Scripture defines God's requirements of man?
...........................................................
Mar 12:29 Jesus answered him, "The first of all the commandments is: 'Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Mar 12:30 'And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. [fn]

Mar 12:31 "And the second, like it, is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
.........................................................

Do you believe that Jesus enables us to satisfy this law?

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

philologos wrote:

"I believe it is essential that we interpret the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament. The NT and the writings of Paul and others in that canon provide the definitive exposition of the Old Testament."

Paul is our prime example of how to properly interpret the OT in the light of the new. Here is a perfect example.

Paul writes in Roman 1:
.........................................................
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Rom 1:21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Rom 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,

Rom 1:25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
..........................................................

This is that below

...........................................................
Pro 1:20 Wisdom calls aloud outside; She raises her voice in the open squares.

Pro 1:21 She cries out in the chief concourses, [fn] At the openings of the gates in the city She speaks her words:

Pro 1:22 "How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, And fools hate knowledge.

Pro 1:23 Turn at my rebuke; Surely I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you.

Pro 1:24 Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded,

Pro 1:25 Because you disdained all my counsel, And would have none of my rebuke,

Pro 1:26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your terror comes,

Pro 1:27 When your terror comes like a storm, And your destruction comes like a whirlwind, When distress and anguish come upon you.

Pro 1:28 "Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me.

Pro 1:29 Because they hated knowledge And did not choose the fear of the LORD,

Pro 1:30 They would have none of my counsel And despised my every rebuke.

Pro 1:31 Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way, And be filled to the full with their own fancies.
...........................................................

Is this an example of Paul's use of the OT in the explaination of the New?

In Christ
jeff

S
sermonindex

Brother Ron writes.....

"I have long held the view that what we have called revival is simply a return to the pristine power and life of the New Covenant."

Amen brother, I could not agree more. When the ministers of condemnation become the ministers of righteousness and glory then we will see those who dwell in their cells turn and realize that the door has been opened, the way has been made, freedom is just a few steps away. To walk from the dimness of their prison cells to the glorious light of the New Covenant will ruin them for life. All it takes to walk those few steps and push on through the door? Complete surrender, God wants our whole hearts. Once He has our whole hearts we can do all things through Christ. Ah but there's the rub. Are we willing to love God more than husband or wife, son or daughter, mother or father? Are we willing to love God more than our bank books? More than our churches, our countries, our reputations? When the Lord gets a hold of a few people who are willing to surrender all, He can use these little loaves and fishes and He can feed the multitude and turn the hearts of the people towards Him.

And all of this I would say, not to the "lost,' but to the majority who fill the pews of western churches every Sunday.

2Co 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: 2Co 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
2Co 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.

So we see that there are ministers of death and of condemnation. Then there are ministers who can say this...... For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Cor 4:5,6)

So the question would be to all ministers......Has the almighty God shone a light in your heart? Have you basked in the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus? Has it ruined you for life? Can you say with the prophet....

"I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.
Isa 6:2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.
Isa 6:3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.
Isa 6:4 And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.
Isa

Directly after this encounter, the prophet repents of his state. The people who call themselves after the name of God need an encounter with the living God that will shine a light into the deepest parts of their soul and it will ruin them forever. God will be found by those who seek Him with their whole hearts..........brother Frank

A
ADisciple

"I have long held the view that what we have called revival is simply a return to the pristine power and life of the New Covenant."

I say Amen to that as well.

Paul called the Law a "ministration of death" (2 Cor. 3.7). A very strong statement.

Yet the New Covenant, if it is not more than the letter, is no different! "The letter killeth," he said.

We are, supposedly, in the days of the dispensation of the New Covenant. But how much that goes over the pulpit these days is nothing more than the letter of the New Covenant... and therefore, really no different from the Old?

...And in fact, if it is just "the letter" that goes forth, even if it's from the pages of our New Testament... it is NOT the New Covenant.

The difference, Paul says, is "the Spirit."

"...Who also hath made us able ministers of the New Covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit: for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life."

R
RobertW

Do you believe that Jesus enables us to satisfy this law?

I believe that if a person is in Christ and walking in the Spirit they will by nature fulfill the law. Being in Christ and Christ in me makes this possible. Being in Christ makes me dead to Sin. But key to this I think is found here:

And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. (Romans 5:5)

The love of God is poured out in the hearts of the regenerate. This is something the Law could not do. It could command me to love, but it did not deal with old Adam that was working in me to hate. Jesus Christ dealt with old Adam and if I am in Him I share in what He has done. This enables one to Love as God desires us to love. This is the love that Stephen demonstrated. He loved to the very end.

P
philologos

rookie on 2010/7/28 16:58:19 wrote...

Is this an example of Paul's use of the OT in the explaination of the New?

No, it isn't. This is an example of you using an OT passage to illustrate a NT truth. Paul makes no mention of this passage in Rom 1.

This is an example...
1 “Sing, O barren,
You who have not borne!
Break forth into singing, and cry aloud,
You who have not labored with child!
For more are the children of the desolate
Than the children of the married woman,” says the LORD. Is 54

26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written:

“ Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”[e] Gal 4

In this passage Paul takes a passage which we would have interpreted to mean one thing, earthly Jerusalem rebuilt, and expounds it to bring a definitive interpretation of what the passage was pointing to. It had pointed to the New Jerusalem not a refurbished Old Jerusalem.

R
rookie

No, it isn't. This is an example of you using an OT passage to illustrate a NT truth. Paul makes no mention of this passage in Rom 1.

Paul writes as you have illustrated for us. But Paul also writes in the way I have illustrated.

Do you see that the passages in Romans 1 and Proverbs 1 are the same?

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

I believe that if a person is in Christ and walking in the Spirit they will by nature fulfill the law. Being in Christ and Christ in me makes this possible. Being in Christ makes me dead to Sin. But key to this I think is found here

So finally we have come full circle, in the sense that in the beginning of this thread you opposed Gregg's view of how Christ fulfills the law. Christ does not abrogate the call of God's law upon men, but enables men to love the Father as He loved the Father. Christ enables men to love one another as He loved His neighbor. The law is spiritual, therefore it is God who provides the grace necessary for man to love Him and his neighbor.

For we know that Christ observed the whole law by the power of the Spirit. Likewise we who have the Spirit have access into the grace that is in Christ.

This is the "nature" of the promise.....
......................................................................................................................
1Jo 2:5\tBut whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him.
......................................................................................................................

Our love of God, our love for God is perfected through faith which God works to increase in us daily. The way of faith is highlighted in Abraham's life, which serves as an example for us. The only way fallen man could ever love God is through the power of the working of God in those who live by faith.

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

appolus asks:


Complete surrender, God wants our whole hearts. Once He has our whole hearts we can do all things through Christ. Ah but there's the rub. Are we willing to love God more than husband or wife, son or daughter, mother or father? Are we willing to love God more than our bank books? More than our churches, our countries, our reputations?


The way you ask these questions seems to illustrate that which you condemn. You have set this measure...."complete surrender" as the starting point for entering into the New Covenant. Yet Scripture does not support this. Scripture paints a picture of God's word being sent out to accomplish what He has determined to do. We love Him because He first loved us.

Paul identifies these as the sons of God:
....................................................................................................................
om 8:13\tFor if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

Rom 8:14\tFor as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
......................................................................................................................

Total surrender is accomplished in those who "if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.

It is only by the power of the Holy Spirit that one can learn what it means to "totally surrender." Anything else is of our own vain imagination.

In Christ
Jeff

S
sermonindex

Rookie writes........

"The way you ask these questions seems to illustrate that which you condemn"

First of all Rookie, I condemned nothing, I merely stated the fact that there are ministers who labor and teach others to live under the OC and they are described in the word of God as ministers of death and condemnation.

As for total total surrender, or complete surrender, or absolute surrender, this is what Scripture, Old and New Testament calls for. Deuteronomy 4:29 , 6:4-5, 10:12, 11:13, 13:3, 26:16, 30:6, Joshua 22:5, 1 Sam 12:20,24, 1 Kings 2;4 , 14:8 2 Kings 10:30-31, 2 Kings 23:3,25 2 Chron 15:12 2 Chron 22:9 , 2 Chron 31:21 .

Our part is to give Him our whole heart, the Lord does the rest. Many men have cut themselves of from the world but have never been grafted into Christ.

Let me ask you a question Rookie, in Luke 14 we see....
Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Luk 14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

What do you make of that Scripture brother? The lands are strewn with unfinished towers and men who have compromised with the enemy because they had only their own resources and it was insufficiant.

Luk 14:28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
Luk 14:29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
Luk 14:30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
Luk 14:31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
Luk 14:32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.
Luk 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

And the end results of those who did not surrender their all to Christ?

Luk 14:34 Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?
Luk 14:35 It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

R
RainMan

Are the Gospels New Covenant scripture or are they old covenant scripture in the new testament that give an eye witness account and narrative of the messiah?

What are you thoughts on this? The answers could shed light on some commonly misunderstood things Jesus said.

P
philologos

The New Covenant was 'in his blood'. He lived on earth as the embodiment of that covenant.

“ I, the LORD, have called You in righteousness,
And will hold Your hand;
I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people,
As a light to the Gentiles, Is 42:6

RainMan on 2010/7/29 7:04:57 writes...
Are the Gospels New Covenant scripture or are they old covenant scripture in the new testament that give an eye witness account and narrative of the messiah?

Thus says the LORD:
“ In an acceptable time I have heard You,
And in the day of salvation I have helped You;
I will preserve You and give You
As a covenant to the people,
To restore the earth,
To cause them to inherit the desolate heritages; Is 49:8

His death 'sowed' that life to reproduce it in those who were to be united with him.

In strict terms, as I see it, the New Covenant came into force, as a New Covenant, in Acts 2. From that time believers became Jesus's Witnesses in a similar way to the way in which Israel had been 'Jehovah's Witnesses'.

The time of the gospels was a time of unique transition. Technically, John was the last of the old era.

For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. Matt 11:13

Like the morning star, Venus, John's work was to finish with the dawn.

R
rookie

appolus wrote:

As for total total surrender, or complete surrender, or absolute surrender, this is what Scripture, Old and New Testament calls for. Deuteronomy 4:29 , 6:4-5, 10:12, 11:13, 13:3, 26:16, 30:6, Joshua 22:5, 1 Sam 12:20,24, 1 Kings 2;4 , 14:8 2 Kings 10:30-31, 2 Kings 23:3,25 2 Chron 15:12 2 Chron 22:9 , 2 Chron 31:21 .

yes, as you have quoted the requirements in the OT so we see that God expects all from those who lived in the generations that lived before Christ emptied Himself.
......................................................................................................................
Deu 6:4\t"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! [fn]

Deu 6:5\t"You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.
......................................................................................................................

The Law of God required that they love God. Now we know that according to what Paul teaches, man without the Holy Spirit cannot satisfy the law of God. So are all who lived prior to Christ emptying of Himself condemned by the Law of God? How did the OT saints please God?


Our part is to give Him our whole heart, the Lord does the rest. Many men have cut themselves of from the world but have never been grafted into Christ.

You see that whether it is the OT or the NT God requires that we do indeed set our response to the commandment that we give our whole heart to God.

You say that our part is to give our whole heart and then God does the rest. I say we cannot give our whole heart as is required by the Law first, because it is God who must do the work first to empower us to satisfy this law. This is really what this whole thread is about. Are we falling in the trap of trying to obey the law according to the flesh or have we found the power of the Holy Spirit working in our lives to accomplish what we ourselves cannot understand or do.

The difference between the Covenant given to Abraham and his descendants and the Covenant given to Israel on Mount Sinai is that the first had the Holy Spirit the second did not. The first covenant imputed Godly faith, the second imputed self-righteousness.

Again....
quote]Our part is to give Him our whole heart, the Lord does the rest. Many men have cut themselves of from the world but have never been grafted into Christ.

How has God empowered you to love Him?

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

Rainman,

A few pages back, I explained through Scripture that God called on Israel while they were still in Egypt to remove the false gods from their lives. And they did not obey. What covenant was this generation under during this point in history?

The post highlighted Ezekiel chapter 20.

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

philolgos wrote:


No, it isn't. This is an example of you using an OT passage to illustrate a NT truth. Paul makes no mention of this passage in Rom 1.

Here is another question to you...

In today's copywrite laws would Paul be accused of plagerism (sp)?

In Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

rookie on 2010/7/29 9:20:32 writes
"In today's copywrite laws would Paul be accused of plagerism (sp)?"

I am not sure why you are asking this but plagiarism is the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

R
RobertW

"In today's copywrite laws would Paul be accused of plagerism (sp)?"

This again has to do with what I referred to as heilsgeschichte, or salvation history. God has done an amazing thing with the scriptures. He has given us a revelation of His plan of salvation through the Old Testament scriptures AND by interpreting to us the historical events of their lives themselves. This is an awesome undertaking that staggers the mind. I am absolutely certain that as Abraham took Hagar to wife he had no idea that his actions were going to become a figure of the Mosiac covenant that was to come. Not only that, but the prophets desired to look into the things they were saying and could not understand it (often times). This is the nature of Divine inspiration and God's sovereignty. And if I might turn a phrase, if God, knowing all events from the beginning was willing to use the historical lives of certain individuals (carefully selected) then that would (even in our day) constitute 'fair use.'

Noone understood what God was doing in Jesus Christ except God the Father the Holy Spirit and Christ until it was revealed by Him by revelation. Jesus had to set the disciples down and open their understanding as He taught them of Himself in the OT scriptures. They did not gain this understanding by modern hermeneutics- it came by revelation. A cursory look at the NT shows that most people were expecting a King to depose Rome- they had no idea what God was doing. This thread is evidence at just how difficult it can be for folk to grasp what God has done and how diligently one must inquire of the Lord to truly grasp it all. Even then we fall short. The New Covenant is a revelation of mysteries that were kept since the world began. What an awesome thing to be able to look into things that others in times past (in the OT) desired to see and could not see them.

S
sermonindex

Hi Rookie,

Its not that difficult to understand. God calls upon us to do things that cannot possibly be achieved outside of Jesus. Jesus also, on the sermon on the mount, called for behaviour that cannot be achieved outside of His Spirit. It is incumbant upon man to choose to serve God. When God sees the willing heart He responds to that and then He does all the work of the surrendered heart. You cannot remove mans initiating part, the part to choose. All men can choose,because of Calvary, for God so loved the whole world. The Lord would have that none perish.

Rookie, you ignored my question about Luke 14, why? Can you not just accept that you are a Calvinist and that is what you believe and that many others do not? Its a 500 year old debate and most of the debate is based entirely on ego. I have no desire to enter into a debate with any Calvinist. I love my Calvinist brothers but it never ends, unlike the world which is ending in a reasonably short period of time. Will the Lord find faith on the earth or men wrangling over theology? If men want to stay in Romans 7 and have there declaration be "Oh wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body nof death," then that is there choice they would be exercising their free will. Others have discoverd the glory of God and walk in freedom. God has hard-wired into all men the ability to choose Him because of Calvary. No man will stand before the throne and say to God..... "Its your fault that I did not get saved." ............brother Frank

R
RainMan

"In today's copywrite laws would Paul be accused of plagerism (sp)?"

My answer would be no simply because all scripture is "God Breathed" or inspired of the Holy Spirit. Men of old man have held the pen or quell but ultimately the bible has one author. One author inspired to men to write. So technically speaking NO.

Calvinism, materialism, intellectualism all these ism doctrines tend to be misleading as the can be demonically inspired or misleading as they do not look at the scriptures as a whole.

I am sat in my favourite mcdonalds eating a burger. I have been waking up really hungry and every couple of hours i get hungry again(actually could be the exercise dont know). Anyhow i look at my burger and see the lettuce sticking out at this point i determine the 5 points or advantages to eating a burger.

1. Lettuce (Lactuca sativa in the latin) contains Vitamin A
2. Very high in folic acid
3. It contains chicken (i think thats what it is) which is high in protein.
4. Burgers are cheap.
5. Burgers are time savers during a hectic schedule.

Based on these 5 points i have determined that burgers are the holy grail of nutrition. I decide everyone should be a Burgerist.

Anyone who eats fruits is completely unlearned in issues of nutrition. At this point something tells me the whole point of nutrition is to be healthy. Hours pass by and im still arguing with myself.

R
rookie

philologos wrote:

I am not sure why you are asking this but plagiarism is the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

My point was again to draw attention to the fact that Romans 1 and Proverbs 1 give the same message. Proverbs 1 was penned first, and Paul repeated this same precept in Romans 1.
...........................................................
Rom 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith."

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

Rom 1:19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Rom 1:21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Rom 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,

Rom 1:25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
...........................................................

This above is that below

..........................................................
Pro 1:20 Wisdom calls aloud outside; She raises her voice in the open squares.

Pro 1:21 She cries out in the chief concourses, [fn] At the openings of the gates in the city She speaks her words:

Pro 1:22 "How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, And fools hate knowledge.

Pro 1:23 Turn at my rebuke; Surely I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you.

Pro 1:24 Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded,

Pro 1:25 Because you disdained all my counsel, And would have none of my rebuke,

Pro 1:26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your terror comes,

Pro 1:27 When your terror comes like a storm, And your destruction comes like a whirlwind, When distress and anguish come upon you.

Pro 1:28 "Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me.

Pro 1:29 Because they hated knowledge And did not choose the fear of the LORD,

Pro 1:30 They would have none of my counsel And despised my every rebuke.

Pro 1:31 Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way, And be filled to the full with their own fancies.
...........................................................

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

Rainman wrote:

My answer would be no simply because all scripture is "God Breathed" or inspired of the Holy Spirit. Men of old man have held the pen or quell but ultimately the bible has one author. One author inspired to men to write. So technically speaking NO.

Amen to that. The power of the Holy Spirit is present in all Scripture and all Scripture is for the proving of doctrine.

Any thought on what I shared on Exodus chapter 20? What covenant was Israel under before the covenant that was given them on Mount Sinai?


In Christ
jeff

R
rookie

appolus wrote:

Its not that difficult to understand. God calls upon us to do things that cannot possibly be achieved outside of Jesus. Jesus also, on the sermon on the mount, called for behaviour that cannot be achieved outside of His Spirit. It is incumbant upon man to choose to serve God. When God sees the willing heart He responds to that and then He does all the work of the surrendered heart. You cannot remove mans initiating part, the part to choose. All men can choose,because of Calvary, for God so loved the whole world. The Lord would have that none perish.

Yes I agree with what you have said. Since you understand this, not be cynical, do you recognize aspects of the testimony found in Psalm 119. Have you your self experienced the precepts that this man inspired of the Holy Spirit wrote about his own walk with the Lord?

appolus wrote:

Rookie, you ignored my question about Luke 14, why? Can you not just accept that you are a Calvinist and that is what you believe and that many others do not?

First, I am sorry for not answer your thoughts about Luke 14. I will get back to you for I am responding during my lunch here at work.

Secondly, even before the Lord saved me at 40, (I am now 54), back when I was in highschool we were learning about the reformation. And back then, at least 35 years ago, I can attest to the fact that the Lord impressed upon my mind even then that Calvinism is not of God, but a worldly system. When I first began to share on SI back in 2003 I came out in zeal and fire against the Calvinists. I was a rookie then, and I am still a rookie now.

IN Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

rookie on 2010/7/29 14:40:35 writes...
"Any thought on what I shared on Exodus chapter 20? What covenant was Israel under before the covenant that was given them on Mount Sinai?"

Israel became a nation in Egypt, prior to that it was a family. At Sinai Israel the nation became God's nation on the basis of a mutually agreed covenant. The Abrahamic covenant was renewed personally with each generation...

And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Gen 17:7

This covenant is then renewed with...

Isaac:
2And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of: 3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. Gen 26:2-5

and then again with Jacob:
13 And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; 14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. 15 And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of. Gen 28:13-15

hence God is the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob. It was on the basis of his promise to these three men that God delivered their descendants from Egypt.

And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. Ex 2:24

And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. Ex 3:15

In order to fulfil his promise of the land to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob God had to deliver children of Israel from Egypt.

2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. 4 And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. 5 And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. Ex 6:2-5

He entered into a covenant with the nation of Israel to honour the promise and covenant that he had made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. As we can see from this last reference the distinctive name with which he 'signed' the Sinai Covenant was Jehovah, and this nation of Israel became the authentic 'Jehovah's Witnesses'.

So Israel, as a nation, was not under covenant in Egypt,but God was watching over his word to fulfil his promise to Ab/Isaac/Jacob. Only if this nation submitted to the Sinai Covenant would they become 'God's nation'.

3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; 4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. 5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. Ex 19

"IF you will obey my voice indeed and keep my covenant, THEN... you shall be unto me... a holy nation.

C
Christinyou

Jeremiah 13:11 For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.

Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

So it is with Israel, on and off, on and off, but always, "they would not".

Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Still today we have, "all have fallen short" and will not. That is why Christ had to come. That we by God's own Grace, He would provide us a way, that we "will".

This is for Israel; Hebrews 10:16-18 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

No Temple, No offering. King David's throne, will accomplish this with King Jesus occupying the new temple.
Christ is the last offering for Israel and the Body of Christ.

This is for the Body of Christ; Hebrews 10:19-22 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

"Christ in you the Hope of Glory." Praise God for the New and living way. He did it, I believe it, I have received Him, I am His, by the Price He Paid, I am bought and paid for and now I am a son of God, by His Glory, which is our only hope of Glory.

Colossians 1:27-29 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

"His Working"

Praise God, His Working is making me perfect, as I strive according to His working, which workfare in me mightily.

Matthew 6:9-13 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

It is done now in the body of Christ on this earth and will be done on this earth for Israel for 1000 years.

In Him, Him in me: Phillip

S
sermonindex

Rookie writes........

"Yes I agree with what you have said. Since you understand this, not be cynical, do you recognize aspects of the testimony found in Psalm 119. Have you your self experienced the precepts that this man inspired of the Holy Spirit wrote about his own walk with the Lord?"

Yes I have brother, not sure why your question would be adjudged to be cynical, but given that you did say that, can I assume that you have not had a similar experience?...........brother Frank

R
rookie

Yes I have brother, not sure why your question would be adjudged to be cynical, but given that you did say that, can I assume that you have not had a similar experience?...........brother Frank

When I read Psalm 119, I find many places where God has worked in similar ways with me as those testified of by the writer of the Psalm.

I ask these questions of you, not to condemn you, but to engage you in a way that we might really get into how the New Covenant is acquired by man. So far in this thread most of the disscussion has centered on the promise of the Holy Spirit and the Law. Very little has developed in the way of diving into how God works to empower us to love Him and one another. And this topic is key to understanding the difference between the Covenant given to Abraham and his descendants and the Covenant given to Israel on Mount Sinai...

In the Covenant given to Abraham, faith in God enables men to please God because God extends the grace necessary for man to satisfy God requirement of man. That is, to love God with all ones being and then to love your neighbor. In the Covenant given to Israel on Mount Sinai, God condemns Israel if they seek to keep the law by fleshly means, by their own strength.

Paul goes into great detail describing the difference between these two covenants. Most of the time we focus on Pentecost and that the Holy Spirit will be in us. But few can express what that means in these days, yet the writer of Psalm 119 gives us a detailed description of what God has done for him. The result of realizing the extent of how God worked in him, creates in him a heart of worship, a heart of reverence, a heart of gratitude. His heart cries out Abba Father.

So I am sorry to have unlovingly coaxed you to testify of your personal relationship with our Lord.

God Bless
Jeff


S
sermonindex

Rookie writes......

"So I am sorry to have unlovingly coaxed you to testify of your personal relationship with our Lord."

That made me laugh Jeff, you obviously do not know me very well :) You have to coax me to stop talking and testifying! Here are a couple of interesting quotes for the folks to ponder...........

I think that some of us are beginning to see what has been our great mistake. We have thought and spoken glowingly of what Christ did on the cross, and does on the throne, as Covenant surety......And we have stopped there. But we have not expected Him to do great things in ur hearts. And yet it is there, in the heart, that the consummation of the work on the cross and the throne takes place: in the heart the New Covenant has its full triumph. Our Guarantor is to e known not by what the mind can think of HIm accomplishing in heaven but by what He does to make Himself known in the human heart. There is the place where His love triumphs and is enthroned. It is with the the heart that we must believe and receive HIm as the Covenant surety. Let us, with every desire we entertain in connection with the Covenant, with every duty it calls us to, with every promise it holds out, look to Jesus-under God's oath the Guarnator of the Covenant. Let us believe that by the Holy Spirit the heart is His home and HIs throne. Let us in a definite act of faith throw ourselves utterly on HIm for the whole of the New Covenant life and walk. No bondsoman was ever so faithful to his undertaking as Jesus will be on His-on our beahlf, in our hearts.

And yet, despite this strong confidence and the consolation the oath of God and its guarantee of the Covenant gives, there are some (most) still looking wistfully at this blessed life, afraid to trust themselves to His wonderous grace. They have a conception of faith as something great and mighty, and they know and feel that theirs is not such. And so their feebleness remains an insuperable barrier to their inheriting the promise.................

This self-confident spirit in Israel is explained by what had just happened previously. When God had come down on Mount Sinai in thuderings and lightenings to give the law, they were greatly afraid. They said to Moses " Speak to us yourself and we will listen; but let not God speak to us, or we will die." (Ex 20:19) They thought it was simply a matter of hearing and knowing-they could surely obey. They did not realize that it is only in the presence, and the fear, and the nearness, and the power of God humbling us that we can conquer the power of sin and give the power to obey. It is so much easier to recieve the instructions from man and live than to wait and hear the voice of God and die to all our own strenght and goodness. (The Two Covenants, Andrew Murray)

This is really where we are at in America and in the West right now. We have a people that are called by the name of God who have been raised to listen to excellent sermons and somehow think that they can achieve what has been taught. Moses was veiled and his ministry was death and condemnation and yet it had the glory of God upon it. How much greater the glory today? Is God veiled today to His people? Does His people still run from His presence? Can mere instruction lead the people into the New Covenant glory of a victorious life? What can be achieved outside of His presence and His power?

Perhaps brother Andrew is right, perhaps we have a generation of "Christians,' eager to live their lives in compromise rather than to fall down before a living God and die to everything of this world? They believe somehow that they can achieve a righteous life in the flesh outside of the glorious presence and power of God. Yet time will show that this life will produce nothing more than half built towers and the Christian life mocked by onlookers. Compromise must be the order of the day outside of coming into His presence and power.

Mal 3:2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:
Mal 3:3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.


R
rookie

philologos wrote:

Israel became a nation in Egypt, prior to that it was a family. At Sinai Israel the nation became God's nation on the basis of a mutually agreed covenant. The Abrahamic covenant was renewed personally with each generation...

So as the children of Israel lived in Egypt for 400 plus years, God personally renewed His covenant in each generation. This is true. For before God established the covenant of Mount Sinai, He said this of the fathers of the last generation to live in Egypt.

........................................................................................................................Jer 7:22\t"For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.

Jer 7:23\t"But this is what I commanded them, saying, 'Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you.'
......................................................................................................................

From the above Scripture we see that God first reached out to the fathers of Israel in the same way that He reached out to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As He spoke to the Patriarchs so He spoke to the fathers of the last generation to live in Egypt.

"Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. Walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you." This God did to initiate faith in the fathers.

We know that God had not yet have to establish the law as we know it that was given on Mount Sinai because of what is said in the other verse which precedes the verse I just wrote about.

......................................................................................................................
Jer 7:22\t"For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.
......................................................................................................................

But we then are given this testimony about the fathers rejection of God by this verse.

.......................................................................................................................
Jer 7:24\t"Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but followed the counsels and the dictates of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.
.......................................................................................................................

So we see then that God's call upon the fathers was rejected. This period of time, is also given to us in Ezekiel chapter 20........

........................................................................................................................
Eze 20:5\t"Say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD: "On the day when I chose Israel and raised My hand in an oath to the descendants of the house of Jacob, and made Myself known to them in the land of Egypt, I raised My hand in an oath to them, saying, 'I am the LORD your God.'

Eze 20:6\t"On that day I raised My hand in an oath to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt into a land that I had searched out for them, 'flowing with milk and honey,' the glory of all lands.

Eze 20:7\t"Then I said to them, 'Each of you, throw away the abominations which are before his eyes, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.'
......................................................................................................................


Above is a great example of how Scripture is a commentary of itself. We see again the same call of God on the fathers of Israel....

And then we have again this commentary of this time about the father of Israel:

.......................................................................................................................Eze 20:8\t"But they rebelled against Me and would not obey Me. They did not all cast away the abominations which were before their eyes, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt. Then I said, 'I will pour out My fury on them and fulfill My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.'
......................................................................................................................


And then we have this further commentary of what transpired prior to God establishing the Covenant of Mount Sinai.

......................................................................................................................
Eze 20:9\t"But I acted for My name's sake, that it should not be profaned before the Gentiles among whom they were, in whose sight I had made Myself known to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt.

Eze 20:10\t"Therefore I made them go out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness.

Eze 20:11\t"And I gave them My statutes and showed them My judgments, 'which, if a man does, he shall live by them.' [fn]
........................................................................................................................

From this historic event we are given a clear view of how God reaches out in every generation to reserve for Himself a remnant of people who do listen to Him when He speaks and thus receive His everlasting covenant with joy. And we also see that those who reject His call are left to obey His law according to the flesh.

So why did God in a sense give more detailed instructions to Israel after they rejected His call?

IN Christ
Jeff

T
twayneb

I ask these questions of you, not to condemn you, but to engage you in a way that we might really get into how the New Covenant is acquired by man. So far in this thread most of the disscussion has centered on the promise of the Holy Spirit and the Law. Very little has developed in the way of diving into how God works to empower us to love Him and one another. And this topic is key to understanding the difference between the Covenant given to Abraham and his descendants and the Covenant given to Israel on Mount Sinai...

Jeff: Please pardon, but if I may jump in on this comment I would like to. This is the beauty of the new covenant. The old was weak through the flesh. Man was attempting to keep a standard of law and a ritual of sacrifice in his own power, by his own hand and effort, and that was the weakness of the law. The new covenant is one of empowerment through regeneration. We are empowered by the Spirit of God. What the law could not do because it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His only Son in the likeness of sinful flesh condemned sin in the flesh and provided just such empowerment. God indeed has written His laws on our hearts, not on stone or parchment. We are empowered and governed internally, not externally. Oh how wonderful the new covenant. Oh how marvelous is the thing that Christ did for me. I have been teaching through Hebrews and last night we covered chapters 7 and 8. Very pertinent to this discussion.

R
rookie

appolus:

I promised I would get back to Luke 14....

Luk 14:28\t"For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it—

Luk 14:29\t"lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him,

Luk 14:30\t"saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.'

This section of Scripture ruled my life for about 2 years...

In my own strength I sold my families 3 story mountain home and bought a double wide trailer. I did this to lessen my financial responsibility. I had a good paying job at the time, and I thought that I was going to be an assistant
pastor who would have a much lower paying job. We moved closer to work and to a bible school at Calvary Chapel South Bay. I would still travel 72 miles to work and then another 20 miles further south to bible school two nights of the week. I was an elder, leader of the children's ministry, and also in training at my local church. And I was also an absent father.

At a men's retreat, the Lord brought circumstances to bear where He gave me these two sections of Scripture....

First,

Isa 35:8\tA highway shall be there, and a road, And it shall be called the Highway of Holiness. The unclean shall not pass over it, But it shall be for others. Whoever walks the road, although a fool, Shall not go astray.

Secondly,
ic 4:2\tMany nations shall come and say, "Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, And we shall walk in His paths." For out of Zion the law shall go forth, And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

Then with these Scriptures in mind, for three days He established circumstances for me to minister to others at the retreat and then also for a week back at home.

What I learned is that if I paid attention to the daily events, He would according to His power get me up that mountain. As I said, I had struggled in my flesh to climb a mountain, counting the costs of what it was going to take to climb that mountain. He showed me His faithfulness and my foolishness at the same time. So for me the promise remains,


;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Whoever walks the road, although a fool, Shall not go astray.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

God Bless
Jeff

R
rookie

Travis wrote:

God indeed has written His laws on our hearts, not on stone or parchment. We are empowered and governed internally, not externally.

Yes, by faith we enter into a place where God demonstrates His love in a way that impacts our lives that we or no other human being can. He gives us a love for His word, which then leads us to love Him for what His word has accomplished in our lives. He becomes more precious than His creation. His increase is without end. It is the Life we never knew until faith came.

God Bless
Jeff

S
sermonindex

Hi Jeff, thanks for the reply on Luke 14. I must admit I was a little puzzled by your reply but I definately appreciate your honesty. In my mind, when I was asking the question about your thoughts on loving the Lord more than our familes and so on, and then of course the anology of the half built towers and compromised living with the enemy, I was trying to see what you thought of the notion that Jesus said that unless we loved Him more than we loved our families, then we could not be His disciples. If we were not a people who were prepared to be fully sold out to Him and take up our crosses every day, then we could not be His Disciples. If He was not the most important thing in our lives then we had not and could not enter into the New Covenant. This obviously is incumbant upon us to choose to enter in, through a total surrender.

If we did not, then we would live the compromised life and through the analogy , Jesus points out that we would be a laughing stock to those of the world, they would not take us seriously, and also we would be compromisers with our enemies and ultimately salt that had no saltiness. Its a line in the sand, so to speak, and it is not an ambiguous Scripture. Do you see where I am coming from. We choose to enter in, He does the rest.

I wrote earlier on that many people , religous people, have come out of the world, so to speak ( although it is a work from the outside) and have never been grafted into Christ. It is akin to the children of Israel. They were taken out of slavery and they accepted it with gladness, and were transferred through the sea by the mighty hand of God. Yet, when troubles and the cares of life in the desert arose, they were not thankful people, obedient people, they grumbled and they fell, almost to a man, in the desert. It is one thing to be taken out of Egypt, it is quite another to cross the river into the promised land, but for those who do, they have ceased from their works and entered into His rest.......brother Frank

P
philologos

appolus on 2010/7/29 21:23:56 writes:
"I think that some of us are beginning to see what has been our great mistake. We have thought and spoken glowingly of what Christ did on the cross, and does on the throne, as Covenant surety......And we have stopped there. But we have not expected Him to do great things in ur hearts. And yet it is there, in the heart, that the consummation of the work on the cross and the throne takes place: in the heart the New Covenant has its full triumph."

Amen!!!

P
philologos

"For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. 23 But this is what I commanded them, saying, “Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you.’" Jer 7:22–23 NKJV

These are important verses. The point that he is making, and it is crucial to this discussion, is that prior to God giving the Levitical priesthood with its burnt offerings and sacrifices he insisted that they 'sign up' to the overall concept of the Sinai Covenant. When you buy a house you don't go into the details about the furnishings or the flowers in the garden until you have established the general principle that the house is for sale and a price agreed. When you have established the concept of willingness to buy and to sell you then move on to the details. This is exactly what happened at Sinai.

The Levitical orderings do not take place until Ex 25 and following but the Sinai Covenant was was sealed in blood in Ex 24:8. When they had said 'yes' to the prospect of being God's people on condition of 'obeying my voice and keeping my covenant' (Ex 19:5) God moved on to the details of the Covenant.

Jeff write:
"So why did God in a sense give more detailed instructions to Israel after they rejected His call?"
Because there is always the possibility of change...

"“O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the LORD. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it. 11 “Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, “Thus says the LORD: ‘Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.” ’ ”" Jer 18:6–11 NKJV

The tragedy of the house of Judah is that having heard this amazing offer of a love which never runs out, they said...

"“Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, “Thus says the LORD: ‘Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.” ’ ” 12 And they said, “That is hopeless! So we will walk according to our own plans, and we will every one obey the dictates of his evil heart.”" Jer 18:11–12 NKJV

R
rookie

philologos wrote:

Because there is always the possibility of change...

As you stated, thereis always the possibility of change. Why would anything change if Israel is left to obey the commandments in their flesh?

In Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

rookie on 2010/7/30 12:26:31 writes:
"As you stated, thereis always the possibility of change. Why would anything change if Israel is left to obey the commandments in their flesh?"

I am not sure I understand this question.

"“For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, “Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, “Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it. 15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, 16 in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess." Deut 30:11–16 NKJV

This statement spoken by Moses immediately prior the Sinai Covenant people entering the promised land is quoted by Paul in Romans 10. He uses the passage to point out that the attempt to achieve righteousness by means of keeping the law only showed their ignorance and says that Christ is the 'end' or 'goal' of righteousness to every one who believes. Salvation cannot nor ever could be achieved by keeping the law, that was never its purpose. The nation perverted the purpose of the law. It was to be the expression of their love to God and man, it became their ladder to achieve their own 'do it yourself' righteousness. It could never achieve it.

"But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith...." Phil 3:7–9 NKJV

By relying on God they 'could' have kept the law but my relying on their keeping of the law they showed their ignorance of what the righteousness of God' was really all about.

In each era God's grace was available for a man to please him but the New Covenant is radically different in that it changes a man from the inside and puts God's laws there.

R
RobertW

I would like to launch from Ron's point to make an important observation. Notice Paul's estimate of his life before He was 'in Christ':

And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. (Galatians 1:14)

Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. (Phil. 3:6)

He was more zealous of the traditions than his fathers and touching the law was said to be blameless. Yet he was holding the garments of Stephen when he gave this revelation:

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. (Acts 7:51)

This is staggering! Here is a man who was a Hebrew of Hebrews and yet fit this description of Stephen perfectly! How do we know?

And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. (Acts 9:5 KJV)*

Paul was kicking against the goads (pricks) surely a metaphor for resisting the Holy Ghost and God's dealings. Here is a man that was in step with the Law, even 'blameless' and more zealous than the rest. Yet God's estimate of him is that he was RESISTING the Holy Spirit. And this is a critical point to get, I think. How can a person be in rebellion and in step with the Law at the same time? Answer:

For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. 12 IT IS NOT IN HEAVEN, that you should say, “Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ (Deut 30:11ff NKJV emphasis added)

The unbelieving Jews used this passage to suggest that God has left the Rabbi's in authority to interpret the law as they wish. They can overrule God! Seem shocking? Not at all. This is the behavior I believe God was consistently challenging. Some were willing to take the Law, but they did not want God.

And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: (II Cor. 3:13)

The children of Israel did not want God near. They agreed to the covenant but did not want the glory. The purpose of the covenant was that God could draw near to the people. It was the terms of agreement for God showing up and leading them, etc. But they did not want God near. That is as plain as anything. They could not even handle the residual glory on Moses' face. How could they handle Jesus Christ that was the express image of His person?

Some do want the Law- but they don't want God to REALLY be present. They want a lip-service- but "IT IS NOT IN HEAVEN" is their view. God desires to be living inside of men- leading and guiding in a very real sense. That is what the masses reject. They want a religion in the absence of God.


_____________________________________________________
* Footnote

I think it is significant that the Alexandrian text form omits the 'kicking against the pricks' part of the verse. Hence is is not in the NIV or NASB.


R
RobertW

Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. (Romans 6:13)

Ephesians 2:1ff tells us that in times past we walked according to the course of this world. Yet the New Covenant through genuine regeneration changes a person inwardly so that their natural tendency is to do Romans 6:13... yield yourselves unto God. God has dealt with old Adam that those in him by nature resisted the Holy Spirit and were the child of wrath. For a true believer to resist the Holy Spirit is as unnatural as a fish out-of-water.

R
rookie

philologos wrote:

In each era God's grace was available for a man to please him but the New Covenant is radically different in that it changes a man from the inside and puts God's laws there.

We have established quite clearly that no one can please God by keeping the law. So what hope did the generations that lived under the Covenant of Mount Sinai have? I mean it was impossible to please God in the power of the flesh....

Is this true?

R
rookie

Robert quoted:

Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. (Phil. 3:6)

Paul then says that this kind righteousness is self righteousness, if you continue on further in this section of Scripture.

.........................................................................................................................
Phl 3:9\tand be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;
........................................................................................................................

And we know that the book of Job declares that God is not pleased by self righteousness.

So I ask you as I asked Ron, what hope of pleasing God does one have if he lived in the era that was under the Covenant of Mount Sinai?

In Christ
Jeff

C
Christinyou

Quote: """"In each era God's grace was available for a man to please him but the New Covenant is radically different in that it changes a man from the inside and puts God's laws there.""""

How do we keep the Law? By God's Son that is in us. He is the fulfillment of the Law and by Him and only Him can any Law be kept to the excelliency of the Holiness of God.

May I change your quote? In each era God's grace was available for a man to please him but the New Covenant is radically different in that it changes a man from the inside and puts God's (Son) there.

Colossians 1:27-29 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to His working, which worketh in me mightily.

He is our perfection, by His working, which workfare in us, His work and His work alone, is what changes the Believer. This is our labour of Love, striving according to His work in us. The are our only true works that James is talking about, I will show you the faith of Christ in me, by my works.

In Christ: Phillip

R
RobertW

So I ask you as I asked Ron, what hope of pleasing God does one have if he lived in the era that was under the Covenant of Mount Sinai?

The easy answer is faith (Heb. 11:6)


But that is not the issue I am driving at. Saul of Tarsus was resisting the Holy Spirit just like everyone else. Not only that, but he was going to great lengths to do it. There was a hardness' in Saul. Our word is σκληρός, and it sometimes designates one on whom no impression is made, who will not yield (K&D) or stubbornness (NET note). It also means 'difficult.' (Renn) Could mean it is 'dangerous' (Thayer) And yet this was what Saul of Tarsus was doing.

An OX goed was used to steer livestock that were plowing a field to maintain a straight line. OX goes left and then a man pricks the OX with a sharp stick to get him to go the other way. To 'kick against the goad' is to rebel against the direction of the master and often at a very painful price. God was dealing and dealing with Saul and yet Saul kept on resisting no matter how 'unpleasant' God's dealings were.

Stephen reprimanded the unbelieving Jews and put his finger right on the spot. He quotes Isaiah 66 to tell the men that God does not dwell in temples made with hands. This by inference suggests that they wanted God to be kept in a temple. How convenient? "We'll take God as we want Him and leave Him when we want" was their attitude. But God was watching them:

Then said he unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the chambers of his imagery? for they say, The LORD seeth us not; the LORD hath forsaken the earth. (Ezekiel 8:12)

This passage is part of a series of revelations dealing with the LORD departing from the people. God told the prophet that He was rolling out. The people would have known what was happening and yet they did not repent so that God would remain.

Understand that the Temple of God was Jesus Christ when He walked the earth. He pointed to Himself and said... "Destroy this Temple and I will restore it in 3 days." When He ascended into Heaven He sent the Holy Spirit to live in men and women making up a much larger 'Body' or 'Temple' on the earth. This is what God wanted. He did not want a gold temple. He wanted a HUMAN temple(s). This is what the New Covenant provides. It provides that folk can become the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Yet one cannot RESIST the Holy Spirit and RECEIVE the Holy Spirit at the same time. This is very elementary, but people stumble over it all the time. God desires to reign on earth as in heaven. But where? In the church house? In the golden temple? On the temple mount? In a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem? No, he wanted to reign in man. But this means that Christ is living IN us through the Holy Spirit. The pharisees and religious leaders were right on the edge of this impasse. They either had to agree with God, receive Christ and leave off resisting His Holy Spirit or they could keep on hoping for a rebuilt temple pipe dream that is not nor will ever be God's true design. That temple was only ever a pattern of what God wanted. Now the true has come. There is no turning back now. The days of the old Covenant and earthly temple system is over. God dwells in men, He's not about to return to an inanimate building.

R
rookie

robert wrote;

The easy answer is faith

Yes that is the easy part of the answer...

But that is not the issue I am driving at. Saul of Tarsus was resisting the Holy Spirit just like everyone else.

So are you saying that God's Holy Spirit worked to create faith in those who lived in the generations under the Covenant of Mount Sinai?

In Christ
Jeff

R
RobertW

So are you saying that God's Holy Spirit worked to create faith in those who lived in the generations under the Covenant of Mount Sinai?

I don't understand faith in the Reformed sense. God's role in faith is to reveal to us His will. Our role in faith is to respond rightly. Therefor as God reveals and we respond rightly it is faith. Paul characterized his own past sinful actions as those done in ignorance and unbelief. (I Tim. 1:13) Yet, God's Word contains within itself the ability to do what it says. So the problem was NEVER on God's end. This is why Paul called it, "The Word of His Grace" in Acts 20:32. No rhema from God is void of power. (Luke 1:37) We also have this account:

But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren. Long time therefore abode they (Paul and Barnabas) speaking boldly IN THE LORD, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace... (Acts 14:2ff emphasis added)

These men are not just preaching. They are speaking boldly 'in the Lord' and not 'in their own strength'. These men are as the very Oracle of God. God is speaking through these men enabling faith to come. This is important. This is why Way of the Master falls short. It desires to do with Law what can only be done as Paul and Barnabas in Acts 14:2. Ministers have to be moving 'in the Lord' as they speak or faith will not come. My words don't contain grace- God's words do.

It is God's grace that He is delivering by the mouth of the disciples words that carry within themselves the ability to accomplish God's purposes. What God speaks we can and we must. Faith came to the people by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Not Paul and Barnabas moving in their own strength- but being led of the Spirit and quickened by the Spirit to speak to the people right where they are in this life. We cannot over emphasize the importance of genuine God-speak.

For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith. (Hab. 2:3,4)

Abraham is our example of faith. He was right in this situation in Hab.2:3,4. The vision came and he was forced to wait. When he got impatient he listened to Sarah and moved out of faith for the moment and moved into the flesh. He side-slipped for a moment. But the word used for Abraham hearkening to Sarah is a word that means a one-off event. When God described Abraham's overall faith it is a word denoting a continuous action. Abraham believed God and as a consequence responded rightly to God (in believing what God said). He believed the promise God made and was willing to WAIT on God for that promise to be fulfilled. Though God tarried Abraham waited.

Another example is Nineveh. The people believed God and repented. Their response to revelation should be characterized as 'faith'. Many other examples in Hebrews 11. The just live by faith. They hang on to what God has said until it comes to pass. Abraham staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; This is genuine faith. This is what pleases God.

P
philologos

rookie on 2010/7/30 20:19:09 writes:
"I mean it was impossible to please God in the power of the flesh...."

It still is and always will be. However I think we need to be careful how we express things here. People did 'please God by keeping the law' but they did not acquire righteousness by so doing. If God says 'do this' and you do it you will please God but I must not base my life on my ability to gain acceptance with God by my obedience to him.

P
philologos

rookie on 2010/7/30 20:28:32 wries:
"So I ask you as I asked Ron, what hope of pleasing God does one have if he lived in the era that was under the Covenant of Mount Sinai?"

OK let's try again...

"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised." Rom 4:11–12 NKJV

Do you see that those under the Sinai Covenant were required to keep the law AND walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

That faith was the faith of Gen 15:6 which is pre-circumcision. That kind of Abraham-faith is the bottom line right through the scriptures at every point whether or not the person is under the Law or not. The people of the Sinai Covenant were required, as a nation, to keep the law and, as individuals, to have their own personal trust in God.

R
rookie

Robert wrote:


God's role in faith is to reveal to us His will.

Yes you are speaking according to Scripture. God must first initiate the act of revealing His will before man can choose to do what God has revealed to him.

When God reveals His will to man, is this done by the power, "dunamis" of His Holy Spirit?

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

philologos asked:

Do you see that those under the Sinai Covenant were required to keep the law AND walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

Your question combines both the Sinai Covenant and the Abrahamic Covenant and then is applied to the generations that lived from the time of Moses to the time of Christ's ministry. I point this out because this is crucial to the understanding of this whole discussion.

Are you saying that these generations lived under both Covenants?

In Christ
Jeff

R
rookie

I don't want to skip this thought and it be lost in this discussion...

philologos wrote:

These are important verses. The point that he is making, and it is crucial to this discussion, is that prior to God giving the Levitical priesthood with its burnt offerings and sacrifices he insisted that they 'sign up' to the overall concept of the Sinai Covenant.

I do not believe you understood what the Scripture has testified of this period in Israel's history... I will repost the testimony again concerning Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

........................................................................................................................

philologos wrote:

So as the children of Israel lived in Egypt for 400 plus years, God personally renewed His covenant in each generation. This is true. For before God established the covenant of Mount Sinai, He said this of the fathers of the last generation to live in Egypt.

........................................................................................................................Jer 7:22\t"For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.

Jer 7:23\t"But this is what I commanded them, saying, 'Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you.'
......................................................................................................................

From the above Scripture we see that God first reached out to the fathers of Israel in the same way that He reached out to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As He spoke to the Patriarchs so He spoke to the fathers of the last generation to live in Egypt.

"Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be My people. Walk in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you." This God did to initiate faith in the fathers.

We know that God had not yet have to establish the law as we know it that was given on Mount Sinai because of what is said in the other verse which precedes the verse I just wrote about.

......................................................................................................................
Jer 7:22\t"For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.
......................................................................................................................

But we then are given this testimony about the fathers rejection of God by this verse.

.......................................................................................................................
Jer 7:24\t"Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but followed the counsels and the dictates of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.
.......................................................................................................................

So we see then that God's call upon the fathers was rejected. This period of time, is also given to us in Ezekiel chapter 20........

........................................................................................................................
Eze 20:5\t"Say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD: "On the day when I chose Israel and raised My hand in an oath to the descendants of the house of Jacob, and made Myself known to them in the land of Egypt, I raised My hand in an oath to them, saying, 'I am the LORD your God.'

Eze 20:6\t"On that day I raised My hand in an oath to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt into a land that I had searched out for them, 'flowing with milk and honey,' the glory of all lands.

Eze 20:7\t"Then I said to them, 'Each of you, throw away the abominations which are before his eyes, and do not defile yourselves with the idols of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.'
......................................................................................................................


Above is a great example of how Scripture is a commentary of itself. We see again the same call of God on the fathers of Israel....

And then we have again this commentary of this time about the father of Israel:

.......................................................................................................................Eze 20:8\t"But they rebelled against Me and would not obey Me. They did not all cast away the abominations which were before their eyes, nor did they forsake the idols of Egypt. Then I said, 'I will pour out My fury on them and fulfill My anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.'
......................................................................................................................


And then we have this further commentary of what transpired prior to God establishing the Covenant of Mount Sinai.

......................................................................................................................
Eze 20:9\t"But I acted for My name's sake, that it should not be profaned before the Gentiles among whom they were, in whose sight I had made Myself known to them, to bring them out of the land of Egypt.

Eze 20:10\t"Therefore I made them go out of the land of Egypt and brought them into the wilderness.

Eze 20:11\t"And I gave them My statutes and showed them My judgments, 'which, if a man does, he shall live by them.' [fn]
........................................................................................................................

From this historic event we are given a clear view of how God reaches out in every generation to reserve for Himself a remnant of people who do listen to Him when He speaks and thus receive His everlasting covenant with joy. And we also see that those who reject His call are left to obey His law according to the flesh.

So why did God in a sense give more detailed instructions to Israel after they rejected His call?


In Christ
Jeff

P
philologos

rookie on 2010/7/31 10:20:55 writes...
"I do not believe you understood what the Scripture has testified of this period in Israel's history.."

and I am afraid that you have not understood what the scripture is saying of this period... so where do we go from there?

P
philologos

I asked...

Do you see that those under the Sinai Covenant were required to keep the law AND walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

rookie on 2010/7/31 10:12:46 writes...
"Your question combines both the Sinai Covenant and the Abrahamic Covenant and then is applied to the generations that lived from the time of Moses to the time of Christ's ministry. I point this out because this is crucial to the understanding of this whole discussion.

Are you saying that these generations lived under both Covenants?"

I am saying that individuals were required to have a personal faith in God and not just comply with the terms of the Sinai Covenant, but they were required to comply with the terms of the Sinai Covenant.

It is interesting that circumcision is not specifically part of the Sinai Covenant, it is rather part of the Abrahamic Covenant.

S
sermonindex

Why on this thread is there still such a mish mash of confused misconstroodled ideas
that lack foundation through a proper context base of scripture?

Could it be that what we have come to think is true is just a cut and paste job of God's testimony ?

Could it be that what results is a misunderstanding from not fitting all the puzzle pieces where are made to be placed?

Are certain pieces forced into place because almost all the congruent sides fit ...and irregardless of the color differences they're crammed into place?
Could it be that?
... and what we do not understand we finally just lay aside again and again and again and again and again until it becomes permanently ignored?

Perhaps it is due to the fact that various issues within this discussions lines of thinking have not yet been clearly enough been compared to scripture...

...or possibly many do not want to hear things that go against what they have been told even though what has been taught does not match up with scripture?????


PRENOTE:
Wherever hyphenation is seen, this indicates a transliteration of the Greek Textus Receptus.
____________________________________________________________


"And every breath-from-the-mouth not acknowledging
Jesus (as the Saviour of all humanity)
Christ (and God's annointed Messiah coming to rule the heaven and Earth as King)
arriving bodily cannot be from God:
and this is that spirit in-replacement-of-Christ,
which you have heard how-that would publicly-come-into-being;
and now already is in the world."
I Jn. 4:3

How many generations have passed since John wrote this?

We can safely say more than 40 generations have come and died since this was written.


Now consider what Paul says:
(-> comments within brackets mine )

For now, let's pause about that stuph, and consider more from where we left off with Paul at the end of II Tim. 3:


"For-this-reason I charge you in God's presence, and the Lord Jesus Christ's, who will judge-through-law those alive and dead together-with himself at his blindingly-bright-advent and (coming-)kingdom; Proclaim the word; be prepared-to-stand when called upon and when(-you-are-)not; refute-and-convict, (be-straightforeward-when-you-)rebuff-towards-accountability, encourage-and-instruct with complete perseverance and instruction-of-precepts. For the time will come when they will not put-up-with instruction without-error; but after their-self(ish) desirous-passions they shall accumulate-piles-of instructors, having itching ears; And they will turn away their ears from the truth, and shall turn to devised-speech(es)/narratives/sayings."
II Tim. 4:1-4

(

R
rookie

philologos wrote:

I am saying that individuals were required to have a personal faith in God and not just comply with the terms of the Sinai Covenant, but they were required to comply with the terms of the Sinai Covenant.

So according to the provisions of the Sinai Covenant, one is condemned because God does not supply His Holy Spirit.

And according to the provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant, one receives the righteousness of God by the power of the Holy Spirit.

We see this precept very clearly, in the following Scripture....
......................................................................................................................
Rom 10:2\tFor I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God but not according to knowledge.

Rom 10:3\tFor they being ignorant of God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own righteousness have not submitted to the righteousness of God.
.....................................................................................................................


Paul states that those who reject God's Holy Spirit are ignorant of God's righteousness. By not entering into the Abrahamic Covenant, they were subject to the work of the Sinai Covenant, they became self righteous.


Only by the power of the Holy Spirit did those who lived in the time of Moses through the ministry of Christ know the righteousness that is of God.

Do you agree?

In Christ
Jeff

side note, I will not be able to continue for this next week, we are traveling without the use of the internet.

P
philologos

I wrote...

I am saying that individuals were required to have a personal faith in God and not just comply with the terms of the Sinai Covenant, but they were required to comply with the terms of the Sinai Covenant.

rookie on 2010/8/1 5:41:06 writes...
So according to the provisions of the Sinai Covenant, one is condemned because God does not supply His Holy Spirit.

And according to the provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant, one receives the righteousness of God by the power of the Holy Spirit.

I can't follow your logic here at all.

P
philologos

We broke bread this morning in our meeting. It is a declaration that the New Covenant is 'alive and well'. Christ our Passover has delivered his people and they live in covenant with him.

The original Passover was always a pointer to the New Passover which would come later.

And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. Luke 22

'this passover' was the last of the Old Passovers and the first of the New.

R
RobertW

So according to the provisions of the Sinai Covenant, one is condemned because God does not supply His Holy Spirit.

The benefits of the New Covenant are not here explained for the purpose of somehow condemning folk that lived by faith under the Old Covenant. They lived in the light they had.

The New Covenant brings about NEW possibilities towards God bringing many sons and daughters unto glory. They are enabled to be partakers of the Divine nature in a way not before known. This does not condemn those that lived under the Old Covenant prior to the revelation of the New.

But I would suggest that having had the New Covenant revealed there is a responsibility to walk in that new light. To seek to continue in the Old when the New has come is to rebel against God. To reject Christ is to forfeit saving faith.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:18)

God has not applied to the Old Covenant saints the New Covenant standard ex post facto. Yet, there is a pattern revealed in John 3 that is important.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. (John 3:19)

Moses was able to bring to Israel a 'fading glory' by virtue of his having been with God. They rejected it.

We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. (II Cor. 3:13)

The condemnation is that men love darkness. They reject God. But as many as received Christ to them gave He the authority to become the sons of God. This is what God wanted. It is offered now. There is only one thing left- 'chose ye.'

S
sermonindex

The Sanai covenant is not the only covenant God has made that we know about. From Adam, in Gen. 3:15 until this very day, what has been happening is that each successive covenant has been a greater revelation of God's mercy and grace: His love towards all mankind.

In this day of potential grace recievable, there is a much higher accountability factor towards God than any other time in human history.


All covenants God made with man, from Adam through David, stood in existence as something promised, and thus were shadows of a solid reality yet to come.

For a covenant to be 'filfilled':

1st--> both parties must sever and bring themselves together through the sign of shedding former life, in the offering of one's blood;

2nd--> it must be ratified, enforced by both paritiesd as promised.

()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()( 1 st )()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()
From God's covenant with Adam (Gen. 3:15) to God's covenant with David (I Chron.17:7-14), these all awaited the Godward side of Him giving his own life and blood to bring them into effect. As well, these all awaited the perfect man it cut covenant with God so that these covenants could not be nullified in this "kosmos."

All covenants before the New Covenant were made 'fresh' and ratified for both man and God in Jesus Christ offering His Body for the life of the kosmos, and offering up His blood as the paid-price towards redemption.

Through Jesus' resurrection, we know that God was pleased and His Holy Spirit promised operates in ratifying all former covenants. This is appropriated by faith(fulness) towards God, which is a gift through God's grace:

7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph. 2:7-9


The above is the beginning yet not the completion.


...and as well, many ignore the verse following these verses, which was alluded to in the paragraph immediately above the passage just quoted. See that in this is indicated that we are partakers of all the covenants of God through doing what God affirms: the gift of Jesus faith(fulness) by 'immersion' into His Spirit.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenantS of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

All former covenants made by God were not anulled, but fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

If you are Christ's seed, you will in thought, word, and deed do as He is, through His power. This also places us in the position towards joint-heirship in Jesus Christ as we await adoption as God's children.

Jesus in enactment has made fully valid every covenant God has made with humanity.

()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()( 2 nd )()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

When Jesus Christ returns, it is then that the New Covenant shall become manifested in further and further fulfilment. By His physical presence, He shall enforce 'with a rod of iron' being the Sceptre of the Kingdom of God in heaven and on Earth. This will be the ratification in fulness of all covenants from God.

In Eph. 3 Paul clarifies what we come to understand of this '2nd' part, through the Holy Spirit, at present:

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

13 Wherefore I desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you, which is your glory.

14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,

21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

C
Christinyou

When was the Incorruptable Seed birthed in the believer?

What seed was available to the Old Covenant?

It is either the seed of animal (blood) spirits or the Incorruptable Seed of the Spirit of Christ, (By His sacrificial Blood)in you the Hope of Glory.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

1 Peter 1:13-25 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Is the Incorruptable Seed brought to us now?

Is Christ's Seed in us now?

Are we born again Now?

Old, blood of animals, New, Blood of Christ.

Old, corruptible seed, New, Incorruptable Seed.

In Christ: Phillip

P
philologos

The theme of the indwelling Christ is one much loved of evangelical Christians. Over the years I have tried to understand the different stances of the one, two and three experience teachers. Their teaching on this topic has always left me dissatisfied.

"Christ in you, the hope of glory" is almost a definition of the New Covenant... but when are we to understand this crowning miracle to take place?

Let's think about the disciples of Jesus. Would it make sense to say 'Christ was in them'? Well, Christ was certainly 'with' them but how could he be 'in' them while he was limited to time and place by incarnation.

What about the Resurrection? Was 'Christ in them' as a result of the resurrection? Plainly not, sometimes he was with them and sometimes he was not with them. He certainly wasn't 'in them'.

What about the famous John 20:22 event when Christ breathed on the disciples? Was 'Christ in them' as a result of this experience? Clearly not because for some time later he was with them and sometimes not with them.

I have laboured this point because I think it is important. 'Christ in you' was not the experience of the believers during the time that Christ was on earth. So when did 'Christ in them' become their experience? The usual suspects are thinning out somewhat.

There are more substantial clues...

Was the Father in Christ and Christ in the Father while he was on earth? Yes, plainly...

"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves." John 14:10–11 NKJV

These words speak of very great intimacy and union.

The 'in' word is then used daringly of another relationship...

"And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you." John 14:16–17 NKJV

see how this moves from 'with' to 'in'. The Spirit was going to come to live on the inside. And then speaking of the day of the Spirit's coming he says...

"In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you." John 14:20 NKJV

This is a direct promise of the 'Indwelling Christ' but the date on the promise is the day of Pentecost.

'The Indwelling Christ' was not the experience of the disciples until the Spirit came.

S
sermonindex

by Christinyou on 2010/8/1 8:43:55

When was the Incorruptable Seed birthed in the believer?

What seed was available to the Old Covenant?

It is either the seed of animal (blood) spirits or the Incorruptable Seed of the Spirit of Christ, (By His sacrificial Blood)in you the Hope of Glory.
------------------------------------------------------------
The incorruptible seed referred to is the Word of God, and not the propitiatory sacrafical blood paid towards redemption.

The living Word of God is made manifest to us as Jesus Christ, the incorruptible seed. God's scriptural testimony of Himself and regarding what man is and should be, through His revelation of the way, truth, and the life is the written manifestation of Jesus. Jesus is the physical reality of this.


This is what the passage in Peter is about, in stating, "...obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."


"This too is what John is saying in his first letter:

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh..."
1 Jn. 5:1-4

Jesus testified of these very things--

1. The scriptures are our Heavenly Father's testimony of Jesus.

2. He is the living example of God's Word in action.

3. That it is not any scripture that gives life, but the (Spirit of) the (Living)Word behind it--Himself.

Jesus said,"...the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Jn. 5:36-40
____________________________________________________________


Is the Incorruptable Seed brought to us now?
------------------------------------------------------------
The incorruptible Seed created the world, living and abiding forever, the Ancient of Days, Jesus.

In the fullness of time He took on flesh, but as He says of himself, he has always been available:

"But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved... Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me...
Jn. 5:34, 39
____________________________________________________________
Is Christ's Seed in us now?
------------------------------------------------------------
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
Jn. 14:15-18

3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
Jn. 15:2-5
____________________________________________________________
Old, corruptible seed, New, Incorruptable Seed.

The books of Galatians and Hebrews address the issues of the order of priesthood and signs of covenant being altered and ratified through Jesus' finished work. To go back to these things is to put ourselves under law.

Jesus' sacrafice did the work of man and God once and for all time, presently eliminating the need for Levitical administration of anything.

Now, this Covenant is mediated through Jesus Christ, and He expects us of and from Him, to walk as He walked:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mt. 5:17-20


Blood is propitiatory towards atonement.

The body physically represents the habeas corpus (literally, "that you have the body ") is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention.

Note that the body is recieved before the blood in the Paschal memorial "love feast." (How can a person obtain blood without a body to get it from?)

(something has just been hinted about (towards later discussion...lacking the time to detail this now.))


Thinking in terms of body and blood, consider Romans 5:

1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; 4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope: 5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. 12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Love, Hope, and Faith,
gregg

...I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
Acts 20:31-32

edited

S
sermonindex

The old Covenant was faulty. Heb 8:7, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second."

The scarifies of the Old Covenant could never take away any sin - The scarifies only covered sin for a short period of time.
The Sacrifices had to be done over and over again because it was imperfect.
The Sacrifices did not cleanse the heart or remove any quilt and shame.
The Old Covenant did not produce holiness, or righteousness
Under the Old Covenant the heart of man was still desperately wicked.
The Old Covenant demanded Love but could never supply it
The Old Covenant did not offer Life and could never supply it.
The Old Covenant was broken by man's unfaithfulness.
The law could only kill and bring death.

The New Covenant took away ALL sin once and for all.
The sacrifice of Christ only had to done once because it was a perfect sacrifice.
The sacrifice of Christ made the person forever perfect and it completely cleansed the heart and removed all quilt and shame.
The New Covenant produced holiness and righteousness by giving us the very Life of Christ.
The New Covenant gave man a NEW heart.
The New Covenant gave man the LOVE that was required under the old.
The New Covenant - is the LIFE of Christ, Himself living and dwelling within us.
The New Covenant depends on God's faithfulness.

I once had a couch that was old and smelly and rotten. Well I covered this couch up and for a short time it did look better. The problem was that the couch itself was still rotten and smelly. No matter how many times I covered it - this fact remained.

Well I solved the problem once and for all by destroying the old couch and getting a brand new couch.

In a way that is what Christ has already done. He destroyed my old rotten and smelly heart and replaced it with His Heart and Life.

C
Christinyou

Who is the living Word?

John 1:1-12 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

How can anyone be a son unless he be birthed with the Seed of the Father, He who is Christ that is in us.

We are baptized into the Holy Spirit by Christ, Christ is not the Holy Spirit. Yet we are baptized into One Spirit, the Three in One. The Spirit of Christ the Son, the Spirit of the Father and the Holy Spirit, They are One, manifest in three different applications to our birthing, The Fathers Seed, The Seed Himself, Jesus Christ and The Teacher of this mystery, The Holy Spirit.

Answer, Jesus Christ is the Word, He is the Incorruptable Seed we are born again with and in. Christ in you, and you in Christ.

In Christ: Phillip

C
Christinyou

Amen tuc

C
Christinyou

Quote: ""It is either the seed of animal (blood) spirits or the Incorruptable Seed of the Spirit of Christ, (By His sacrificial Blood)in you the Hope of Glory.
------------------------------------------------------------
The incorruptible seed referred to is the Word of God, and not the propitiatory sacrafical blood paid towards redemption.""

Maybe my punctuation is not right; Jesus Christ is the Incorruptable Seed not the Blood. The Blood is the Sacrifice, the only sacrifice God will accept for the sin of the world. It is not the Blood that is Seed but the Seed of the Father, which is Jesus Christ.

Without this Seed we are none of His.
Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.

The explanation of 8:9; Romans 8:10-15 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him (The Holy Spirit) that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit (spirit of Christ)that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Christ the New Life, a new living Creature, Powered by the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, our teacher and One who teaches us all that Christ is and says to the Believer.

S
sermonindex

you wrote:

"Well I solved the problem once and for all by destroying the old couch and getting a brand new couch"

sir, comparing God's Holy Word, the Bible, Scripture, both Old and New Testament.....comparing THE WORD to "an old smelly couch" in need of being tossed out, strikes me as a most inappropriate usage of metaphors.

Almost brazen. i've been following this thread with a half an eye, half of my RAM, it just got kind of boring to me, but if brothers and sisters sharpen and profit thru such dialogue, Bless God!!

To me, as the Holy Spirit speaks, there's no real dividing lines, from Genesis 1 to Revelations 22, God is truly marvelous, grafted all you Gentiles into His Branch, and that is Wonderful...i mean that.

so rejoice in that Good News, and dont get cocky, or is it too late for that? (im smiling)

in Jesus love, neil

S
sermonindex

by Christinyou on 2010/8/1 15:22:03

Christ is not the Holy Spirit.
------------------------------------------------------------
oh really?

(If you want to debate this start another thread.)

God said, "My people shall know my name."

Holy is an adjective.

Spirit is an impersonal noun.

Holy Spirit is a title and not His name.

What is the name of the Holy Spirit?

...and while you are at it, please explain what this verse means:
17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
II Cor. 3:17

------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip, either you and tuc and you have not been reading this whole thread or you have just completely ignored several salient points.

This issue was brought up at the onset with Ron, yet we did not go there.

Agape,
g

C
Christinyou

2 Cor 3:17

This I take to be the sentiment of the passage, though expositors have been greatly divided in regard to its meaning. Thus explained, it does not mean absolutely and abstractly that the Lord Jesus was "a Spirit," but that he was the sum, the essence, the end, and the purport of the Mosaic rites, the spirit of which Paul had spoken in 2Co 3:6, as contradistinguished from the letter of the law.
And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. This is a general truth designed to illustrate the particular sentiment which he had just advanced. This Spirit is not the another Comforter, the Holy Spirit.

Making the Spirit of Christ into the Holy Spirit is denying Pentecost and John's statement, "He will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire". Christ Himself makes distinction of the Comforter and Himself. John 14:18-22 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

Is the Holy Spirit Comforter the Spirit of Christ?

Answer; John 14:23-27 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

"But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost", Not I am the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name and He is me. Never, this is one of Christendom's greatest mistakes, making the Spirit of Christ who is life, the Holy Spirit Teacher and sealer of that life. John 14, 15, 16, 17, distinguish thoroughly the work of the Holy Spirit Teacher and the Life of the Believer The Spirit of Christ.

In Christ: Phillip

S
sermonindex

Phillip, you can call it the dividing line of expositor's, but if you look at the historic origins of the concept of the Holy Spirit being something-other-than-Christ -(aka: antichrist)- the believer is no longer looking to Jesus as the source of power, revelation, sanctification, and so on.

To call it sentiment is a quite a bit too light a treatment of something that says either you do or do not know God's name. If one does or doesn't know the name of the Holy Spirit determines how much one is, or is not, His people, respectively.

The 3in1 concept was invented and developed through the devisings of two Roman Catholic theologians named Tertullian and Origen, more than a century after the privitive church went underground (literally), through the persecution of Romanism.

Without going into to much detail presently, the background of third century orthodoxy on the subject of the Trinity cannot be found in the Bible, but in Greek philosophical writings. The Roman Catholic New Theological Dictionary acknowledges the Spirit is never the explicit object of NT worship, nor is the Spirit ever represented in NT discourse as interacting in an interpersonal way with the Father and the Son.
Later in the same article, modern Catholic scholars, discussing the origins of orthodox teaching on the Trinity, blazonly admit pagan influences of noe-platonism and hellenistic magick formed the backbone of this theological invention.

............................................................
In Isaiah 6 and in Revelation, who is the one proclaimed to be holy?

Jesus came in the flesh and took on the form of a man. A man is spirit, has a soul, and lives in a body.

Why would anybody think that if Jesus is holy, his spirit is not?

To say that He has the holy spirit or 7 spirits of God (Rev. 5:6, 3:1) by no means detracts from who Jesus is. Rather, it proves more-so that He is God's manifested revelation to all mankind.

It might be convenient to quote Jn. 14:23-27 in support of 3in1, yet to disregard what comes immediately before it--

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. (Jn 14:15-20)
--is a bit shortsighted, don't you think?

In fact, consider that whole discourse through chapter 16 and see if you do not come to a different conclusion than this theology that was invented through the devisings of Babylon, the Mother of Prostitutes.

And while you are reading, keep in mind the fact that Jesus when speaking about himself in any other regard than the immediate present moment, spoke of Himself in the third person (,such as "the son of man" in Jn. 3:13).

Why did this come up now?

Anyway, "Spirit of Christ" is actually saying, "Spirit of God's-Annointed" ...and who is that?


The Shalom
of Jesus Christ
be with you,
gregg

C
Christinyou


Home Founders CL USA CL Internat'l LIS Magazine BookStore Contact Us CL News
The Error of the One Gospel (and Christ being the Holy Spirit.)
By Warren Litzman

There are great numbers of believers who do not know there is a final gospel. For centuries theologians have erroneously maintained that there is only one gospel in the Bible. This is grave error but worse is the fact that such untruth has kept multitudes unaware that Christ lives in them and is their only life to God (Gal. 2:20). Why would anyone maintain such an idea when the Scriptures are so clear? I see that there are at least five reasons for this grave oversight and confusion of interpretation.


1) When believers are denied the facts of the seven dispensations in the Bible, they can never know who God is talking to or why. The study of the different dispensations open up the fact that God had a different message in each one of the dispensations. When you see this it becomes simple to see that God had a different message for the Gentiles. While God has but one plan it is broken into many different parts. Seeing this difference is knowing your Bible.


2) Unless you know the difference between the ministries of Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus our Lord, you can never understand the final gospel. When Jesus of Nazareth was sent to Israel He came to His own, but His own received Him not. The facts concerning His coming to Israel is one great truth, but Jesus, the Lord of our life, was sent to live in believers, whether Jews or Gentiles. Such an idea as this is not an extension of the work or words of Jesus of Nazareth. While it is the same Jesus that healed the sick, raised the dead, cast out devils and performed miracles and is the same Jesus that lives in believers today, the gospel for these two different works of God require two different messages.


3) This confusion over the final gospel exists because of the denial, by many, of the Apostle Paul’s message which he called my gospel. Paul must be accepted as God’s last voice for the ultimate truth. He is the last God appointed Apostle, he is the final teacher of grace and his words alone set the pattern for modern believers “Follow me as I follow Christ (I Cor. 11:1).” Unless you follow Paul it will be difficult to know Christ in His fullness as Paul says three different times, “God gave the final gospel to me to give to you” (Eph. 3:17, Col. 1:25, I Cor. 9:16-17).


4) Most believers do not know the radical division there is in the Scriptures. That is the difference between prophecy and the mystery. Prophecy occupies at least 4/5 of the Bible and is based on law and legalism. Paul’s teaching on grace is the message to the born-again and only occupies 1/5 of the Bible. The final gospel, the mystery, is to be found mostly in the 1/5. This by no means nullifies the 4/5 of the Bible.


5) The misplacement and the misuse of the Holy Spirit has kept many from the final truth. Most have erroneously taught the Holy Spirit is Christ. They teach that the believer is only “in Christ” when the believer receives the Holy Spirit. However, the life is only in the Son, Christ’s Spirit is joined to our spirit, and the Holy Spirit is joined to our soulish part (the mind) and is the teacher of the Christ-life.

Christ-life Fellowship
PO Box 170307 Dallas, TX 75217-0307 USA

litzman@christ-life.org

Christ is our Life, our only life. The Holy Spirit will be with us forever in our soulish part, teaching us in our minds who Christ is. When we See Christ the Holy Spirit will still be in us and Christ's Spirit will be our life, our new nature our new creation life, a new creature, a son of God by the Incorruptable Seed of the Father, Christ in you the Hope of Glory.

In Christ: Phillip


R
RainMan

Is the Holy Spirit a distinct personality?
Like paul said “now we know in part….” There were things that were a mystery even to the apostles. But here are a few considerations.

Matthew 28:18-20 (New International Version)
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Jesus himself makes the distinction of all three personalities. In Acts and the epistles we see the spirit often spoke "expressly". We can also deduce that the Spirit never SPOKE(verb) of his own accord but would only speak what he would HEAR(verb).

John 16
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

I think someone asked what the Holy Spirit’s name is if he is indeed a distinct personality. If we don’t know what the holy Spirit’s name is how can you baptise anyone?

from adam to mosses God was simply known as elohim (plural) and when mosses pressed for a name God responded by saying "i am that i am" =YHWH

If God name is I AM that I AM (I will be what i will be)

then if Elohim is one and Elohim is YHWH
YHWH is The Father
YHWH is The Son
YHWH is The Holy Spirit

Yet the father and the son are one and The Spirit of the Father is the Spirit of the Son?

3 distinct persona's but one YHWH. Some say the trinity could have been influenced by pagan religions(partially correct). But what of pagan religions that were also influenced by the Torah and christianity. I was listening to a former muslim talk about Jesus (of the Koran) breathing into a clay dove and the dove becoming a living creature(its obvious were this imagery is from) so pagan religions having similar symbolism isn't to far fetched. I

Hebrews 10:12, & 15 "But He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God. . . . And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us"

John 15:26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness of Me." (see also John 14:16-17)

[ARTICLE]
Isaiah 61:1 called the Holy Spirit Lord-Yehovah:
"Ruach-Adonai-Yehovah [hwIhy] yn:doa} j'Wr] is upon me, because Yehovah has anointed me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent me to bind up the broken hearted, To proclaim liberty to captives, and freedom to prisoners."
Paul in Romans 8:9 calls the Holy Spirit the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Jesus: "However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit-of-God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit-of-Christ, he does not belong to Him." Paul tells us here very plainly that Jesus Christ is Yehovah God in the flesh and that the Holy Spirit is His Spirit, God’s Spirit.
Here again we see the Trinity involved in Redemption.
H.A. Ironside wrote in his book The Holy Trinity:
"The doctrine of the Trinity is denied by various groups, from different standpoints. Some have insisted from olden days that God is simply a Trinity in manifestation. In the Old Testament they say it was the manifestation of God as the Father; when Christ was here it was the manifestation of God as the Son; now it is the manifestation of God as the Holy Spirit. But that is absolutely contrary to the Word itself. It was the Lord Jesus Christ who came to reveal the Father, and while here on earth spoke of coming from My Father and going to My Father and He speaks of sending the Holy Spirit; it was the Holy Spirit who witnessed to the glorified, finished work of Christ the Son. Scripture is very careful in the use of pronouns."
John 15:26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness of Me." (see also John 14:16-17)
Jesus made plain that God is Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one in agreement." (1 John 5:7)
•
John Wesley wrote in a sermon on the Trinity concerning this passage:
"I would insist only on the direct words, unexplained, just as they lie in the text: ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: And these three are one.’ 5. ‘As they lie in the text :’ — but here arises a question: Is that text genuine? Was it originally written by the Apostle, or inserted in later ages? Many have doubted of this; and, in particular, the great light of the Christian church, lately removed to the Church above, Bengelius, — the most pious, the most judicious, and the most laborious, of all the modern Commentators on the New Testament. For some time he stood in doubt of its authenticity, because it is wanting in many of the ancient copies. But his doubts
were removed by three considerations: (1.) That though it is wanting in many copies, yet it is found in more; and those copies of the greatest authority: — ( 2.) That it is cited by a whole gain of ancient writers, from the time of St. John to that of Constantine. This argument is conclusive: For they could not have cited it, had it not been in the sacred canon: — (3.) That we can easily account for its being, after that time, wanting in many copies, when we remember that Constantine's successor was a zealous Arian, who used every means to promote his bad cause, to spread Arianism throughout the empire; in particular the erasing this text out of as many copies as fell into his hands. And he so far prevailed, that the age in which he lived is commonly styled, Seculum Aranium, — "the Arian age;" there being then only one eminent man who opposed him at the peril of his life. So that it was a proverb, Athanasius contra mundum: ‘Athanasius against the world.’"56
In order for Jesus to be able to have relationship with all Christians, He would have to be infinite: fully God.
In order for the Holy Spirit to indwell all believers, He would have to be infinite: fully God.
God the Father sent Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit: God the Father is God.

[/ARTICLE]

Deuteronomy 6:4 (often loses meaning in different translations)


"4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"
Deuteronomy 6:4 (King James Version)

Hear, O Israel: YHWH our Elohim(plural) is one YHWH :


From adam to mosses mans revelation of God was elohim, the bible in genesis describes the world being created by Elohim. We see Elohim speaking saying "come let us make man OUR own image" mosses asks God what his name was to which we know he responded I AM that I AM = YHWH YHWH=ELOHIM. We know jesus said he and the father were one. If jesus was speaking truth then is it that hard to understand that the Spirit is described as the Spirit of the Father and still described as the Spirit of Christ?

Elohim (אֱלהִים) is a plural formation of eloah

Conclusion
The Father = eloah
The Son = eloah
The Holy Spirit = eloah

eloah + eloah + eloah = Elohim

Elohim says his name is YHWH

Elohim is one and his name is YHWH

The Spirit of The Father and the Spirit of the Son are one and the same Spirit the Holy Spirit. Thats why the apostles refer to him interchangeably as either the Spirit of God the Father or The spirit of Christ. I cant find any reference by which we can infer the spirit of Christ is not the holy spirit and is separate. Cause then we have to account for four distinct persona instead of three.


Stay Blessed


R
RobertW

The 3in1 concept was invented and developed through the devisings of two Roman Catholic theologians named Tertullian and Origen, more than a century after the privitive church went underground (literally), through the persecution of Romanism.

Since when did the Trinity go up for grabs? No wonder we can't keep this thread on the rails. Were not even talking about the same God!

P
philologos

Robert writes...
Since when did the Trinity go up for grabs? No wonder we can't keep this thread on the rails. Were not even talking about the same God!

I think this is a good point Robert. If folk want to discuss the Trinity in another theme I think that is fine. I shall not take up that issue here. Although anyone who thinks the belief in the Trinity originated with Tertullian and Origen has some history to read.

P
philologos

Earlier I wrote...

'The Indwelling Christ' was not the experience of the disciples until the Spirit came.

One passage in the letter to the Ephesians is often missed in this matter.

"that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love," Eph 3:16–17 NKJV

this is Paul's pattern of prayer for the saints and it the only place where it speaks of Christ dwelling in the heart. However if we read the passage carefully we discover that the way that Christ 'dwells in the heart' is as a result of the saints being 'strengthened with might through His Spirit in the ineer man'. It is only be the indwelling Spirit that the indwelling Christ can be manifested in the life of the saint.

This brings us back to my original question... when does Christ begin his indwelling?

C
Christinyou

Quote: ""This brings us back to my original question... when does Christ begin his indwelling?""

At the instant God the Father births the Incorruptable Seed in the Believer, "Born Again". Then we are baptized into the Holy Spirit by Christ, as John stated. The Holy Spirit works in our soul-mind to give the revelation of the birthing of The Christ Seed in the Believer. Now we are the son's of God.

In Christ: Phillip

A
Areadymind

This thread is like a mustard seed that, when planted, became a giant tree that all the birds of the air nested in...

I keep wanting to read it, but alas the size had become daunting. Is it worth it guys?

S
sermonindex

by RainMan on 2010/8/2 1:57:19

Is the Holy Spirit a distinct personality?
------------------------------------------------------------
YES!

And the article or your thoughts seem to be a bit confusing:

Elohim = God manifested in the earth, sympathy and antipathy working together as one.
El= masculine tense
Eloah=feminine tense
...and the info based on what was written is part-way correct.
For Examples:
what about SheKiNAH?
Who is YaHShuVaH in relation to YHVH?

Also the end statement about four aspects might just be more ded on the money than we think. Man's being, according to the OT is four parts...

Man is made like onto God's image, right?

Still, we are almost exactly in the same thought from your last statement:
________________________(below)_____________________________
The Spirit of The Father and the Spirit of the Son are one and the same Spirit the Holy Spirit. That is why the apostles refer to him interchangeably as either the Spirit of God the Father or The spirit of Christ. I cant find any reference by which we can infer the spirit of Christ is not the holy spirit and is separate. Cause then we have to account for four distinct persona instead of three.
------------------------------------------------------------Jesus said,
"At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you."
Jn. 14:20

Jesus is in our Father.
We are in Jesus.
Jesus is in us.

We have a direct connection with the Spirit of our Heavenly Father in Jesus Christ.

____________________________________________________________

Phillip that page put foreward is full of holes, and many others who know the Bible more than all the convoluted traditions of men, would -(if this were the thread to do it,) put it down with the scriptures that prove those things consist more of human opinion than Biblical reality.

...but Phillip, if you want final truth alone, go to Jesus Revelation to John, written several years after Paul was beheaded. BTW, Paul does not stand in opposition to anything the apostles taught.
____________________________________________________________

Those who think we are not talking about the same God as in the Holy Spirit... perhaps not, as you who claim such do not even 'know' His name, in the biblical sense.

I hear the Spirit, that is Jesus voice. He is more real to me than what this body can physically sense. He leads, instructs and guides me. He empowers me in what He wants done: gifts of healing towards one in need, the gift of miracles toward the benefit of another, astounding manifestations of faith, prophecy, a word of knowledge or wisdom, teaching ability that is not of me, and so many other things that in and of my own devisings could never be.

i never ever will teach trinity as the apostles never taught such.

Historically, we see the advent of this concept after the Roman Government has already introduced the worship of Mithras/Apollo and the various mythological gods as saints to be worshipped and prayed to into Romanism.

There is none so blind as he who will not look.
There are correlative historical sources that confirm the information in The Roman Catholic New Theological Dictionary. It spells all this information out so plainly, HRCism being the very source of the conceptualization. This book is not hard to come by, and if you cannot find it anywhere else, go to the library. Look up 'Trinity', then read it and weep in prayer for all so decieved.
____________________________________________________________

Phillip, if you want, we can hash this paper out; but, seeing these are not your own words, do you really beieve all of that stuph, or how much?
____________________________________________________________
Let us get back directly on topic.

This will be the last (sorta' off-topic) discursive from here regarding the Holy Spirit on this thread...and this happened right when some really good stuff has been giving as revealed !

PM if you think there is something wrong with what i believe through the scriptures and according experience; however, before you do, ask yourself if you experience God's hand and voice and thought and feeling and vision and revelation as an everyday occurance?

Anything that points to something that is not relative to Jesus Christ crucified is anathema (Gal. 1:8-9), as it is through identification in Him in this that these things are a regular walk of life: to walk in the Spirit (and not fulfill the lust(s) of the flesh).

Be being filled with the Spirit!

Love, Hope, and Faith,
gregg


How do you fear God?


8 Good and upright is the LORD: therefore will he teach sinners in the way.

9 The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way.

10 All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.

11 For thy name’s sake, O LORD, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great.

12 What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose.

13 His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth.


-------------------
14 The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.
-------------------


15 Mine eyes are ever toward the LORD; for he shall pluck my feet out of the net.
(Psalm 25:8-15)

edited: grammar

C
Christinyou

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Why do we need a Comforter forever? We will be learning Christ and God the Father throughout all eternity, we will never exhaust the Wisdom of God, God's plans for His family, God's future plans in eternity.


John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

I take it by faith that I am born again of the Incorruptable Seed of the Father and Have Christ in me, As He is in the Father and the Father is in Him and the Holy Spirit is in all.

John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Christ is a Comforter to us also, One who gives Life, New Life. By Him we enter God's rest, Which God the Father swore we would and those outside would not.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

I see Him by faith and continue to see Him always by His presence in me, He is my Spirit which is the life that will enter the Kingdom of God, His Spirit which does not need teaching, He speaks to the Holy Spirit and what Jesus says, the Holy Spirit teaches me in my soul-mind, the only place I can renew my mind to the Mind of Christ that is in me.

John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

I truly know this mystery that Paul speaks by direct revelation in Col 1, by the Christ that is birthed in Paul.
"Christ in you the Hope of Glory".

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

He does manifest Himself to me always, because by Faith I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son, and He lives in me, "It is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me".
This was the Father's plan even before the foundation of the world. Where are we chosen? Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

I do love Jesus by His Love that is in me, I love Him because He loved me first. The whole God Head, that whole bucket of Grace provided by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are in me. Not a partial bucket filled a little bit at a time, but the whole bucket of God in Christ Jesus is poured out upon and into believers.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

He is the One that has taught me that Jesus Christ is birthed In me and I being born again am a new creation race of my Fathers House, a son of God. I can enter the Kingdom and will enter on resurrection day, either from the grave or changed in the twinkling of an eye, a new flesh and bone body just like My Brothers, We will be just like Him.

John 14:27-29 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

It has come to pass and I believe, This is the peace Christ in us gives to The Father's children, son's of God, fellow Heirs with Christ to the Kingdom of God.

Chapter 15 later on the understanding of the three in one God of the Bible, My Father, My Brother and Savior, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit of truth, my Teacher and revealer of even the things I don't understand, He is the one that give true revelation.

In Christ: Phillip


R
RainMan

Phane
"what about SheKiNAH?
Who is YaHShuVaH in relation to YHVH?"

Thats a good question had to look up the answer as im not a native jew or seminary student but good question and interesting answer never the less.

The question i would like to ask is that did not YHVH become YaHShuVaH in order to reveal himself to man and in doing so did he lose his YHVH(-ness)?

the definition of elohim (plural of god) i was using was taken from the strongs


אלהים
'ĕlôhîym
el-o-heem'
Plural of ĕlôahh; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.


'ĕlôahh 'ĕlôahh
el-o'-ah, el-o'-ah
(The second form is rare); probably prolonged (emphatically) a deity or the deity: - God, god


Question:
1. If we say that the apostles did not teach the trinity directly can it be inferred from thier teaching that The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost were all perceived to be God? is there any scriptures that supports the view that God is not father, son and holy spirit.

2. As the book says in the "presence of two or three witnesses is a word established" now if we look at the book of revelations which is very allegorical in nature can we substantiate doctrine of the dimensions to the nature of Gods Spirit if we do not have another witness of scripture outside of revelations? Can we possiblt fully understand an allegorical book when now we can only "in part" know.

P
philologos

I keep wanting to read it, but alas the size had become daunting. Is it worth it guys?

I suspect that there is a spoiling policy at work here. We can give up or pursue this glorious truth as we choose. For myself I have stopped reading the posts that are not relevant to the New Covenant. I suggest you do the same.

P
philologos

Christinyou on 2010/8/2 22:50:10 writes:
"At the instant God the Father births the Incorruptable Seed in the Believer, "Born Again". Then we are baptized into the Holy Spirit by Christ, as John stated. The Holy Spirit works in our soul-mind to give the revelation of the birthing of The Christ Seed in the Believer. Now we are the son's of God."
you
As this is relevant to our thread I will try to respond.

is your 'then' suggesting a second event?
How does New Birth take place, is it not by the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus entering the believer?

Does, in your words, 'the Spirit work in our soul-mind to give the revelation..' ir is it the Spirit's presence in the believer that makes the revelation possible?

This is why I wanted to talk about the New Covenant. According to Ezekiel the terms of the New Covenant are ...

"Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them." Ezek 36:25–27 NKJV

Is the New Covenant operationg when just some of these aspects are functioning or is the New Covenant only really functioning when all these aspects are at work.

These are some of the aspects of the New Covenant...

I will cleanse you...
I will give you a new heart
and put a new spirit within you
I will take out the heart of stone
and give you a heart of flesh
I will put my Spirit within you

Is, putting his Spirit within us, an optional addition to the New Covenant or is it an integral part of that covenant? If he has not put 'His Spirit within' are we actually in the New Covenant?

R
RainMan

"I will cleanse you...
I will give you a new heart
and put a new spirit within you
I will take out the heart of stone
and give you a heart of flesh
I will put my Spirit within you"

if someone does not have the a heart of flesh or the law written in their hearts as opposed to stone are they truly saved? I ask this because i have loved ones in bondage to the ordinances of the old covenant and this bondage was caused by their own self desires in the first place. If the law being written by the Holy Ghost is non-optional why do people like some loved ones i know and even the church of galatia still get enticed by the law (assuming Paul was writing to believers in galatia)

P
philologos

RainMan on 2010/8/3 8:57:30 writes:
"if someone does not have the a heart of flesh or the law written in their hearts as opposed to stone are they truly saved? I ask this because i have loved ones in bondage to the ordinances of the old covenant and this bondage was caused by their own self desires in the first place. If the law being written by the Holy Ghost is non-optional why do people like some loved ones i know and even the church of galatia still get enticed by the law (assuming Paul was writing to believers in galatia)"

This is an important question but in a way a secondary one. When we are trying to interpret scripture we need to be very careful about the way that 'people we know' are factored into the answer. The question really is how does scripture define the New Covenant? When we have answered that question the next question is where does that leave me... and my friends.

Part of the struggle to answer this 'second question' is caused by the way we often use terms interchangeably which are not strictly speaking interchangeable.

eg."if someone does not have the a heart of flesh or the law written in their hearts as opposed to stone are they truly saved?"

The implication here is that someone has to be in the New Covenant in order to be saved, but is this true? If, as I believe, the New Covenant came into force at Pentecost it must mean that all saints who were pre-Pentecost were not in the New Covenant, but does that mean that all such were not 'saved'?

Perhaps this will shock but the purpose of the Old Covenant, the Sinai Covenant, was not salvation but calling and national destiny. There was no promise of 'heaven when we die' under the Sinai Covenant. Individuals under that law and individuals not under that law can only be right with God through justification. The saints of the OT were justified by faith, that is clearly stated in several places in the scripture, and if being justified by faith means that God has declared us to be right with him. If we are right with him we are 'safe' or 'saved'.

Why do people still go astray? An enemy hath done this... "you ran well" says Paul, "who (not what) hindered you?"

S
sermonindex

"I will cleanse you...
I will give you a new heart
and put a new spirit within you
I will take out the heart of stone
and give you a heart of flesh
I will put my Spirit within you"

I do not see how it is possible to be born again without getting a new heart and receiving His Spirit.

Now it is possible to be truly be born again but still be bondage because of lack of understanding of what really took place at the cross.

I spent many years in bondage until I found out the real truth of what Christ accomplished for me.

P
philologos

tuc on 2010/8/3 11:02:33 writes
"do not see how it is possible to be born again without getting a new heart and receiving His Spirit."
Nor me

tuc on 2010/8/3 11:02:33 writes
Now it is possible to be truly be born again but still be bondage because of lack of understanding of what really took place at the cross.
I agree wholeheartedly

H
Heydave

Ron wrote:

Perhaps this will shock but the purpose of the Old Covenant, the Sinai Covenant, was not salvation but calling and national destiny. There was no promise of 'heaven when we die' under the Sinai Covenant. Individuals under that law and individuals not under that law can only be right with God through justification. The saints of the OT were justified by faith, that is clearly stated in several places in the scripture, and if being justified by faith means that God has declared us to be right with him. If we are right with him we are 'safe' or 'saved'.

I absolutely agree with that statement that all those under the Law and outside the Law in the past and present could only be saved by justifying faith. As I understand it, it was always so and never did God have a different plan or way of salvation.
However I think that the Old Covenant Law was more than just a national calling (although it was that), but we are told by Paul that the purpose of the Law was to act as a 'guardian to lead us to Christ' (Galatians 3:23-24). It's purpose is to show us God's eternal moral standard and lead us to acknowledge we are sinners and cannot keep His law by our own efforts or work. We need to have our hearts changed with the law written on them so we now keep the moral standard of the law by the power of the Spirit in us.

I saw something I had not seen before in Deuteronomy ch.10 where Moses received the law on the second pair of tablets. This time he is told to put them in the woden ark (10:2), where as with the first tablets that he broke he carried them in his hands (Deut 9:15-17). I see this as a picture of the old and New Covenant. The first set of tablets were the law in man's hand. They had to be broken and could not be kept by the work of man's hand. The second tablets were placed in the ark, a picture of the law written in our heart.
This message of the law in our hearts is confirmed may times in scripture and further down the chapter in Deuteronomy 10:12 it says " ..what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways and love Him, to serve the LORD your God with ALL YOUR HEART and all your soul". Then in v.16 they are told to "..circumcise the foreskin of your heart". They had the outward circumcision of the flesh, but God was (and always is) concerned with hearts. Only if the heart is changed can the life change and works follow.

As Christians it is possible to try and 'keep the law' by our own efforts, rather than allowing God to change our hearts and thereby fulfill the law!

C
Christinyou

Quote: ""Is, putting his Spirit within us, an optional addition to the New Covenant or is it an integral part of that covenant? If he has not put 'His Spirit within' are we actually in the New Covenant?""

I Have said before, we don't get this Grace covenant in parts and pieces. We get the whole bucket of Grace, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit by virtue of new birth, The Seed being of the Father.

Ephesians 2:1-10 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

With, in, created in Christ Jesus, birthed, Christ in you, you in Christ, the sock in the water and the water in the sock. The Holy Spirit is given to teach us what we have received and sort it all out the we might understand the Mind of Christ we now have, The Spirit of Christ, The Life of Christ, etc, all is given the instant we are born again, regenerated if you will. "The life I now live I live by the faith of the Son of God, it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me. We must have the Holy Spirit to comprehend this mystery now revealed to His saints.

In Christ: Phillip

P
philologos

Heydave on 2010/8/3 13:53:25 writes:
"However I think that the Old Covenant Law was more than just a national calling (although it was that), but we are told by Paul that the purpose of the Law was to act as a 'guardian to lead us to Christ' (Galatians 3:23-24)."

Hi Dave
There is a whole section in Gal 3 & 4 where Paul uses personal pronouns such as 'we, us, our' in contrast to 'you, your'. The classic switch is in

"But after faith has come, WE are no longer under a tutor. 26 For YOU are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of YOU as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Gal 3:25–27 NKJV

As we read the passages surrounding this statement we see Paul is speaking from his ancient heritage as a Jew. The Galatian churches had come under a teaching that seemed to allow 'faith in Christ' for the initial steps but then insisted on a keeping of the law to ensure maturity. Paul's point, in Gal 4) is that the period of the law was the time of Israel's childhood. He distinguishes between 'children' and 'slaves' but says before the time appointed by the Father there is no essential difference.

"Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. 3 Even so WE, when WE were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that WE might receive the adoption as sons." Gal 4:1–5 NKJV

There is a distinction between child and son here which is important.

In the Roman culture 'huiothesia' or son placing pointed to a right of passage in which the child became an adult. The Jews were destined for this, it was their heritage. During the time of the nations childhood they were under child conductors and tutors but now that 'faith' has come that is changed...

"But before faith came, WE were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was OUR tutor to bring US to Christ, that WE might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, WE are no longer under a tutor." Gal 3:23–25 NKJV

This is the testimony of a Jew who has entered into his ancient inheritance not by 'keeping the law' but by receiving the Spirit. The false teachers seem to have been suggesting that the new converts needed a similar 'childhood' by being brought under the law. Paul is adamant... you are sons! We Gentiles too enter into that ancient heritage promised to Abraham but not by law-keeping but by receiving the Spirit of sonship.

P
philologos

Christinyou on 2010/8/3 14:26:20 writes:
"I Have said before, we don't get this Grace covenant in parts and pieces. We get the whole bucket of Grace, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit by virtue of new birth, The Seed being of the Father."

Phillip
In the Abrahamic covenant the seal of the covenant was circumcision. Circumcision was a private and a covert sign.
In the Sinai Covenant the seat of the covenant was the Sabbaths. Sabbath keeping was a very public and overt sign.

what is the seal of the covenant in the New Covenant?

A
ADisciple

"But before faith came, WE were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was OUR tutor to bring US to Christ, that WE might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, WE are no longer under a tutor." Gal 3:23–25 NKJV

I'm wondering, Ron, how you see this faith that's spoken of here: "...Before faith came... after faith has come..."

...And how that compares with the faith Abraham had.

S
sermonindex

As previously emphasized over and over again, the New Covenant validated all prior covenants. Now all God's covenants (of promise) have been made complete and are fulfilled in Jesus Christ ...yet in this age that is rushing headlong toward it's final day, all these promises are appropriated by trusting dependent reliance on/in Jesus Christ.

(God does not give you the faith to do it all yourself. From start to finish of our salvation, it is through God's grace, ALL the priveledges available -(over 8000 promises from Genesis to Revelation)- are imputed to(wards) us through the authority posessed through Jesus' finished work.)

Some day, faith will be sight.

God can call things that be not, as though they already were because He is not a man that He should lie. Through faith(fulness) towards God, man fulfills His end of the covenant through sacrafice and trusting God to FULFILL what He said He will do.

In God fulfilling all former covenants in Jesus, being both the representatives and sacrafices of man cutting covenant with God, he made all former covenant promises valid, not merely in letter, but in spirit, making all things promised filled toward completion.

For example, in regard to God's first promise toward covenant being fulfilled with man, God said to Adam and Eve:

"And I will put enmity between thee (the Netsach=serpent/whisperer/sorcerer)
and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. " (Gen. 3.15)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then God showed man the covering through sacrafice, for the scripture states, " Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them." (Gen. 3.21)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can be sure Gen. 3.15 is promise regarding the coming Messiah, as the seed is in man. Yet God said regarding this, " I will put enmity . . . between thy seed and her seed," hinting to what Isaiah's prophecied as the Messiah would be born of a virgin (7.14).

Now consider that Hebrew word Netsach. The Greek word for this is Nazar, from which we get Nazareth (house/threshold of the serpent) and Nazarene (the serpentine/of the serpent).


Never forget Jesus was known as "Jesus of Nazareth."

Matt 26.71 And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.
Mark 1.24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
Mark 10.47 And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me.
Mark 14.67 And when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.
Mark 16.6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
Luke 4.34 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.
Luke 18.37 And they told him, that Jesus of Nazareth passeth by.
Luke 24.19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
John 1.45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
John 18.5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. John 18.7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.


Acts 2.22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Acts 6.14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.
Acts 10.38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Acts 22.8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
Acts 26.9 I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth


From Netsach we also get the word -(Heb.)- Netzer, meaning branch/root. In the progressive revelation of God's testimony, we today understand Jesus to be that manifestation spoken of as the 'root' of Jesse. He is also in prophecy symbolized as a 'branch'. Jesus Himself said He is the true vine, which is biologically known to be 'root' and 'branch' in one.

Why did Paul then, in writing of the difference between being under the Law and walking faithful to God by His grace, right in the middle of this discourse write, "...Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree..." (Gal 3.13)

In Mosaic Law, what had been known already was made clear, "And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: 23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance." (Duet. 21.22-23)

The curse came through the serpent 'hanging' on a tree, so appropriately, for this covenant of promise to be fulfilled, Jesus had to undo what had been done.

We see the shadow of this event while Isreal wandered the wilderness:

4 And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way. 5 And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread. 6 And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. 7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. 8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. 9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived. (Num. 21.4-9).

Jesus Prophecied His fulfilled promise to Adam, when speaking to Nicodemus, he said, " as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. (Jn 3:14-15)


We saw several places where the name and title "Jesus of Nazareth" was used, and often this was in recognition of His mission: Establishing the New Covenant.

Peter, in his first letter also speaks of this very sacrafice for Adam (and all his children), ending with a quote from Isaiah 53:
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose bruisings-and-cuts you were healed. (I Pet. 2.24)

Look what Peter told the Sanhedrin when they held he and John to give account for the raising of a lame man through the authority of the name of Jesus:
The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. (Acts 5.30)


=================================================
Side-note:

It is mostly dispensationalism as culprit that has been responsible for many believing God does not heal anymore, as well as wondering if he will.

The Bible makes clear ( in several places) that God's purpose in redemption (through the New Covenant), is to provide man wholeness in spirit and soul and body as well as enabling relationship with our Heavenly Father:

23 Also from himself, God of shalom make you holy completely; and your whole being : the spirit and the soul and the body be preserved without fault at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (I Thess. 5.23).

If you have a child, do you ever make sure that they get sick?

Why would our Heavenly Father do this?

If it is ever God's will for you to suffer the results of Adam's curse in sickness or disease, then your doctor is the minister of satan, and the nurses are his demonic consorts ...and you are sinning against God's will by trying to get better.

One of the Redemptive names, among others Jesus validated in his sacrafice, is "Yaweh Rapha." "I AM your healing" has been brought into completeness through Jesus making fresh the covenants of promise.

This too is recieved by dependent trusting reliance on Jesus, not wondering if God will heal you from whatever.

Jesus bore the curse of the Law of sin and death in all former covenants, and made fully available every promise in them.

So how many people that you know of has Jesus touched and made sick?
=================================================

To filfill is to make completely valid and not to bring to an end.

The whole Torah has never been abolished. Rather, it has been made completely valid.

All prophecies are all still in motion, too.

There is nothing that has been abolished or done away with.

The only metathesis is that Jesus, in the order of Malki-Tzedek, has provided supercedence as our King and High-Priest forever. He has alleviated the Levites of their duties (for the time being).
\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(Mt. 5.16-19)

All covenants God has promised to man are now in fuller force than ever before, because Jesus fulfilled them all:

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. " (Gen. 3.15)

"And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS." (Jn. 19.19)

If the Sinai Covenant were abolished, then the several proceeding it had to be abolished as well.

Former covenant sets precedent for every covenant following.

No precedent, nothing follows.

Shalom,
g

p.s. Remember that fulfill means to fill full completely.

C
Christinyou

Quote: ""Some day, faith will be sight.""

Amen

Quote: ""Never forget Jesus was known as "Jesus of Nazareth." ""

2 Corinthians 5:16-18 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

To the Born Again, He is no longer Jesus of Nazareth. We know Him by His Spirit that is in us.

Romans 8:8-10 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

It is no longer I who live, but Christ who liveth in me.

Phillip

P
philologos

ADisciple on 2010/8/3 16:47:15 writes:
"I'm wondering, Ron, how you see this faith that's spoken of here: "...Before faith came... after faith has come..."

...And how that compares with the faith Abraham had."

This is a good question. Some time ago we had a thread on SI relating to 'the faith of Christ' of 'faith in Christ'. There is some justification for distinguishing between two different kinds of faith...

"Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all" Rom 4:16 NKJV
This speaks of the 'faith of Abraham'. It clearly means the kind of faith that Abraham had ie what has sometimes been called 'justifying faith'.

whereas in the KJV we have...
"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Gal 2:16 KJV

"And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:" Phil 3:9 KJV

in each of these instances the Greek format is exactly the same. The faith of Abraham is clearly justifying faith but what is the faith of Christ. Some have said that this must be Christ's own faith given to the believer but the more I think about it the more I am unsure of this interpretation. I think it is more likely to mean 'Christ centred faith', the faith that belongs to Christ or is Christ orientated.

So what is Paul referring to when he says 'when faith came'. If, as I believe, faith is right response to revelation, then only 'in the fulness of time' was that revelation available and that 'kind' of faith became possible. But because 'faith is right response to revelation' once Christ has been manifested there is no going back. To go back is to reject the revelation.

Abraham's faith was in God. Abraham believed God... He had no vision of Calvary but leaned his trust hard upon God. The Hebrew word 'believe' means to put all your weight on something and is, in fact, the word 'amen'. Abraham leaned hard upon God and 'amen-ed' the word that had been revealed to him'. This faith was reckoned to him for righteousness.

H
Heydave

philologos wrote:

This is the testimony of a Jew who has entered into his ancient inheritance not by 'keeping the law' but by receiving the Spirit. The false teachers seem to have been suggesting that the new converts needed a similar 'childhood' by being brought under the law. Paul is adamant... you are sons! We Gentiles too enter into that ancient heritage promised to Abraham but not by law-keeping but by receiving the Spirit of sonship.

Ron, Thanks for this explanation. I can see and agree with the point you make here that Paul is speaking about the Jews under the law.

I was not suggesting that as believers we need to be under the tutor of the law, but that this was part of the purpose of the law for those under the Old Covenant. However do you think that principle applies in some way to all unbelievers today. Not that they are under the old covenant law, but that the moral standard of the ten commandments is a witness of God's righteous requirement on all men? Otherwise what do folk repent from and how do they know they are sinners, if not by this law? Is not the position Apostle Paul explains in Romans 7 needful for all men to bring them to the place of New covenant deliverance in Romans 8?

P
philologos

Heydave on 2010/8/4 7:42:28 writes:
"However do you think that principle applies in some way to all unbelievers today. Not that they are under the old covenant law, but that the moral standard of the ten commandments is a witness of God's righteous requirement on all men? Otherwise what do folk repent from and how do they know they are sinners, if not by this law?"

Pauls speaks of the 'work' of the law. Not 'works' in this instant but 'work'.

Rom. 2:15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)

'works of the law' would be the attempt at diy righteousness, but the 'work' of the law is only used here in Romans. It seems to me that it point to the moral code that is behind the ten commandments. We often speak of the 10 commandments as though that part of the law should continue but the ten commandments are only a part of the law that was given at Sinai. and even within this 'ten' evangelicals struggle as to what they should do with the Sabbath commandment.

However, behind the 'moral' aspects of the Sinai Covenant is a universal 'moral code' that bears witness even to those who have never heard of Sinai. Lie Detectors, as they are usually called, are based on the fact that when we lie there are tiny reactions in our body. We may appear calm but somewhere something has set off the fire alarm.

Conscience is the way we access this inner knowledge. Paul constantly speaks of conscience and often in a way we would not have expected. He speaks of being made manifest to the conscience of those he spoke to.

The man who judges another, Rom 2, admits by that very judgment that there is a moral dimension to life and having admitted it he must answer before that court. It is interesting in Romans 7 that the 'law' which got him hooked was an internal one... thou shalt not covet. All the others could produce a compliance and a sense of achievement but no external action could satisfy the inner conviction that he had wanted what did not belong to him.

S
sermonindex


philologos said
'Some have said that this must be Christ's own faith given to the believer but the more I think about it the more I am unsure of this interpretation.'

Part of my testimony is that 'faith' was one of the first things I had to ask God to 'give' me. I didn't really know what I was getting! Only that I had been and was being plagued by unbelief.

I found it hugely comforting to understand that the Son had to believe the word of the Father in order to move forward in His (Christ's) ministry (just as Abraham and many other OT saints also had done).

In the end, Christ's faith was vindicated by His real-time incarnation, His resurrection and ascension and the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit begun at Pentecost.

All these are vital aspects of 'the sovereignty of God', in that if the whole work of Christ did procure the possibility of our adoption as sons.

In other words, is there any difference between 'the faith of' Abraham and 'the faith of' Christ, except in the content of God's word to them which they had to believe (which was, of course, of an entirely different order from each other)?

P
philologos

Alive-to-God on 2010/8/4 10:58:06 writes:
"In other words, is there any difference between 'the faith of' Abraham and 'the faith of' Christ, except in the content of God's word to them which they had to believe (which was, of course, of an entirely different order from each other)?"

I think you have expressed it well. This would be my position at the present time.

P
philologos

Dave
I had intended to mention this. I think that this truth may have obscured by the KJV translation.

"But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:25–26 KJV

whereas the NKJV has...

"But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:25–26 NKJV

The KJV often does not distinguish between children and sons. From my studies there is definitely a sense of likeness associated with the word 'son' that does not always carry to the word for 'child'.

The KJV of Gal 3:26 is tragic. It really messes up what is clearly Paul's 'punch line'.

A
ADisciple

Ron said, "There is some justification for distinguishing between two different kinds of faith..."

And so this could also account for what John said: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God..." (1 Jn. 5.1).

For Abraham, though he had justifying faith, was he born of God?

...But my thinking is that maybe it's not two different kinds of faith, but the same faith at two different stages of development. Jesus, we are told, is the author and perfector of faith. Faith is not a static thing, but a living growing thing.

Perhaps this accounts for what Paul had in mind when he said the righteousness of God is revealed (in the Gospel) "from faith to faith" (Rom. 1.17).

(And incidentally, Robertson, Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament, points out there's no article here: it's "a righteousness of God," that is, a "God-kind of righteousness, not a "law" kind of righteousness, that the Gospel reveals.)

So... there's justifying faith, and then in a further development of faith, the faith of Christ, the faith by which Christ dwells in the heart by the Spirit, the faith that Paul had in mind when he said the life he now lived in the flesh he lived by faith, that of the Son of God (or relative to the Son of God, as you suggest).

The faith of the Gospel seems to be a particular quality of faith, and we are admonished to contend for it (Phil. 1.27, Jude 3). And Paul says the ultimate fulness of faith actually requires a corporate expression: "Till we ALL come in (unto) the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto a perfect Man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ..." (Eph. 4.13).

C
Christinyou

If you look at Abraham and Thomas, the faith they had was by their own senses. The Born Again Faith is believing without seeing. These are those that Jesus said to Thomas are, "blessed". That Faith has to come by Jesus Christ, "Ye must be born again or you cannot see the things of the Kingdom of God". There must be a supernatural Faith that came at Pentecost, that those The Father has given to the Son, WILL BELIEVE. This is all part of the mystery revealed to Paul and preached to the whole world through Paul and "My Gospel". Christ in you the Hope of Glory, The Holy Spirit in you by the Promise of Christ and answered prayer by the Father, "with you and will be in you". Even the Father with the Son makes His abode with us also.

Mark 8:34-38 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

My Cross is the Cross of Christ, "I am crucified with Christ" Gal 2:20. If I am in the Spirit the flesh is dead.
I died with Christ on the Cross and it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me. By His Faith I have lost my old man life and now alive unto God by the Son.

Mr 8:35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.

Ac 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

Ac 20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

Ro 1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;

Ro 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Ro 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

1Co 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

1Co 9:18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

Eph 6:19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,

Php 1:7 Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.

Php 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

1Ti 1:11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

2Ti 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

Paul's declaration of "MY GOSPEL", By the Faith of Jesus Christ we believe.

Colossians 1:25-29 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

By whose work are we Perfect? This also must include His Faith working in me.

In Christ: Phillip

P
philologos

I just remembered that John Wesley used to distinguish two kinds of faith. Some challenged him that he must have had faith to visit the prisoners and travel to America as a missionary.. Wesley's answer was...

"I had even then the faith of a servant, though not that of a son"

Journal Vol 1 p422

Charles Wesley's hymns sometimes use the adjective 'filial' as distinct from 'servile'.

C
Christinyou

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!

Amen

S
sermonindex

The faith of Abraham was not based on his own senses.

God promised, Abraham rested all his thoughts, words, and actions in God being faithful to His covenant of promise, and what resulted in his lifetime was only a foretaste.


He believed what God promised and much of it still remains to be physically manifested.

Love, Hope, and Faith,
gregg

...I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
Acts 20:31-32

C
Christinyou

Genesis 17:3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,

Pretty convincing reason to believe, by Abraham's outward senses. Just like Thomas, show me the holes in your hands and wound in your side, then I will believe.

Ge 17:17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
Ge 17:18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
Ge 17:22 And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.

Again, pretty convincing. Has God come down to you and talked to you and then left and went up from you lately?

Again sense faith, not believing faith of Christ in us.

Genesis 18:2-3 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

No wonder Abraham believed. Has God sent beings from Heaven to you? Not me.

Genesis 19:27 And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the LORD:

I could go on and on and on, with evidence that was provided to all of Abraham's senses, but No Faith from Abraham on His own. Abraham's righteousness is only counted to him. The birthed son's of God are made righteous because of Christ in them. 1 Corinthians 1:29-31 That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

In Christ: Phillip

S
sermonindex

I could go on and on and on, with evidence that was provided to all of Abraham's senses, but No Faith from Abraham on His own. Abraham's righteousness is only counted to him. The birthed son's of God are made righteous because of Christ in them. 1 Corinthians 1:29-31 That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

In Christ: Phillip

------------------------------------------------------------

I could go on and on how at times past when needing reassurance, God has literally put the fear of Him in me...and it has never left. Yes, i have been sent beings from heaven, and not only i saw them, nor was i alone struck with fear so strong that composure is gone completely.

Yes, Abraham needed things to bring him further along, yet you start at Genesis 17, and leave out the beginnings of what Abraham did when God made the initial promise.

What you say is speaking on contradiction to Hebrews 11 and what it says of Abraham in Romans:

Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb:  He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
Rom. 4.15-22

Maybe i misunderstood what you said at first, but this is what is attempted to be pointed out, true God is the source of faith(fulness), and as we grow in (relationship through)Christ, it is imputed to us from God in greater measure...and i am with Robert on this: God does not do the trusting in Him for you.

(It really doesn't matter what it takes for God to get an individual to move according to His direction. Some it only "Yes, Lord" and others, like me, He knows that i see closer relationship relative to the manifestation of His presence and power, His clear voice and His clear direction ...so He uses things like this to move me on.

"Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe."

I'm just not always that blessed, and apparently Abraham wasn't always either.

The point is, what may take physical confrontation, as in the case of examples like Abraham, Yakov, and Moshe, for some maybe it does not.

Is that the issue?

No. It is that God imputes faith by whatever means He knows will move the follower to walk pleasing Him, in the faith of God.

Are you taking only one side of the account and discounting the final results of it?

The contrast between what i was before and what He has brought me into to date is like the difference between night and day, whether i have moved forward willingly, or kicking and screaming (until He shows me whose boss.)

Gladly it can be said, this has not been the case for over 7 years... then again, that fear He put in me has not left either, but rather has grown.

(this is why it is so troubling to see others spout off half-truths or falsehoods, and to see it in myself when corrected ...it is either repentance and conversion, or judgement follows.)

God is so good and so patient. If it were up to me dealing with me as if i were in God's shoes, i would have struck myself with lightning already.

God Bless,
g

S
sermonindex

Did Paul believe because we are saved by grace through faith that we could ignore God's Law?

" Do we make void the Law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we cause it to stand! "
Romans 3:31

P
philologos

from a previous posting...
"In the Abrahamic covenant the seal of the covenant was circumcision. Circumcision was a private and a covert sign.
In the Sinai Covenant the seat of the covenant was the Sabbaths. Sabbath keeping was a very public and overt sign.

what is the seal of the covenant in the New Covenant?"

The seal of the Abrahamic covenant was a brand-mark in his flesh by which God said "this is mine".

The overt seal of the Sinai Covenant was the Sabbath, a mark on the community by which God said "this is mine".

The seal of the New Covenant is the gift of the Spirit. A mark by which God says "this is mine".

"But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." Rom 8:9 NKJV

This last verse is sometimes interpreted as though it were saying "all who are Christ's have the Spirit". That is not what it says, this verse says "if you do not have the Spirit you are not 'his' in the sense of being united with him in the New Covenant.

There is a moving passage in Ezekiel where God reminds his people of the effect of entering into covenant with him.

"“When I passed by you again and looked upon you, indeed your time was the time of love; so I spread My wing over you and covered your nakedness. Yes, I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you, and you became Mine,” says the Lord GOD." Ezek 16:8 NKJV

S
sermonindex

by philologos on 2010/8/5 1:10:15

"In the Abrahamic covenant the seal of the covenant was circumcision. Circumcision was a private and a covert sign.
------------------------------------------------------------

Circumcision was an outward sign that one was born into covenant, and not so much a seal per se.

Do you have scripture to back this up?

Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible,

which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward... (Deut. 10.15-17).

It was a sign that God did not respect what acts of righteousness you had done or how you had made yourself appear to be among men.

It was done as a constant reminder

It is no different today. Abraham believed God before the physical act of circumcision, and this is the circumcision of the heart...isn't it?

The Law did not produce bondage, but children unto bondage, and this is what Paul is alluding to and stating comparing Hagar-Sinai to Sarah-Jerusalme.


It was a sign in the sense that it reminded these who were born into covenant that there was to be a circumcision of the heart. Historically, after the cutting away of that small portion of the flesh, before the dispersion--and even with the Jews (of Judah and Benjamin, and some of the more devout of Israel as well), the foreskin was saved, put in a pouch type phylactery, which was bound to the right arm by a crimson chord.

Circumcision was a public and overt sign, and not so hidden as one might think. It was performed ceremonially in public view in the Temple, and the sign of it was worn on the right arm.


Paul spoke of bearing in His body the 'signs' of being (a bond-slave in the New Covenant) of Jesus.
____________________________________________________________

In the Sinai Covenant the seat of the covenant was the Sabbaths. Sabbath keeping was a very public and overt sign.

------------------------------------------------------------

The seat of the covenant was not any sabbath.

Jesus said no man was made for the sabbath, but sabbath was for humanity, (not just Hebrews).

the seat of the covenant was represented by the ark, and BENEATH the mercy seat was the ten commandments, and beside(s) this there was the Mosaic Law representing a way to walk healthy, wealthy and wisely, so that when Messiah comes into His Kingdom reign, they might be a holy nation, dedicated as kings and priests onto God.

These writings, both God's commandments and the Mosaic Law were the habeas corpus of the covenant. They together represent God's body, 'the bread' of God's covenant.

Jesus is the physical embodiment of this, and if we are in Him, we too will walk as He walked. This is the way of His Spirit: grace expressed through love and truth (aka: The Law.)
____________________________________________________________

what is the seal of the covenant in the New Covenant?"

The seal of the Abrahamic covenant was a brand-mark in his flesh by which God said "this is mine".

The overt seal of the Sinai Covenant was the Sabbath, a mark on the community by which God said "this is mine".
------------------------------------------------------------
To paragraph 2 and 3 above, these things need a bit more research.

You best look to the original Hebrew ms. before you state the above.

What is the Biblical basis for these statements?
____________________________________________________________


what is the seal of the covenant in the New Covenant?"

The seal of the Abrahamic covenant was a brand-mark in his flesh by which God said "this is mine".
------------------------------------------------------------
The seal of ALL covenants is the Spirit of God making it possible for us to believe -->(to do as we affirm)--in the first place, which leads to circumcision of the heart.

____________________________________________________________

The seal of the New Covenant is the gift of the Spirit. A mark by which God says "this is mine".

"But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His." Rom 8:9 NKJV

This last verse is sometimes interpreted as though it were saying "all who are Christ's have the Spirit". That is not what it says, this verse says "if you do not have the Spirit you are not 'his' in the sense of being united with him in the New Covenant.


------------------------------------------------------------

RIGHT ON BROTHER! However, many there be who do not understand that to have the Spirit of 'The-Annointed-of-God' (translated 'Christ')...

--is the (aka: Jesus, for there is no other name... by which we can be saved)--

...means that we walk following in His very footsteps. By His Spirit, we do and be as He is.

Jesus said, " 'Many' will say to me in that day, Lord Lord, didn't we...and i will say to them 'i never knew you, depart from me you law-breakers."
____________________________________________________________

There is a moving passage in Ezekiel where God reminds his people of the effect of entering into covenant with him.

"“When I passed by you again and looked upon you, indeed your time was the time of love; so I spread My wing over you and covered your nakedness. Yes, I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you, and you became Mine,” says the Lord GOD." Ezek 16:8 NKJV
------------------------------------------------------------

look deeper...

This is referring to both Exodus 19 and 20. To look at 20 without accounting 19 into this is to completely miss the point.

If Exodus 20 is the basis of understanding without the context of 19, we come up with a skewd understanding.


Love, Hope, and Faith,
gregg

...I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
Acts 20:31-32

P
philologos

Phanetheus on 2010/8/5 9:21:51 writes...
by philologos on 2010/8/5 1:10:15

"In the Abrahamic covenant the seal of the covenant was circumcision. Circumcision was a private and a covert sign.
------------------------------------------------------------

Circumcision was an outward sign that one was born into covenant, and not so much a seal per se.

Do you have scripture to back this up?
"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also," Rom 4:11 NKJV

It was, of course, a outward but private sign. In the normal course of events, after the ceremony itself, only the individual and God would be conscious of the sign.

In the case of Abra/ha/m both Ishmael and Ab's household males were all circumcised. This was not a sign that they were born into 'covenant' but a sign that what was Abraham's was also God's… all that belonged to Ab received the brand.

"the sign of it was worn on the right arm. "
do you have Scripture documentation for this statement?
-----------------------------------------------------------

"The seat of the covenant was not any sabbath."

"“Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you." Ex 31:13 NKJV

"You best look to the original Hebrew ms. before you state the above."
What verses are you referring to?
-----------------------------------------------------------

"look deeper...

This is referring to both Exodus 19 and 20. To look at 20 without accounting 19 into this is to completely miss the point.

If Exodus 20 is the basis of understanding without the context of 19, we come up with a skewd understanding."

I am very familiar with these chapters. What are you referring to?
-----------------------------------------------------------

C
Christinyou

Galatians 4:21-31 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

I would much rather be under the Grace and freewoman of God than under the Law and bondwoman.

Grace brings forth the freedom of the Law in me.

Law brings forth the penalty of death and captivity of the bondwoman.

The flesh must die, the Spirit must live, if it is the Spirit of Christ that lives in us. The Law killed the flesh, Grace exchanged death for life in Christ Jesus, who is my all in all. I am no longer under the Law, but I am totally emersed in the Law, for the perfect Law of Life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the Law of sin and death.

In Christ: Phillip

S
sermonindex

by philologos on 2010/8/5 5:23:38
Phanetheus on 2010/8/5 9:21:51 writes...
by philologos on 2010/8/5 1:10:15

"In the Abrahamic covenant the seal of the covenant was circumcision. Circumcision was a private and a covert sign.
------------------------------------------------------------

Circumcision was an outward sign that one was born into covenant, and not so much a seal per se.

Do you have scripture to back this up?
"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also," Rom 4:11 NKJV

Here it says that Circumcision is a seal not of covenant, but of righteousness by faith.

Covenant ensues (or not) after two parties estimate (do an accounting: Ab was accounted, and so promise of Covenant was given.
============================================================


"the sign of it was worn on the right arm. "
do you have Scripture documentation for this statement?

There are inferences of this statement regarding covenat, such as "of my right arm/hand" as this is where the inscission or mark of covenant is carried.

The Talmud states such and there are historical/anthropological resources, but it has been a long time since that was studied and these books have been given to other ministers who could use them.

(One book recalled that brings these things said together comprehensively in detail, was a book owned , if memory serves correctly, "The Blood Covenant" by a guy named Trumbull(?).)
============================================================
"The seat of the covenant was not any sabbath."

"“Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you." Ex 31:13 NKJV
------------------------------------------------------------

The seat of the covenant is literally "the mercy seat", without the sprinkling of blood on which, there is no propitiation for the breaking of God's commands. Without this yearly atonement, the covenant was recognized without a covering for failure to keep their end of the covenant.

Sabbaths is speaking in regard to the High Holy days, is it not? The seven yearly celebrations were a sign of covenant. The 7 days of these 7 celebrations were shadows of sanctification to come.

God already sanctified His Sabbath in the Garden of Eden. So, it is a recognition time in estimation of God and what He does, already a sanctified event, "for humanity."
============================================================

If Exodus 20 is the basis of understanding without the context of 19, we come up with a skewd understanding."

I am very familiar with these chapters. What are you referring to?

The whole impudence of the children of Israel, and then it turns to "fear not!"

The passage (19&20) shows the love of God and how he communicates back and forth with his people, even when His expectations of us are beyond what we think we will keep.

This was what was recieved from a sermon God put before me by G. Campbell Morgan, called "Grace and Law." That was a summary in byte size form.

I am not explaining the full details and he does a far better job of it. When there is time, it will be typed and forewarded here. i have quickly perused it, but have failed yet to study it, being so busy of late.

There are other things in notes that i must go back and check as well, as some of the thoughts escape me presently.
(probably will be recalled now that i say i don't recall exactly. S'pose thats the good side of Mr. Murphy?)


God Bless you brother.
Shalom to you are yours,
gregg

p.s. Mara natha!

P
philologos

I wanted to say another word or two about Paul...

Most translations have the preposition 'in' as part of this passage…

"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son IN me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood," Gal 1:15–16 NKJV

..with only the ESV and its mentor the RSV relegating the word 'in' to the margin and choosing 'to' instead.

Some have made it clear that they think I lean too heavily towards Paul in what I have been saying but there is a strong reason for this. We have more biographical detail on Paul than any other person in the New Testament, and this is not accidental. Paul explained it thus..

"This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. 16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that IN ME first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as A PATTERN to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life." 1 Tim 1:15–16 NKJV

Paul claims to be a visual aid, a pattern of what God can do IN a man. He claims that he was chosen, among other reasons, to show "in me" all long-suffering… as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him… Do we appreciate that Paul's biography is a unique record of the 'son in me'? If we want to know what Paul meant by the phrase 'Christ in you' that he uses in Col 1:27 we will do well to examine a man IN whom God chose to reveal his Son.

a technical bit!!
The Greek preposition 'en' which is translated 'in' here is sometimes translated 'within'. It is the preposition that indicates that something has a settled place 'within' something else. The Greek preposition 'eis', on the other hand, can be translated 'into' or 'towards'; it has a note of 'movement' in the word. So I might say "I put the coin 'into' (eis) my pocket" but I would then have to say "the coin is 'in/within' (en) my pocket". I don't mean to be too technical here I just want to point out what a serious mistake the RSV/ESV have made in making the primary translation 'to' and relegating 'in' to the margin. 'en' cannot possibly be translated 'to'.

However 'en' can be translated as 'by'. This is what is known as 'instrumentality'. Here is an example. The phrase 'kill with the sword' used in Rev 2:16; 6:8; 13:10 might literally be translated 'kill in the sword'. This is a Greek idiom. The cause of death is seen to be 'in' the instrument ie the sword.

If you don't understand that don't worry. What it means is that we could equally translate Gal 1:16 as 'it pleased God to reveal his son BY me'. God was the agent of the revelation but the 'instrument' was Paul.

This is why the life of Paul is so instructive to us; his life is a major instrument that God uses to reveal what happens when Christ indwells a man or woman. I am not saying that we all have apostolic roles but in the basics of life Paul is a challenging pattern. It is not lightly that he says...

"Therefore I urge you, imitate me." 1 Cor 4:16 NKJV
"For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church." 1 Cor 4:17 NKJV
"Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ." 1 Cor 11:1 NKJV

'my ways in Christ as I teach everywhere…' Paul's 'ways' were sometimes the text upon which he based his teaching.

In Paul's case the purpose of the revelation of the 'Son in me' is stated clearly. It is so that he might 'evangelise' the Gentiles. It was not just his teaching but his life which was the gospel.

"Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name," Rom 1:5 NKJV

Paul's life of obedience and faith was 'lived out' among the Gentiles. Our life of obedience and faith may similarly be 'lived out' among our neighbours.

H
Heydave

Ron wrote:

This is why the life of Paul is so instructive to us; his life is a major instrument that God uses to reveal what happens when Christ indwells a man or woman. I am not saying that we all have apostolic roles but in the basics of life Paul is a challenging pattern. It is not lightly that he says...

Paul's life of obedience and faith was 'lived out' among the Gentiles. Our life of obedience and faith may similarly be 'lived out' among our neighbours.

It is a well known saying that 'the only epistle most people will read is us (christians)'.

This is a good provoking word to remember and what a responsibility we have! Do people see Christ in me?

P
philologos

I was browsing, as you do, through the Geneva Bible the other day and came across a very strong translation of...

In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Heb 8:13 NKJV

Almost all modern version opt for 'obsolete' which is pretty strong in itself but Geneva has...

In that he saith a new Testament, he hath abrogate the olde: nowe that which is disanulled and waxed olde, is ready to vanish away. Gen Heb 8:13.

I don't know what 'abrogate' meant in 1560 but in today's English it means...

abrogate |ˈabrəˌgāt|
verb [ trans. ] formal
repeal or do away with (a law, right, or formal agreement)

if we substitute part of that definition in Heb 8:13 we get...

In that he saith a new Testament, he hath repealed the olde: nowe that which is disanulled and waxed olde, is ready to vanish away

Not much room there for a continuing Old Covenant?

T
twayneb

In that he saith a new Testament, he hath repealed the olde: nowe that which is disanulled and waxed olde, is ready to vanish away

KJV uses the term "disannulled". In modern English, we simply use the term "annulled". We can all make the analogy to the annulling of a marriage and see how it applies to the old covenant.

Recall that the law is made, not for the righteous, but for the unrighteous. I wake up every morning and have absolutely zero thought of the law in Missouri against murder. This law is on the books in my state, but it does not apply to me because I am not a murderer. Because I have been transformed by the power of the Spirit and am made over a new creature I will never have to give this law a second thought. Similarly under the new covenant God's laws are written in our heart. They are a living reality that renders the dead letter useless and void.

By the way, this is an interesting study. How many times were Jesus, His followers, and His disciples told by the Pharisees that what they were doing was unlawful. How many times were these things simply Talmudic tradition, and how many times were these things actual transgression of the letter of the written law? If those in the new covenant are required to keep the law of the old covenant, and if that law is not annulled, then what are we to make of the mediator of the new covenant Himself failing to keep the letter of the old covenant? The greatest example of this is probably the record of Jesus and His disciples harvesting corn (or grain) from a field on the Sabbath.

Jesus tried to teach the Pharisees that the physical Sabbath was not the issue, but was a picture of a greater rest of faith (Hebrews brings this about beautifully). The issue was not the keeping of a day. That day, and the accompanying one year in seven, was always only a shadow or picture of a greater reality to come. When the greater reality is come, the picture is to be discarded. If my wife is away for a time, I may often gaze at a picture of her. But when she returns, I forget the picture exists. Why would I spend my time gazing at her image, when I can gaze at and interact with her personally?

S
sermonindex

by philologos on 2010/8/10 3:09:24

I was browsing, as you do, through the Geneva Bible the other day and came across a very strong translation of...
------------------------------------------------------------
Yur lil' kotz thinks it be HeyDave yur talking to?

...or mayhaps you have caught the influence of the R.C. Sproul version of it here, "The Reformation Study Bible?"
============================================================

philogos continues:
In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Heb 8:13 NKJV

Almost all modern version opt for 'obsolete' which is pretty strong in itself but Geneva has...

In that he saith a new Testament, he hath abrogate the olde: nowe that which is disanulled and waxed olde, is ready to vanish away. Gen Heb 8:13.
------------------------------------------------------------
Dude, why can't you just accept what is plainly stated, rather than trying to make the Bible say what it clearly does not?????


In olde Queen's english this verse means exactly what the NKJV states:

"He HATH abrogated the olde"
equals
"IS BECOMING obsolete."

"Hath" is a present tense continuous verb. Abrogation is not yet occured, no matter whether we think so or not.

God says that until heaven and earth have passes away the Old Covenant is more valid than when THE PROMISE OF IT WAS WALKED TOWARD at Sinai.

The olde is completed in preparation to vanish when the prophets are completely fulfilled.

It is READY TO VANISH, 'as the handwriting of ordinances against us', 'the curse of the law'
--initiated when God's cursed the ground, plant life, animal life, and humanity for Adam and Eve's one sin, was spelled out in detail through the Mosaic Law--
was nailed to the cross.

Truth is revealed by God's Spirit ( I Cor. 2.10-16; John 14.17; 15:.6; 16.13 ), so our calling has nothing to do with our works. Romans 9.16 tells us that it is not of him who wills or of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. Thus, we are in this position because God, by His Spirit, has drawn us. He, by His Spirit, has revealed Himself, His Word, and the purpose of life to us. Our calling and election are completely a work of grace. At the point of our calling, law-keeping has nothing to do with it, but comes into play later when our faith works through love.

Yet, we must recognize what exactly this means.

What are we saved for?

Eph. 2.8-10

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

The Bible defines love for and of God like this:

(Jesus said,) " "If you love me, keep my precepts-commanded." ( Jn. 14.15 )

This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments."
( I Jn. 5.3).


In the same way, Paul says when we really believe in(to) the Jesus who lived as He lived in the gospels, we will conform our life activities into His way of living on earth as well. This produces the keeping the Law, which is not yet abolished.

Paul like John says faith works by (what the Bible calls) love, in Gal. 5:

4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Paul says the exact same thing as v. 6 above in a different way in I Cor. 7.19 :

"Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God."

The evidence of our faith, then, is in whether or not we keep His commandments. John tells us that the basis of love is commandment-keeping. It is not the whole picture, because emotion, feeling, is also tied to it, but we have to begin somewhere, and the bottom line is keeping the commandments.

Another statement that proves that Paul was not doing away with law keeping comes right from the context of the Gal. 5 passage (above). The word "Spirit" reflects on a subject he dealt with earlier. The enemy—The Jewish concision—believed that their calling and election by God came because they were circumcised according to the Law, keeping even the Levitical way .

Paul is saying, "No. We are drawn to God by His Spirit," which is what Jesus says in John 6:44-45, which also gives us implication as well, as to exactly when the Law will be written on our hearts and minds in Jeremiah's prophecy of the future:

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Now is the time of being drawn to God by His Spirit, walking in the faith(fulness) of Christ Jesus through His grace. We are saved unto, not into good works.

"...Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid."
( Rom. 7.12-13 )

Our experience of God is limited to what we know from Him.

God is not going to be unholy and bow down and accept our own ways because we think they are right.

In imitation of the great God, our saviour Jesus Christ, walking in Him in His faith(fulness towards our Heavenly Father and His gifts of grace flow as promised.

What avails is faith working through love, fulfilling the law in our own lives.

Our experience of God in our lives is limited to our knowledge and affirmation of Genesis thru Revelation in thought word and deed.


Love, Hope, and Faith,
gregg

...I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
Acts 20:31-32


P
philologos

by Phanetheus on 2010/8/10 10:37:46
"In olde Queen's english this verse means exactly what the NKJV states:

"He HATH abrogated the olde"
equals
"IS BECOMING obsolete."

"Hath" is a present tense continuous verb. Abrogation is not yet occured, no matter whether we think so or not."

I fear you understand neither English Grammar nor Greek Grammar.

First:
"has abrogated" is English Perfect Tense. To split off the 'has' would leave the word 'abrogated' without any tense at all.

Second:
πεπαλαίωκεν is the verb in the Greek Perfect Tense (Verb 3 sing perf act indic to make or become old, wear out).

Here is an explanation of the Greek Perfect tense from the BlueLetterBible Website:
"The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.

Jesus' last cry from the cross, TETELESTAI ("It is finished!") is a good example of the perfect tense used in this sense, namely "It [the atonement] has been accomplished, completely, once and for all time."

The significance of the Perfect Tense in both Biblical Greek and English is that it denotes an event that has been completed and whose effects are continuing.

S
sermonindex

by philologos on 2010/8/10 5:37:02

by Phanetheus on 2010/8/10 10:37:46
"In olde Queen's english this verse means exactly what the NKJV states:

"He HATH abrogated the olde"
equals
"IS BECOMING obsolete."

"Hath" is a present tense continuous verb. Abrogation is not yet occured, no matter whether we think so or not."

I fear you understand neither English Grammar nor Greek Grammar.

------------------------------------------------------------
It has not been checked in the greek yet i'll take you at your word. Hebrews will be read through later today and see where the mix-up is.

Scripture does not contradict itself.

To take this verse and say that it stands in opposition to the other scriptures that plainly state otherwise has to be a contextual mistake.

So every other english translation aside from the Revised 1611 A. V. is wrong?
This is highly doubted.

It's wondered if there is another application of the wrong object ("new covenant") to which the verb is pointing or if there is a mix-up with genetives.


Regarding englisth, i was just going by what i have been taught regarding 15th century english, and maybe something was forgotten? Is there something i am ignoring?

It was taught by my Elizabethian english teacher that verbs ending with 'th' are continuous in tense. IF this is not the case for this verb, it is the only instance that has been seen in more than 25 years of using the KJV.

Maybe i just don't understand the way you interpret Koine?

This would hardly be the first time that mixed up tenses or confused subject/object and verbs in relation to them has been proffered as explanation by any of us.


Still, scripture is it's own best interpreter and to say that one verse stands in distinct contradiction to other passages (starting with Hebrews) that make the interpretation false means that the interpretation and commentary are wrong, not the Bible.


The old covenant is not abolished nor abrogated.
To say such is to imply that Jesus is a deciever, as well as John and James and Peter and Jude and Matthew and Luke and Mark.

Whose trying to decieve who?

Perhaps this could be applied to the Levitical order and Laws in conjunction with 'metathesis' of that pertion of the Law. Jesus being our High Priest etc. would apply perfectly in this sense.


God Bless you brother!
Yur lil' kotz,
g

p.s. you have yet to disprove ( with contextual scripture references)anything stated regarding the Law that has been put forth by rookie or phanetheus.

i would to God that we all were not still looking through a glass darkly, yet we still await the Law being in our hearts and written in our minds.

p.s.s. Whenever i go to the U.K. next or you come visit stateside and these yanks who can't understand proper english, it would be nice to meet and share a meal or 4. Do not think there is ill-feelings towards you personally. This is hardly the case.

i pray to God that there were others who would spend at least 1/10th of the time you do learning the scriptures and teaching disciples, rather than spouting off things from in their heads or other books without a scriptural foundation, calling it revelation from the Holy Spirit.

Is it any wonder discernment in the church is all but lost?
Believing wrong things destroys faith.
That's all.

"...when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"

(note the 'th' there and consider the words mara-natha in affiliation with:

For this reason, do not thrust away your confidence, which HATH magnificent paybacks; because you need endurance, so after you have done the will of God, you might carry away the promise(d reward). For yet a little while, and he arriving will come, and will not delay. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. Now we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
( Heb 10.34-39 )
(compare the word 'hath' in Heb. 10.35 with 'hath' in 8.13 as well.)

R
rookie

Psa 23:3 He restores my soul; He leads me in the paths of righteousness For His name's sake.
...........................................................

How does God accomplish this work in the life of an OT saint?

Is it by the covenant of Mount Sinai or the covenant of Abraham?

In Christ
Jeff

S
sermonindex

by rookie on 2010/8/10 8:45:08

Psa 23:3 He restores my soul; He leads me in the paths of righteousness For His name's sake.
...........................................................

How does God accomplish this work in the life of an OT saint?

Is it by the covenant of Mount Sinai or the covenant of Abraham?

In Christ
Jeff
============================================================

BOTH covenants hinge upon one another.

The Abrahamic covenant made the Sinai covenant valid; even as the Noahic covenant made the Abrahamic covenant valid, and the Adamic covenant made the Noahic covenant valid.

Without the former the latter cannot exist.

Oh, we could say that righteousness is by faith alone. Yet this faith, 'amin', is defined as 'such a confident trust in God that what He says goes no matter what' anything else may seem to indicated to us.

It is through faith(fulness) to God that Everlasting Covenant is walked in.

P
philologos

by Phanetheus on 2010/8/10 14:13:06 writes:
"Regarding englisth, i was just going by what i have been taught regarding 15th century english, and maybe something was forgotten? Is there something i am ignoring?

It was taught by my Elizabethian english teacher that verbs ending with 'th' are continuous in tense. IF this is not the case for this verb, it is the only instance that has been seen in more than 25 years of using the KJV."

Your misunderstanding of Tudor English grammar is so total that I hardly know where to start to put it right. I don't want to waste folks times doing a tutorial on English at this point. If you are interested in the English Perfect tense please read the wiki item here...

http://bit.ly/dbM8Y4

The English Perfect tense is often known as the pluperfect.

by Phanetheus on 2010/8/10 14:13:06 writes:"
Maybe i just don't understand the way you interpret Koine?

This has nothing to do with the interpretation of the Biblical Greek. This is simple exegesis. I am not interpreting I am translating. There is no way that the Greek perfect tense should be confused with an English Continuous Present.

by Phanetheus on 2010/8/10 14:13:06 writes:
It has not been checked in the greek yet i'll take you at your word. Hebrews will be read through later today and see where the mix-up is.

I respectfully suggest that you do your 'checking' before you do your posting. This will save you embarrassment and your readers any confusion.

by Phanetheus on 2010/8/10 14:13:06 writes:
The old covenant is not abolished nor abrogated.
To say such is to imply that Jesus is a deciever, as well as John and James and Peter and Jude and Matthew and Luke and Mark.

I think you are reverting to your old position of 'I have made my mind up, don't confuse me with the facts'.

S
sermonindex

by philologos on 2010/8/10 5:37:02
I fear you understand neither English Grammar nor Greek Grammar.
------------------------------------------------------------
FYI,
It's suspected you are straigning at gnats and in the process swallowing camels.

The gk checks with what you say however conclusion drawn regarding this verse is faulty. Verb tenses in this verse are quite a bit more important here than most are willing to take the time to consider, which has not been done inticated in what you state.

It both a contextual error and a failure to estimate the ramification of meaning behind the verb usage in Heb. 8.13 .

Widen those horizons, and just because on thing is focused on, one cannot disregard the things surrounding it.

This verse does not infer that moral laws, civil laws, Holydays (with Shabbats), etc. are ready to vanish.

Look Paul in II Cor. 2.6 said that the world leaders are passing away in the same sense used here in Heb, 8.13; but do we still have world leaders?????

Now this book Hebrews had to have been written by one quite adept in Judaism, or none of the things here would even be mentioned.
(Personally, looking to the end of the letter there is allusion that most likely Paul is the source.)

Anyway, whoever wrote it was well aware that the Mosaic Covenant is eternal.

Context shows clearly that the author is writing regarding only priestly systematics and sacrafice.

Regarding verb tenses, without getting too detailed for everybody else to understand, let's relate context in a way that clarifies it clearly enough without confising your casual reader. What is on the verge of vanishing, as this verse could be considered prophecy, is the priestly system.

(Recall II Cor. 2.6's reference to world leader's passing ? Heb. 8.13 is written in the same words.)

Since moral laws make up the majority of the Sinai Covenant, it is hardly even possible that the whole Covenant is abrogated. If it were, then nobody, saved or otherwise, would even have to obey any laws at all. (Facts are, the commandments Jesus gave are all comprised within the Law.)

The very nature of God stands behind the old covenant law, so to say it is abrogated or even changed one could say the same about God:

GOD IS:

1. Unchanging
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mt. 5.18

2. Righteousness
My tongue shall speak of thy word: for all thy commandments are righteousness.
Ps. 119.172

3. Righteous
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit
Rom. 8.4

4. Just
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Rom. 7.12

5. Good
But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
I Tim. 1.8

6. Faithful
All thy commandments are faithful.
Ps. 119.86a

7. Perfect
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Ps. 19.7

8. Great
I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing.
Hos. 8.12

9. Holy
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
Rom. 7.12

10. Pure
The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
Ps. 19.8

11. True
Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments.
Neh. 9.13

12. Light
For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life
Prov. 6.23

13. Spirit
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom. 7.14

There are other things describing God's nature and character, but in just the few off the top of this noggin', there is more than one verse that says the same thing about the law. The law is God's expression of God's nature and character to mankind.

Jesus is the manifestation of this. We are to walk as Jesus walked: By the spirit in obedience to Law, which is love.

The old Torah of Sinai, the Everlasting Covenant, which God backs up by His very nature is not passing away. The Law continues with the same purpose intended since given: to convict of sin and to live mightily in the land you posess.

Finally, if the afore-mentioned is not proof enough, the old sacraficial system is the subject of the whole letter of Hebrews, and to bring in other things that are not part of the priesthood and it's sacrafices is to alter what is the intended meaning of the whole letter.

Quit adding things that are not there.

The scriptures state three times that by two or three witnesses shall all things be established. So, since this is the only verse that is claimed to say what has been written on this thread --(being misunderstood out of context, and disregarding the full import of the verbs) there are no grounds what-so-ever to establish this verse alone as the basis towards any doctrine that will stand.

...or do you have any cross-references outside of theis book about the metathesis of the Levitical way being abrogated because of what Jesus Christ, our High Priest has done?

The priesthood of Melchizedek superceeds the Levites as in it precedent was set through Abraham and the King of Salem.

The Law is still in effect and will be until heaven and earth pass away.

The priesthood never ended either. This is just a new and living way compared to the shadow of this.

Shalom,
g

P
philologos

by Phanetheus on 2010/8/10 17:22:21 writes:
"The gk checks with what you say however conclusion drawn regarding this verse is faulty. Verb tenses in this verse are quite a bit more important here than most are willing to take the time to consider, which has not been done inticated in what you state."

It seems clear to me that you are not willing to discuss these things rationally. I shall ignore all our postings from now on. I suggest that those who want to discuss this topic do the same.

P
philologos

as I was saying...

In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Heb 8:13 NKJV

It is helpful to remember the time context of the epistle to the Hebrews. Most conservative Bible students would put the date of the book at around 65 AD. That is approximately 30 years after Pentecost but the hidden significance is that it is probably less than 5 years away from the end.

Youngs Literal Translation has...
"in the saying ‘new,’ He hath made the first old, and what doth become obsolete and is old [is] nigh disappearing." Heb 8:13 YNG

The NKJV uses the word 'obsolete' twice but Youngs makes the point that different words are being used. If you check out your Vines

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?type=getTopic&Topic=Old&DictID=9#Vines

you will see the different words that are used and their significance.

The writer says 'the old covenant' has become obsolete and that what is become old is near to vanishing away. He is speaking prophetically, within 5 years even the trappings of the Old Covenant would be gone, never to be restored. At the time of his writing he views the Old Covenant as 'past it' and about to vanish entirely.

The Old Covenant cannot function without the Levitical priestly system. In AD 70 that priesthood vanished never to be restored.

S
sermonindex

by philologos on 2010/8/10 11:51:49

by Phanetheus on 2010/8/10 17:22:21 writes:
"The gk checks with what you say however conclusion drawn regarding this verse is faulty. Verb tenses in this verse are quite a bit more important here than most are willing to take the time to consider, which has not been done inticated in what you state."

by philologos on 2010/8/10 11:51:49
It seems clear to me that you are not willing to discuss these things rationally.
============================================================
This accusation is groundless as the first small part of why what you are stating is invalid. How much more rational could it be than to spell out why what you claim is not the way it is.

Are you stating i'm not willing to discuss these things rationally because these little particulars claimed through reference to the blue bible because your responses are as solid as the things claimed to be in the scriptures just are not there?

Have you always failed to answer when wrong things are pointed out clearly like:

-talking about New Covenant, and by silence regarding issues concerning what Jesus Christ has done and still speaks, deny our very Mediator his place in of all of God's covenants of promise now made completely valid in Him.

-misappropriating verb tenses

-confusing the issues of subject and object in the manuscripts

-adding interpretations of things that are not in the Bible passages

- inappropriate analogies.

Can't you admit when dmit when things may just be a little screwy

i'm not going to tell anybody what to do except take all the scriptures in relation to Jesus Christ at face value, and quit adding to or taking away from them.

It's supposed it's just as well you don't answer any posts from here, as any rational debate with you turns out like trying to slice aethereal butter using a bladeless knife without a handle.

You will be responded to whether you care to look or not.

Suggest what you will as apparently you are the ultimate authority?

Any argument that demans or belittles what Jesus' finished work has done, encompasses, and made possible to usward who believe is not from God.

Where's those scriptures to make a solid foundation for what you state Ron?

Does saying, in not so few words, that Jesus has invalidated everything God's done prior to His crucifixion any way to draw anyone into a closer relationship with God?

Have at it, but don't expect God to be pleased with it.

This too shall pass.


Prayers for you daily, that you be filled with the abundant treasures of wisdom and knowledge found only in Jesus Christ bring you to understand the fullness of His Will, continue.

It's desired that you would be a bit more evaluative before expounding, even slower to anger, and listen to everything instead of feigning ignorance.

i'll continue to read everything, search the scriptures, learn from mistakes, and correct accordingly.

ALL scripture is God breathed and profitable...

You are more than what you are attempting to do and we have a God who finds satisfaction in our faith(fulness) towards His whole testAMENt...

...not just bits and pieces that are crammed together ignoring the picture encompassing them, namely, Jesus Christ.


It's all about Jesus, and not what we would like to think is written.

Yur favorite lil' kotz,
g

R
RobertW

Does saying, in not so few words, that Jesus has invalidated everything God's done prior to His crucifixion any way to draw anyone into a closer relationship with God?

This is the fundamental area of disagreement that makes all our conversation an exercise in futility. Jesus is the second person in the Godhead. Unless we can agree on that we can't possibly converse in any coherent way.

S
sermonindex

In a previous responding to the initiator of this thread, Ron, it was mentioned that Heb. 8.13 could possibly be considered prophetically.

This was not meant to infer the destruction of the temple although quite some time ago that is what was thought here.

It could possibly mean that, yet 2 things, one in the book of Hebrews itself caused reconsideration.


Why was this view changed?

Jesus prophecy of this was more than sufficently and clearly explained and repeated 3 times in the synoptic gospels.
(Who better to explain the word of God than the Word of God Himself, having declared the end since the beginning. He is the spirit of prophecy (Rev. 19.10).)

Most importantly, all through this epistle there is never a referral to the Temple, but only the tent, the tabernacle, and that tabernacle had not been used for about 1 millenium prior to this being written.

The whole concern of this book is not the Law itself, but the role of the preistly administration, (, the Old Covenant)within the context of the Everlasting Covenant.
This books instructions are to Messianic Believers is to completely draw attention attention away from the Temple and not towards it. If this were a prophecy about the Temple, it is a contradiction against what is emphasized everywhere else in this epistle.

Chapters 9 and 10 of Hebrews clarify that it is not the Old Covenant that is vanishing but the order of priestly administration. There is no change in the moral or civic requirements, only a variation, metathesis, in priesthood:
Everything of the old covenant remains intact with a change in administration, Jesus Himself being the immortal High Priest-King forever.


Love, Hope, and Faith,
gregg

...I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
Acts 20:31-32

B
BeYeDoers

Phanetheus, I would like to ask you to please be still, and consider how you handle scripture and respond to the brethren. There have been several recent threads where you have been downright accusatory and insulting to those who don't bow to your every thought regarding scriptures and certain "pet" theologies you seem to have. Ron started this thread, and for the longest time, it remained civil. But your downright disregard for discussion, as opposed to insults and/or patronizations you inevitably fall back on, is making this thread, and all the others you are part of, very distasteful.

Furthermore, the way you cut and paste and alter and disregard clear readings of scripture is frightening. For example, in another thread you said:

Jesus, in the book of John plainly states that His body is given "for the (biological-)life of the world."

Jesus didn't plainly state any such thing. Your methods are in line with the JWs. You intentionally ADD words to scripture and then claim that "clearly" that is what it states, just so it fits your theology. It's really quite incredible.

You argue a point from grammar, and then someone points out that your grammar (whether English or Greek) is wrong, and then instead of continuing forward with humility, you either invent some other reason that fits your predetermined theology, or ignore it altogether and continue to repeat your same arguments, as if somehow by you repeating them it makes them more true. Or further still, you just set up straw men and then be smug about knocking them down. It doesn't make anyone care to listen to anything you have to say.

The theme of Galatians is Paul fighting the notion that there are now 2 covenants coinciding, and that even if you are in the new, you must still perform the works of the old. Paul teaches that the Old pointed to Christ. Now that CHrist is here, we must walk in the New, and distinctly NOT the Old.

Jesus said he fulfilled the law and the prophets. He rebuked the Pharisees for obeying the Old but not recognizing that it was now fully revealed, and that the New is here. True, he stated that he did not come to abolish the Old. He didn't. He embodied it. And now our lives are enjoined to Him who fulfilled the Old Covenant, through the New Covenant.

The theme of Hebrews is that we are now under a BETTER covenant with BETTER promises. Not an additional covenant with additional promises. If the Old is still in play then Jesus came and died for nothing. But Jesus FULFILLED the Old. There is now no functioning of the Old because there is no need of priests, sacrifices, altars, temples, etc. because HE IS all that. He accomplished all that.

No one here is advocating antinomianism, if that's what you are thinking. But the law is no longer on tables of stone, it is written in our hearts. One of distinct changes that took place once the NEW and BETTER came.

A
ADisciple

For any who might be having trouble with the posts on this thread claiming that the Old Covenant is still in effect (it’s astonishing that Christians should even have to give this the time of day) …but here are three other passages of Scripture besides the ones in Hebrews that show plainly that this is simply not true.

“And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses; (14) blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross; (15) And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it” (Col. 2.13-15).

Quite something, that. The “handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us…” And what would that be? Merely the ceremonial law? No, it’s the whole of the Law, in fact particularly the Ten Commandments, that was against us and contrary to us. And God took it “out of the way, nailing it to His Cross…”

That’s confirmed here also:

“For He is our peace who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; (15) having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make (create) in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace; (16) And that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby…” (Eph. 2.14-16).

What is abolished, or rendered powerless… made of no effect? “The law of commandments contained in ordinances…” That’s the “fence” that separated Jew and Gentile, the fence the Jews gloried in… and God tore it down at the Cross! And His purpose in it was to create of both Jew (under the Law) and Gentile (not under that Law) ONE NEW MAN in Christ, in Him having slain “the enmity,” that is, the Law, slaying the Law in His cross, and then rising from the dead the beginning of a NEW CREATION with a Law that is part of His very nature now: even “the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” which becomes the Law of the Covenant He joins us to, that is, those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk “not after the flesh but after the Spirit” (Rom. 8.4).

What wonderful things are here!

…And then this passage in 2 Corinthians in which Paul speaks of those who had a veil over their hearts and minds “in the reading of the old testament,” and because of that veil could not see that that covenant—the one he calls old now—is “done away in Christ.” (2 Cor. 3.14). And he goes on, adding, “But even to this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their hearts.” Notice, Paul uses the same word here we find in Hebrews, calling “the ministration of death” the “OLD covenant.”

Paul is referring to the passage in Exodus Ch. 34 where Moses has come down from the mount with the tables of testimony in his hand, and his face is shining with the reflected glory of God that came upon him “while he talked with Him” (Ex. 34.29). And so Moses, with this glory upon his face, speaks with the children of Israel what God has spoken with him. But as Moses ministered… and Exodus 34 is a bit vague here, but the apostle makes it clear what happened, and why Moses put the veil on his face. He didn’t put the veil on while he was speaking to them, but “that (or, so that) the children of Israel could not steadfastly look TO THE END of that which is abolished” (2 Cor. 3.13). Why would he do that? It was “the end” of it all that Moses was veiling. It appears he was moving prophetically, for the tragic hour would come when the children of Israel would be unable to see that the covenant they gloried in was fading and in fact being done away and brought to an end, as Paul explains in the very next verse: “But their minds were blinded: for until this day the same veil remaineth untaken away in the reading of the old testament…”

…This is all very clear, and conclusive to the open heart. If the old covenant were still in effect it would not be called old now. There is a very obvious reason why it’s called “old” now. It’s because there is a NEW and better covenant in place now.

…This issue has been dealt with thoroughly over and over again on this thread. The fact that it is still being brought up again and again is clear evidence of this very veil Paul speaks of.

But there is hope: “Nevertheless, when it (the heart) shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now ‘the Lord’ is the Spirit…”

B
BeYeDoers

Amen

C
Christinyou

Comparing the Old Covenant with the New Covenant.


Old Covenant
(Law of Moses)
“For the law was given by Moses,” John 1:17
New Covenant
(Grace)
“[but] grace and truth is come by Jesus Christ.” John 1:17b

You can sum up the requirements of the Old Covenant with this thought.
“Do this and thou shalt live. Don’t do this and thou shalt die.”
(Ex. 19:5, Ex. 31:12, Deut. 30:16-20 Rom. 10:5)
You can sum up the requirements of the New Covenant with this thought.
“Believe this and you shall live. Don’t believe this and you shall die.”
(Rom. 10:6-11, John 5:24, 8:24)

The Law of Moses was introduced under the Old Covenant.
(Ex. 19:1-20:26, Heb. 7:11, John 1:17)
Grace and Mercy is introduced under the New Covenant. (John 1:16-17, Heb. 8:12, 10:16,17)

The Old Covenant demanded perfect obedience to God’s holy law. A transgression on just one point brought the penalty of the law which was death. (Rom. 6:23, Gal. 3:10-12, James 2:10)
The New Covenant demands faith in Christ. By placing our faith in Christ Jesus a person becomes righteous and receives life. (Acts 13:37-39, Rom. 3:21-22, John 1:12, 3:16, Eph. 2:7-9)

The Old Covenant was one of condemnation. There was no mercy or grace under the law of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was external written on stone. It brought forth death and condemnation. (2 Cor. 3:6,7,9, Gal. 3:10,11)
The New Covenant is one of grace and mercy. It is internally in us by the Spirit of the whole and complete fulfillment of the Law Himself. It brings forth life and peace with God. (John 1:16, Eph. 2:7-9, 2Cor. 3:3,6, Heb. 8:10, 10:16)

The Old Covenant had a fault in that it could not produce life or bring one near to God. (Heb. 8:7,8, Heb. 7:18,19, 10:1-4, Rom. 3:20, Gal. 3:21-25)
The New Covenant is the power to give life. We draw near to God through the New Covenant. (John 1:12, Heb. 7:19, 9:9-15)

The Old Covenant was abolished, annulled and made obsolete by the New Covenant. It was temporal and made of no effect by the New Covenant. (Rom. 7:1-6, Eph. 2:13-16, Heb. 7:18,19 8:13, 10:9)
The New Covenant is everlasting. It is based on the promises of God.(Heb. 13:20, Is. 55:3, 61:8)

The Old Covenant was given to the house of Israel only. It never was given to the Gentile people. It became void with the bringing in of the New Covenant. (Ex. 19:1-6, Heb. 7:18, 8:13, 10:9)
The New Covenant is a better Covenant with better promises. It is given to the Jew as well as the Gentile, no preference of either. (Heb. 7:22, 8:6, Eph. 2:11-22, Acts 28:28)

No flesh was ever saved or justified by the law.
Deut. 27:26, Acts 13:37-39, Rom. 3:20, Gal. 3:10-12, James 2:10
Old Covenants saints were redeemed as a result of the New Covenant. (Heb. 9:15, 11:7-40)


C
Christinyou

Subverters of Souls

Galatians 1:6 “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

Some time after the Galatian Church was started and was well on its way to maturity something horrible happened to it. In fact, something so dreadful as to cause the apostle Paul to question the profession of the people there (Gala. 4:11,19). The problem Paul was facing head on, was that the people were turning from the true gospel to a false gospel. Paul is amazed that this happened so quickly to the people of the Galatian Church. How did something so horrible happen to a Church that started out so well? We find the answer in verse 7, “but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.” As one reads the book of Galatians they will discover that trouble makers entered in and started teaching that Christians must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. This very same problem was dealt with by the apostles, elders and brethren of the Church of Jerusalem in Acts 15 (Acts 15:1,5). In Acts 15 the apostles, elders and brethren said that those who taught that a Christian must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses were tempting God and putting a yoke around the neck of the disciples that neither they nor their fathers could bear.

Acts 15:10 “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”

They also said that those who taught that a Christian must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses were subverting souls and that they themselves never gave such a command, which means that those who taught this did so on their own authority.

Acts 15:23 “And they wrote [letters] by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren [send] greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: 24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:”

Notice Acts 15:24 teaches it was those who taught that a Christian must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses who were the troublemakers. Galatians 1:7 teaches the same. In fact, Paul teaches in Galatians 1 that those who taught that a Christian must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses were teaching a false gospel. Preaching a false gospel is a serious sin, in fact Paul said "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." These are strong words that should strike fear into the hearts of those who teach this false gospel. Yet, even with such a strong curse to anyone foolish enough to teach this false gospel, the Church today has it’s own troublemakers teaching the very same old age false gospel found in Galatians 1.

Gala. 2:1 “Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with [me] also. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. 3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.”

Titus was living proof that a person could be a Child of God without having to keep the law of Moses. The Word of God says that Titus went with Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem and was not compelled to be circumcised. Yet, those who would subvert the souls of those who listen to them, teach that one must be circumcised according to the law of Moses in order to be saved. Titus was living proof to the contrary. Notice carefully what Paul has to say about those who teach that Christians must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. In verse 4 he calls them false brethren, which means that they were not even saved themselves. This is ironic for the very fact that these unsaved subverter of souls were trying to teach others how to be saved. We remember the Words of Jesus as he confronted the Pharisees over this type of hypocrisy in Matthew 23:

Matt. 23:13 “But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. 14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.”

These false brethren were spying on the liberty of the real Christians and trying to bring them under bondage to the mosaic law. Paul was earnestly contending for the faith when confronting these subverter of souls, so much so, that he would not give place to them for even a moment. Like Jesus, Paul had sharp rebukes for these lost religious people and fought earnestly against their false gospel of works. Today we have these same subverters of souls in our midst who teach that Christians must keep the law of Moses. They, like the troublemakers of the past, can’t stand the true liberty a child of God has in Christ Jesus and insist that they be put under the bondage of the Mosaic law. They are enemies of the cross and pervert the true Gospel of God and like the Pharisees of old, make their converts twofold more the child of hell than themselves. Thank God for the true Gospel of Jesus Christ which truly sets a soul free.

Gal. 2:21 “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”

Law and Grace cannot be mixed. The apostle Paul made this clear in verse above. The Greek word for frustrate in the above verse means: to do away with, to set aside, to disregard, nullify, to make void, to reject, refuse. Those who think that they are establishing righteousness by the deeds of the law have frustrated the grace of God. No wonder Paul announced such a severe judgement on those who taught that Christians must keep the law of Moses (Galatians 1:6). They were leading people to damnation rather than salvation. In doing so, they became enemies of the cross as Paul shows in the last part of the verse “for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” The cross of Jesus Christ is the single most significant event in history and those who teach righteousness by the deeds of the law turn this grand event into nothing. This is the exact thing that happened to Israel as a whole. They rejected the righteousness that Jesus gained for those who believe on Him and instead set out to establish their own righteousness by the deeds of the law.

Rom. 9:30 “What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore? Because [they sought it] not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; 33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”

The horrible consequences of trying to be righteous by the works of the law, is that those who try to do so will remain lost and without salvation, as Paul goes on to explain:

Rom. 10:1 “Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down [from above]:) 7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”

Paul acknowledges that Israel had a zeal for God, the problem though was that it was not according to knowledge. In others words, they were religious, but lost. They rejected the righteousness that God offered them through Jesus and foolishly thought that they could attain righteousness by the deeds of the law. In doing so they demonstrated their unbelief. Their only hope of salvation would be to repent of their own efforts of righteousness by the deeds of the law and accept the righteousness of God which one freely receives through the cross of Jesus.

Law and grace cannot be mixed. Living by law will bring damnation and death, living by grace will bring life and a clear conscience before God. Those who teach righteousness through law keeping, subvert the souls of those who foolishly listen to them, those who teach salvation by the grace of God, bring the words of life to those who will listen to them.

Gal. 3:1 “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if [it be] yet in vain. 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, [doeth he it] by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?”

Those who teach and hold that Christians must keep the law of Moses would do well to pay attention to the apostle Paul in the above verses. Paul is so amazed that those who were on the right path to begin with are now far removed from the true gospel and have instead embraced a false gospel of law keeping. How can this be? Paul calls the Galatians, who think that they have to keep the law of Moses, foolish (verse 1,3). Paul goes on to demonstrate their foolishness by asking a couple of rhetorical questions. Any one who teaches that Christians must keep the law of Moses would do well to answer these questions as well. Paul first asks:

“This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?”

This is a rhetorical question and the obvious answer is that anyone who is saved was saved by grace through faith and not by their own attempts at keeping the law of Moses as Eph. 2:8-10 declares. Paul then builds upon this question by asking another rhetorical question:

“Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? "

In other words, are you so foolish in acknowledging that you were saved by faith to think that your sanctification will now be made perfect by your fleshly attempts at keeping the law of Moses? Paul is teaching the Galatians by rhetorical questions that not only are they saved by faith but that their perfection is of faith as well. Our salvation is through faith and our Christian walk is by faith, not by the deeds of the law as false teachers would have you believe.

Gal. 3:11 “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith.”

Today, there are many who want to place Christians under the Ten Commandments, which was a Covenant that God made with the children of Israel from Moses to the cross only. In doing so, they tempt God and subvert the souls of those who listen to them (Acts 15:1,5,10,24). In effect, they become enemies of the cross of Christ and rob the liberty (which is the freedom to serve Christ) a child of God has in Christ. A child of God would do well not to listen to their deceptive lies and instead obey from the heart Galatians 4 and throw out the bondwoman.

Gal. 4:21 “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman [was] by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, [thou] barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him [that was born] after the Spirit, even so [it is] now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”

Law and grace cannot be mixed.

Visit our web site for more articles and information at http://www.nlbchapel.org

New Life Bible Chapel
Time of meetings
Sunday Meeting 10:30 A.M.
Wednesday Prayer Meeting 7:00 P.M.
Steve (616) 604-0462
E-mail steve_@nlbchapel.org

A very good article;

In Christ: Phillip

My estimation of truth of Grace and Law which cannot be mixed in Christ.

K
knitefall

Ya'll keep giving much words. I've said this before:

You always have two things running simultaneously. You have the earthly life that we live. Yes, Scripturally, the O/C is at work on these persons, (law of death). AND... A-N-D you also should observe the Faith Life[Zoe] (Law of Life in Jesus) our LORD.

You must must establish which mode we're discussing. Otherwise there will be argument after argument as no one wants to see where the other is coming from. Please, consider these words.

Everyone is wrong and kind of right at the same time. In Love, Shawn.

S
sermonindex

by BeYeDoers on 2010/8/10 16:21:45

Phanetheus, I would like to ask you to please be still, and consider how you handle scripture and respond to the brethren. There have been several recent threads where you have been downright accusatory and insulting to those who don't bow to your every thought regarding scriptures and certain "pet" theologies you seem to have. Ron started this thread, and for the longest time, it remained civil. But your downright disregard for discussion, as opposed to insults and/or patronizations you inevitably fall back on, is making this thread, and all the others you are part of, very distasteful.
------------------------------------------------------------
ok, however is it my disregard for discussion or Ron who is saying, "i'm not going to respond to those posts anymore" or some such thing?

Is it that you do not like the way that there is no beating around the bush from here? How does one argue against scriptures?

Presenting a solid arguement leaves little room for feedback except for those who feel a little shakey about what they though was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

You must think that i sit around all day with nothing better to do than twiddle God's time away by inventing things in this head, and then fritter and waste the hours in typing? NOOO. Alot of things are delegated.

(This whole thing about the validity of the moral and civil codes of Mosaic Law was just revealed and these things are being learned as disagreements come up. Then it is tested IRL. Read Deut. 8-12 and see if you do not see something about the Torah that is not only the revelation of sin.)

You saying that i am disregarding discussion when you don't even research further than what you have been led to think is so is like the pot calling the kettle black. The least you could do is look up the scriptures quoted here and look at the context and see if these things are not so...then look other places relative and see if there is contradiction.


Cite what has been ignored, and even if it has been answered before, like so many times before, it will be repeated, even if you think this is just me thinking that this makes it more correct.
(Read everything before you speak about this: about why things are repeated, so that they will not have to be repeated.)

You really do not need to defend Ron, however if it is yourself that is wondering, as this seems so, this might be a hopefula array of some sort of last line of defence in debate?
The accusations fail you.
Think this through.

Why don't you read rookies posts and phanetheuses from where they start and come back to debate when you are done.
Thanks for the admonishment.
____________________________________________________________

Furthermore, the way you cut and paste and alter and disregard clear readings of scripture is frightening. For example, in another thread you said:

Jesus, in the book of John plainly states that His body is given "for the (biological-)life of the world."


Jesus didn't plainly state any such thing. Your methods are in line with the JWs. You intentionally ADD words to scripture and then claim that "clearly" that is what it states, just so it fits your theology. It's really quite incredible.
------------------------------------------------------------
In english it only says for the life of the world--and not eternal life, inferring biological life.

In the greek this word life in this verse means boilogical life--and not eternal life.

The word boilogical was placed in parenthesis because if read in context, it is referring to both biological life (primarily) and life after that (secondarily).

That's all.

So knowledgeable about the JW's are we? Tell what they do, because that is not even near what is done here.
____________________________________________________________

You argue a point from grammar, and then someone points out that your grammar (whether English or Greek) is wrong, and then instead of continuing forward with humility, you either invent some other reason that fits your predetermined theology, or ignore it altogether and continue to repeat your same arguments, as if somehow by you repeating them it makes them more true. Or further still, you just set up straw men and then be smug about knocking them down. It doesn't make anyone care to listen to anything you have to say.
------------------------------------------------------------
What was said was that i had learned (in college) Elizabethian English class that words ending in 'th' are continuous present tense (and since 1983) have not seen a variation to this rule, then it was asked what was missing...and there was no response...
(who is not answering who???)

yet i quite debating that and looked into the greek and the contextual issues srurrounding this one and only verse, that posted here was stated to mean something in opposition to other scriptures.

It was told that that had not been read in the greek as the first post was a firsthand response from a quick perusal of it. Later Hebrews was read in the Syriatic Text, the Textus Receptus (Trinitarian Bible Societies version then Stephens) and the Otogra.

Where are these straw men being knocked down???? Please be more blunt and to the point. What in the world are you referring to?
____________________________________________________________

The theme of Galatians is Paul fighting the notion that there are now 2 covenants coinciding, and that even if you are in the new, you must still perform the works of the old. Paul teaches that the Old pointed to Christ. Now that CHrist is here, we must walk in the New, and distinctly NOT the Old.
------------------------------------------------------------

Is this what someone else has led you to believe or something you have researched???

See, what Paul called 'the concision' was actually a Judaic gnostic sect that had crept into the Galatian church (and others), which were then known as Nazarenes and/or Ebonites.

It was not an arguement against God's Torah at all but all about these Ebonites convincing the Galatians that the Levitical ceremonial portions of the Mosaic Law had to be obeyed (to the letter), starting with circomcision or as they proclaimed,you just were not in covenant with God.
____________________________________________________________
Jesus said he fulfilled the law and the prophets. He rebuked the Pharisees for obeying the Old but not recognizing that it was now fully revealed, and that the New is here. True, he stated that he did not come to abolish the Old. He didn't. He embodied it. And now our lives are enjoined to Him who fulfilled the Old Covenant, through the New Covenant.
------------------------------------------------------------
...and because our lives are enjoined in Him, according to His revelation to us as individuals grows, we will walk as He walked. We too will embody the Law, doing good and healing all that are oppressed of the devil. (It is your own choice whether you will affirm this and act accordingly or not.)

Fulfilled does not mean ended at all, because He said he did not come to end the Law, and that this would not occur til' all of the prophets are made complete and heaven and earth passes away.

So, praytell, when has heaven and earth passed away?
____________________________________________________________

The theme of Hebrews is that we are now under a BETTER covenant with BETTER promises. Not an additional covenant with additional promises. If the Old is still in play then Jesus came and died for nothing. But Jesus FULFILLED the Old. There is now no functioning of the Old because there is no need of priests, sacrifices, altars, temples, etc. because HE IS all that. He accomplished all that.
------------------------------------------------------------
So what you are saying is that the whole old testament and the first 4 books of New Testament are invalid according to your line of reasoning. This also negates John's other writings (I-3 and Revelation), some of Peter's, Jude's writings, etc are all invalid as these all promote obedience to the precepts commanded in scriptures.

Yeah, better covenant, but why? The answer to the 'why' is the issue being driven at regarding this whole thread, especially in Hebrews.

This leaves only Paul's writings (some of which must definitely be ignored) and possibly Hebrews if all of these are properly misinterpreted.
(Is this correct?)
____________________________________________________________


No one here is advocating antinomianism, if that's what you are thinking. But the law is no longer on tables of stone, it is written in our hearts. One of distinct changes that took place once the NEW and BETTER came.
------------------------------------------------------------

This prophecy both in Jeremiah and Hebrews remain in the future tense and neither book states that these things have already occured.

Let's call a spade a spade.

You call it antinomianism, but it's anarchy.

To say that you have God's Law written on you heart is to also say that it is already written in your mind (because this is what this prophecy says), so you can just throw that Bible away completely right?

Just do what you think you think God says, quit with the sermons and learning scripture because it's already written in you mind and on your heart.

This is where you line of reasoning leads.

Get a grip.
The perfect has not yet come.
When you know as you are known, then it shall be on your heart and in your mind.

Now all things are appropriated by faith through God's grace, and it is only through complete and utter dependence in Christ Jesus that these things grow into manifestation in our lives.

If the Torah were written on Paul's heart and in his mind, why then did he himself express the need for his 'books' while imprisoned?

Why did the first churches need the reading of scripture and teachers/preachers, prophets, apostles, etc...since the law was already written on their hearts and minds?

Are you saying the christianity today has evolved into something far superior to the first churches?


To say that the Torah is in your heart and written on your mind is to say that you know the Law inside and out. If this is the case explain it.

Your words are the expression of what you feel. This can be empathised with deeply as i have been where you are now; yet, i would never go back.

What i have written i do feel as well, yet this is secondary to what the Bible actually says, no matter how i may feel about it.

( i did not want to write that it was a revelation to me that the Torah is valid as long as heaven and earth still remain. i should have clearly seen this all along.)

I could care less about the anarchy of antinomianism, but the source of it need be torn down. Most 'so-called christians today base what they call faith working through love on their feelings (from their hearts. To say that our hearts have been changed already is to decieve ourselves into thinking we are complete. If our hearts have been changed completely, we do not sin, yet the Bible states in so many different ways we do sin.

Thank you for being kind enough to state things from your perspective, and though all this was written swiftly, what you have said is held in high enough regard to make it as this desktop picture for the time being to consider these things.


Perhaps, as you say, the texts sent, (or even me):
Distasteful
Disregarding discussion
'pet' theologies(?)
Some like to have a god of sundays and wednesdays, never letting God take part in every activity of the day and night. i can't do that anymore. Jesus came as the way into abundant life in everything experience and that is my pet theology. Anything that is recognized to lead away from being in Him in this will always be derailed, especially among those who claim His name.

You stating of the theme of Hebrews is agreed with completely. This is not:but to think that God's covenant with Adam, for one example, has nothing to do with the New, as Paul points out it does in Romans 5 and Galatians 3 is to say that the New covenant is not the making of it fully completely valid (full fill) negates everything that God follows up with promise and so on through all the covenants which were all incomplete as they remained only promises in shadow until Jesus bled and died.

It is wished that you gave some scriptural basis for what you have written rather than only what you think and feel.

You may or may not like what is written from here, but whether it ticks you off or gives you the warm fizzies, you writing shows that you are thinking about what is typed.
You will continue to remember these things, and i do remember so many of you in prayers here, and pray for your best in all things, whether at present we agree about some things or not.

Unity of the Faith once and for all delivered has to start somewhere no matter how we feel about these things. Let's get into the scriptures and dig in deep and see just how all things point to Jesus Christ, without Whom, no man shall see God.

Today, (something like Neil would say,) we are shaking off the lues of Roman-lite.

Are you on the same page or not?

here, let's end with this:


Wisdom strengtheneth the wise more than ten mighty men which are in the city. For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. Also take no heed unto all words that are spoken; lest thou hear thy servant curse thee: For oftentimes also thine own heart knoweth that thou thyself likewise hast cursed others.

All this have I proved by wisdom: I said, I will be wise; but it was far from me. That which is far off, and exceeding deep, who can find it out? I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness...
Eccl. 7.19-25

S
sermonindex

by ADisciple on 2010/8/10 16:47:21

For any who might be having trouble with the posts on this thread claiming that the Old Covenant is still in effect (it’s astonishing that Christians should even have to give this the time of day) …but here are three other passages of Scripture besides the ones in Hebrews that show plainly that this is simply not true.

“And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses; (14) blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross; (15) And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it” (Col. 2.13-15).

Quite something, that. The “handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us…” And what would that be? Merely the ceremonial law? No, it’s the whole of the Law, in fact particularly the Ten Commandments, that was against us and contrary to us. And God took it “out of the way, nailing it to His Cross…”
------------------------------------------------------------
AD, this is speaking of ordinances, which are the penalty for disobedience to the Law and not the actual precepts commanding towards obedience to the Law.

____________________________________________________________

That’s confirmed here also:

“For He is our peace who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; (15) having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make (create) in Himself of twain one new man, so making peace; (16) And that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby…” (Eph. 2.14-16).

What is abolished, or rendered powerless… made of no effect? “The law of commandments contained in ordinances…” That’s the “fence” that separated Jew and Gentile, the fence the Jews gloried in… and God tore it down at the Cross! And His purpose in it was to create of both Jew (under the Law) and Gentile (not under that Law) ONE NEW MAN in Christ, in Him having slain “the enmity,” that is, the Law, slaying the Law in His cross, and then rising from the dead the beginning of a NEW CREATION with a Law that is part of His very nature now: even “the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” which becomes the Law of the Covenant He joins us to, that is, those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk “not after the flesh but after the Spirit” (Rom. 8.4).

------------------------------------------------------------

The Law is not what is abolished but the partition between Jew and Gentile. Read that passage in context with what surrounds it.

____________________________________________________________
What wonderful things are here!

…And then this passage in 2 Corinthians in which Paul speaks of those who had a veil over their hearts and minds “in the reading of the old testament,” and because of that veil could not see that that covenant—the one he calls old now—is “done away in Christ.” (2 Cor. 3.14). And he goes on, adding, “But even to this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their hearts.” Notice, Paul uses the same word here we find in Hebrews, calling “the ministration of death” the “OLD covenant.”

Paul is referring to the passage in Exodus Ch. 34 where Moses has come down from the mount with the tables of testimony in his hand, and his face is shining with the reflected glory of God that came upon him “while he talked with Him” (Ex. 34.29). And so Moses, with this glory upon his face, speaks with the children of Israel what God has spoken with him. But as Moses ministered… and Exodus 34 is a bit vague here, but the apostle makes it clear what happened, and why Moses put the veil on his face. He didn’t put the veil on while he was speaking to them, but “that (or, so that) the children of Israel could not steadfastly look TO THE END of that which is abolished” (2 Cor. 3.13). Why would he do that? It was “the end” of it all that Moses was veiling. It appears he was moving prophetically, for the tragic hour would come when the children of Israel would be unable to see that the covenant they gloried in was fading and in fact being done away and brought to an end, as Paul explains in the very next verse: “But their minds were blinded: for until this day the same veil remaineth untaken away in the reading of the old testament…”

…This is all very clear, and conclusive to the open heart. If the old covenant were still in effect it would not be called old now. There is a very obvious reason why it’s called “old” now. It’s because there is a NEW and better covenant in place now.

…This issue has been dealt with thoroughly over and over again on this thread. The fact that it is still being brought up again and again is clear evidence of this very veil Paul speaks of.

But there is hope: “Nevertheless, when it (the heart) shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now ‘the Lord’ is the Spirit…”

------------------------------------------------------------
The above in all three instance (you mention (has been) covered in previous posts. Rather than as BeYeDoers states, that what is being done from here is repeating thing thinking that somehow this makes them more right, you go back and reread and see that what you are doing for the most part is either taking passages out of context or claiming they are saying something they are not saying in the perpetration of this.

If you do not read the former posts you might just lack the proper understanding to see where this is leading to or knowledge towards use when we get there.

If it is wished to keep belief as something that is only an argument from the head and not a walk in covenant abounding in all physical affairs forget these suggestions.

Moving foreward,
g

p.s. The backhand flips are getting tiresome. If posts addressed regarding something stated from here has been covered already, this will be typed: meaning that it has already been dealt with in this thread.


____________________________________________________________

S
sermonindex

by Christinyou on 2010/8/10 18:13:35

Subverters of Souls
------------------------------------------------------------

Look up Ebonites on wik, and see exactly what these subverters were.

God Bless,
g

S
sermonindex

by knitefall on 2010/8/10 18:37:37

Thanks for the much need ed words.

Between what you and BeYeDoers have said, the problem is seen.

I'm going to take his advice to now sit back and read on.

This whole thread started 3 days after prayers from here went before His throne to have a comprehensive single unit to give followers of Jesus as a 5 part series on "The Everlasting Covenant."

There was a part 5 that was already written here a while back and is piecemeal at best, yet it formed the basis towards greater understanding gleaned in this thread.

I think the bottom line is what Paul said that now all things are lawful, yet not all things are beneficial.

i am not pushing the law as something that must be adhered to, but only that it is valid in a greater sense than ever before, Jesus being our example in this. We benefit in faithfully obeying Torah and recieve His grace in this yet we do not have to choose to do this. Jesus did not say that anybody following Him would go to hell. He said that he would tell those who did not do what was right (Rom 7.12) to leave His presence, and at the other extreme, those who walks in Him so that even the yud and Kotz were observed would be called great in the kingdom of heaven, and a "come enter the joys prepared."

All that is attempted to get accross at this point, because those who fight against this truth so vehemently, is that there are consequences to whatever we do, reward and punishment, both being gifts of His grace, (Gal. 6.7 & II Cor. 5.10).

God bless you for the insight to stand back and overview, and then write.

Even if this thread takes a wrong turn from here on out, there has been enough from here made clear that anybody reading can make a rational conscious choice to decide 'yea' or 'nay' with full knowledge.

Still reading on and praying for all participating, as the many already here at SI:
Shalom,
g

p.s. Primarily pray for Greg and support him in every way the Lord leads you. Without God giving him this vision, and his obedience to this, so much would not be happening right now that is direly needed in these days when night is falling in so many places already.

P
philologos

knitefall on 2010/8/11 0:37:37 writes
"You always have two things running simultaneously. You have the earthly life that we live. Yes, Scripturally, the O/C is at work on these persons, (law of death). AND... A-N-D you also should observe the Faith Life[Zoe] (Law of Life in Jesus) our LORD. "

Shawn
I think you have Rom 8 in mind?
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. Rom 8:2 NKJV

I think this is a slightly different issue but even so if we take note of the tenses that Paul, by the Spirit, is using here it will be instructive...

Paul isn't saying that these two 'laws' are 'running simultaneously'; he is saying that one law 'has freed' him from the other.

ἠλευθέρωσέν Verb 3 sing aor act indic to free, set free, release.
Perhaps the safest way of translating the aorist tense is with a simple English past tense as here in the NKJV.

T
twayneb

knitefall on 2010/8/11 0:37:37 writes
"You always have two things running simultaneously. You have the earthly life that we live. Yes, Scripturally, the O/C is at work on these persons, (law of death). AND... A-N-D you also should observe the Faith Life[Zoe] (Law of Life in Jesus) our LORD. "

If I may add to this observation. Paul states that the purpose of the law is to conclude all under sin. It stopped the mouths of the whole world and condemned all as guilty before God. If guilty, then condemned. But Christ came to fulfill the law, to be the one who could redeem us from this curse of the law. Paul also tells us that what the law could not do, because it was weak in the flesh, Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh to condemn sin in the flesh. I would not say that a born again believer's physical body lives under the OC while his spirit under the NC. I would say those who live after the flesh are under the "curse" of the OC if you will in that they are under condemnation. See Romans 8 as philologos suggested.

Those who are not born again are condemned by the law and try as they might to live a good life and be, as we say in America, a "good old boy" they can never through their flesh be good enough to merit salvation. The OC condemns them, but does nothing to save them. Those who are born again but return to the law, Paul dealt with in Galatians. These Christians are usually living under condemnation, confused, wondering if they have been good enough yet, struggling with legalism in their own lives.

But praise God we have been delivered from that. Gal. 5 tells us to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage. That yoke, according to Paul in Gal. 5 is the yoke of the old covenant, the yoke of law. It was a bondage that we are never to become entangled in again.

S
sermonindex

Hi rookie :-) You asked (p41 of the thread)

'Psa 23:3 He restores my soul; He leads me in the paths of righteousness For His name's sake.
...........................................................

How does God accomplish this work in the life of an OT saint?

Is it by the covenant of Mount Sinai or the covenant of Abraham?'


I would suggest there is more than one point in the verse you quoted. In the same way as God breathed life into the form of a man (Adam) which raised him to natural life, His 'I am the Resurrection' power was able to restore the soul of the believer (David) in a measure. David does not claim that this restoration transformed him into a 'son of God'.

'He leads me in paths of righteousness' is always true of God. It remains for His creation - the man - to follow Him there.

There is a strong implication in God's word to Abraham, that this is limited to what is within the reach of the natural man: Genesis 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I [am] the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. {perfect: or, upright, or, sincere} 2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee,

Had that covenant been made/completed at this point in time?

(Apologies if this response covers old ground. My time online is limited.)

Edit: Therefore, I venture that David's experience of God's restoration and leadership was dependent on neither covenant, but upon God Himself, and His and David's relationship with each other, in (His) love. For instance:

Psa 26:1 Judge me, O LORD; for I have walked in mine integrity: I have trusted also in the LORD; [therefore] I shall not slide. 2 Examine me, O LORD, and prove me; try my reins and my heart. 3 For thy lovingkindness [is] before mine eyes: and I have walked in thy truth.

Psa 36:5 Thy mercy, O LORD, [is] in the heavens; [and] thy faithfulness [reacheth] unto the clouds. 6 Thy righteousness [is] like the great mountains; thy judgments [are] a great deep: O LORD, thou preservest man and beast. 7 How excellent [is] thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings. {excellent: Heb. precious}


P
philologos

jeff asks...
Psa 23:3 He restores my soul; He leads me in the paths of righteousness For His name's sake.

"How does God accomplish this work in the life of an OT saint?

Is it by the covenant of Mount Sinai or the covenant of Abraham?'"

This is a little bit like being asked 'would you rather be shot or hung?"

All God's dealings with men have been and will always be on the foundation of Calvary. That 'eternal' sacrifice casts its shadow backwards and forwards at the same time. This is why we say that God's dealings with men have always been on the basis of grace.

a man or woman can find forgiveness outside any covenant. This is part of the significance of ...

And behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, “This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir.” Then He brought him outside and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness. Then He said to him, “I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it.” Gen 15:4–7 NKJV

Paul points out that this event was pre-circumcision. In fact, pre-covenant. Abraham was not in any kind of formal covenant with God when he received justification by faith and according to Paul, by the Spirit, David describes that kind of justification by saying that it includes.. remission and atonement and God's refusal to keep an account of sins committed.

Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.” Rom 4:4–8 NKJV

David, who wrote Psalm 23, is a fascinating historical character in that he lived at a time when the Old Covenant was technically in force but was in practice dysfunctional. There had been no 'Day of Atonement' within living memory when David wrote this Psalm. David had no faith in Calvary but his faith in God was faith in the God who works grace to men on the basis of Calvary whether they know of it or not.

Consequently, the answer to your question is 'neither'. God did not accomplish this work either by the Covenant of Abraham or the Covenant of Sinai. He accomplished it by (ie through) justifying faith.

A
Areadymind

"All God's dealings with men have been and will always be on the foundation of Calvary. That 'eternal' sacrifice casts its shadow backwards and forwards at the same time. This is why we say that God's dealings with men have always been on the basis of grace."

As long as I have been reading this thread, that is one of the best sentences written yet. If you do not see this in scripture, then the lives of men like Daniel, Joseph, and Enoch make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

A
Areadymind

By the way, I have a very particular interest in the outcome of this thread, as recently I was told by a 7th Day Adventist, "I don't believe in all this 'New Covenant' garbage!"

I realized when he said it that my understanding of it all was not as good as it ought to be. Please continue to show love and understanding with one another, I don't want to see this thread locked down.

P
philologos

The nation of Israel became the ‘assembly of Jehovah’ at Sinai through the ministry of Moses. This is what Stephen is referring to in Acts when he says...
"This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:" Acts 7:37–38 KJV

I have intentionally quoted from the old KJV here to make a link. Stephen refers to the ‘church in the wilderness’; ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. More modern versions use the word ‘congregation’ which is a good modern equivalent. But we should not miss the link that Stephen who was a Greek speaking Jew and who was familiar with the Greek version of the Old Testament used the word ‘ekklesia’. The Greek Old Testament known as the Septuagint (LXX) uses the word ‘ekklesia’ a hundred times. It refers, mostly, to the congregation or assembly of God’s people. At Sinai they became the ‘ekklesia of Jehovah’. They were added to that ‘church or congregation’ through the ministry of Moses the mediator of the Old Covenant. Moses, and submission to his law, became the doorway through which others could become members of that ‘church’ or ‘congregation’. There were some racial prohibitions but otherwise anyone could become a member of that ‘church’ as long as they submitted themselves to the Sinai Covenant.

All the post-Sinai saints of the Old Testament were members of the ‘ekklesia of Jehovah’. This would have included the disciples of Jesus. It was an axiom of their lives that they were part of the Covenant people and hence members of the ‘ekklesia of God’. Imagine their surprise then when one day Christ said;

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Matt 16:18 NKJV

Try to put yourselves in their shoes... you know you are a member of the church of God, as were your forefathers before you... how will you react to this statement that Jesus intends to build his own church? The tense is very clearly future. At the moment of him saying these words ‘I will build my church’ the words are a statement of future intention. Your ancestors have been part of the church of God, how will you respond to the possibility of becoming a member of a different church with a different mediator?

A
Areadymind

Does Hebrews 4:2 tie in in any way with what you just talked about Ron? KJV reading please.

And could you explain your implication in the last two paragraphs a bit more bluntly?

P
philologos

Areadymind on 2010/8/11 12:20:12
writes:
"As long as I have been reading this thread, that is one of the best sentences written yet. If you do not see this in scripture, then the lives of men like Daniel, Joseph, and Enoch make absolutely no sense whatsoever."

I often tell this story. We had 7 children and much of life was a queue! One day we took our children to an exhibition. It had one of those turnstiles which admitted one person at a time as they paid their entrance fee. We joined the queue. The woman on the gate let 4 of my children through without them paying! How could she do this? ...because she saw me coming with the money in my hand. My one payment covered those who went before me and those who came behind me.

So it has been with Calvary.

But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Rom 3:21–26 NKJV

Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Daniel and all those who came before Calvary have access because the 'Father saw HIM coming with the money in his hand'.

P
philologos

Areadymind on 2010/8/11 16:48:37 writes:
"Does Hebrews 4:2 tie in in any way with what you just talked about Ron? KJV reading please.

And could you explain your implication in the last two paragraphs a bit more bluntly?"

For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. Heb 4:2 NKJV

Salvation has always been by faith and we are told very plainly why this should be...

Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all Rom 4:16 NKJV

"it is of faith that it might be according to grace".

God has always been determined that salvation would be His free gift. Because he has determined it should be by grace it could only every have been through the channel of faith.

The list of the heroes of faith in Heb 11 is a list of people who did not know the 'Calvary' part of the story but they put their reliance wholly upon God. With each one of them 'God counted his faith as righteousness'. This has often been said but it will bear being repeated. We evangelicals have often used the language of 'I made Jesus my personal saviour'. It puts all the emphasis in the wrong places. The wonder of the gospel is that God 'has made Jesus my personal Saviour'. Even though the men and women of the old testament had no personal knowledge of Christ as their Saviour, God still accepted them on the basis of the 'propitiation' that he provides in Calvary.

A
Areadymind

I understand and agree with everything you just stated, please forgive me for being so cryptic in my question though. I was wondering if the use of the word "Gospel" being preached to the people at Sinai, ties into the idea of the ekklesia you talked about last time. I mean, I have honestly thought a lot about this verse particularly, and have found myself wondering how to define exactly how the "Gospel" was preached to those wandering in the wilderness.

A
ADisciple

"...wondering how to define exactly how the "Gospel" was preached to those wandering in the wilderness."

I think the answer to this lies in the fact that there is no article in the Greek for gospel in Heb. 4.2. In my Interlinear it says, "For indeed we have had glad tidings announced to (to us) even as also they..."

Our glad tidings is the good news of "a promise being left us of entering into His Rest" (Heb. 4.1). (Which, by the way, is often totally obscured in the emphasis on getting "saved.")

Their glad tidings, their gospel, was the promise of an earthly inheritance in the land of Canaan... which gospel those in the wilderness drew back from in unbelief.

C
Christinyou

The old covenant had a temple built of bricks and stone, made with hands. The new covenant has a temple built by God and His Spirit inhabits that temple. More than that the new temple was built upon the apostles and prophets, which is now, not then. That builder being God, befor the foundation of the world, that being "the Mystery", "Christ in you the Hope of Glory", the Chief Corner Stone, and God building upon each added stone as He pleases and places it in the body of Christ as He pleases. Born Again into the Kingdom of God by the Incorruptable Seed of the Father, which is Jesus Christ.

Gaebelein has a good grasp on the New Covenant, The Mystery. Here is a small excerpt from his Annotated Bible
Commentary.

Ephesians 2:11

3. The Mystery Made Known

The Church is called a mystery "which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit."

"Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" does not mean that the apostles are the foundation. The apostles are the foundation through their inspired teachings as Paul wrote, "I have laid the foundation." But he also adds "for other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1Co 3:9-11). The Lord Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Christ is the foundation. This the apostles taught. And the Lord Jesus Christ is the chief corner stone (Isa 28:16; Ps 118:22; Mt 21:44; Ac 4:11; 1Pe 2:4-5). "In whom all the building (fitly framed) together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord" (verse 21). The building, the true Church is (fitly framed) together, which means that God puts it together in His own marvelous way.

Solomon's temple gives a little illustration of this. When that temple was building, hammer, axe and tools of iron were not heard. "And the house, when it was building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither, so that there was neither hammer nor axe, nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was building." Every stone was prepared beforehand and fitted into the place where it belonged. How beautifully it illustrates the fitting together of the house, His Church! He chooses and prepares the material and puts each in its proper place (1Co 12). What a contrast with man's methods in trying to increase "church membership"! The divine revelation is forgotten. Christendom has departed from the faith in these revelations concerning the one Church and its architect. But all the confusion, the wrong conceptions and attending evils, cannot frustrate the purpose of the Lord. He is building His Church. He takes the material and puts it as living stones in the place where it belongs. This is the work of His Spirit.

And the Holy Spirit dwells there. He dwells in the true Church, because He indwells every individual member of the body of Christ. We are the habitation of God. As He dwelt of old in the tabernacle, so He dwells in the Church through the Spirit. God does no longer dwell in an earthly house. The conception of a church building being a "holy place" which we must call "the house of the Lord" or "a temple" is absolutely wrong. It is the Jewish idea. God does no longer dwell in an earthly house and yet He has His habitation here. Wherever two or three are gathered together in His name, there He is in the midst; that is a Church and the habitation of God through the Spirit. "Even now in the state of imperfection, by the Spirit dwelling in the hearts of believers, that God has His habitation in the Church; and then when the growth and increase of that Church shall be completed, it will be still in and by the Holy Spirit, fully penetrating and possessing the whole glorified church, that the Father will dwell in it forever." (Dean Alford, Greek New Testament.) END

The Father dwells in His Temple which is us, even by the Son of God who now lives in those that believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

This is what is being built; 1 Corinthians 3:8-15 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

This is what God is building; 1 Corinthians 3:16-20 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are. Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

This is how we are put together, fitly framed to God's specification as the master Builder:

1 Corinthians 12:1-31 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

A New Covenant? I guess. Without question, not like the old.

In Christ: Phillip

P
philologos

by ADisciple on 2010/8/11 18:18:57 writes
"...wondering how to define exactly how the "Gospel" was preached to those wandering in the wilderness."

Yes, I think you are on the right track. Evangelicals have defined 'the Gospel' to be a subset of key doctrines which centre on the idea of personal decision. Good news is just that... good news.

But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?” Rom 10:16 NKJV

Did you ever take a close look at Isaiah's original gospel?

Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: “Whom shall I send, And who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.” And He said, “Go, and tell this people: ‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ “Make the heart of this people dull, And their ears heavy, And shut their eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And return and be healed.” Then I said, “Lord, how long?” And He answered: “Until the cities are laid waste and without inhabitant, The houses are without a man, The land is utterly desolate, The LORD has removed men far away, And the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land. But yet a tenth will be in it, And will return and be for consuming, As a terebinth tree or as an oak, Whose stump remains when it is cut down. So the holy seed shall be its stump.” Is 6:8–13 NKJV

or Jonah's
Now the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying, “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you.” So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three-day journey in extent. And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” Jonah 3:1–4 NKJV

'the gospel' is much more comprehensive than the Calvary story although of course that is central to it.

Whenever God speaks it is 'good news' even when it sounds like 'bad news'. God declares his intention but that is not the end of the matter...

“O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the LORD. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. Jer 18:6–8 NKJV

that unnoticed principle runs through all God's messages to men. If they respond God will change his plans for them.

P
philologos

on 2010/8/11 16:37:00 I posted this...
"Try to put yourselves in their shoes... you know you are a member of the church of God, as were your forefathers before you... how will you react to this statement that Jesus intends to build his own church? The tense is very clearly future. At the moment of him saying these words ‘I will build my church’ the words are a statement of future intention. Your ancestors have been part of the church of God, how will you respond to the possibility of becoming a member of a different church with a different mediator?"

Let me approach this in another way. If in ancient times you had wanted to become a member of the 'church of Jehovah' how would it have been done?

God's names are not arbitrary titles but revelations of his character. Although the patriarchs, Ab/Is/Jacob had know the 'name' of Jehovah they had not known what they were to understand by that name. It would be the nation of Israel bound together and to God by covenant who would discover just who Jehovah was.

The NKJV doesn't use the proper name of Jehovah at all. The old KJV uses the name 4 times, Ex 6:3; Psa 83:18; Is 12:2; 26:4. But in both versions the word LORD in upper case tells us that the word is YHWH the name that has become known as Jehovah.

God introduced himself to the nation of Israel by the name of Jehovah (I'll stick to the older usage)...

And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. Ex 6:2–3 KJV

Often in the UK people are honoured by giving them names which associate them with some great exploit. eg Lord Bernard Montgomery of Alamein was given his title which commemorated his most significant achievement. Names often become so strongly linked with events eg Davie Crocket and the Alamo (just so that I am not accused of a UK bias! ;-))

God was about to do something of lasting significance and he wanted his name to be forever afterwards associated with that event. The name Jehovah is to be forever linked with the origins of Israel as God's people. His promise to Moses was almost like a legal document which is bounded at the beginning and at the end by the signature of the person making the promise. Nothing could be omitted and nothing added. Here is the promise...

I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name LORD I was not known to them. I have also established My covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, in which they were strangers. And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel whom the Egyptians keep in bondage, and I have remembered My covenant. Therefore say to the children of Israel: “I am the LORD; I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, I will rescue you from their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. I will take you as My people, and I will be your God. Then you shall know that I am the LORD your God who brings you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you into the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and I will give it to you as a heritage: I am the LORD.’ ” Ex 6:3–8 NKJV

Notice how God distinguishes between the Patriarchal covenant with Ab/Is/Jacob and the Covenant that he is about to make with the nation of Israel. The promise to the nation is encompassed in 7 great "I will" statements. It begins with his signature 'I am Jehovah' and it ends with his signature 'I am Jehovah'. The heart of this promise is a thrilling statement...

"I will take you as My people, and I will be your God."

He had made promises to individuals like Ab/Is/Jacob but this was a promise to a whole nation. It is the heart of the Old Covenant; the nation was to become God's nation with unique blessings and responsibilities and with a unique destination. On the basis of this coming covenant God would give the land to this nation... as a heritage.

How did people come to be part of this covenant? The simple answer is 'by a covenant'.

And Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: “You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.” Ex 19:3–6 NKJV

This is an 'if-then' statement.
IF you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant,
THEN you shall be a ...

In computer language, if the first condition is met then we move on to the result. If the first condition is not met the program stalls!

It was addressed initially to people who had a shared experience of deliverance. "You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself."

I'll take a pause and then go on to see how this covenant came into being and the nation of Israel became the Covenant Community of Jehovah.

C
Christinyou

Acts 28:23-31 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not. And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it. And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves. And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

What one word was Paul speaking? "to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus," "The Salvation of God".

Paul was speaking the new and showing them even out of the old. So the old was in the new but the new had not been revealed yet. Until Paul had gotten the Salvation of God from Jesus Himself by direct revelation, none had ever had or understood this "One Word" Paul spoke. The Jews as a whole would not hear, but individuals, some of them did, those God had already appointed to the new covenant in Christ Jesus, even before the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1:3-6 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

If the Old would have saved Isreal as a whole, then why would Paul preach "One Word" to them, and in their refuseing, the Gospel would go to another people, who "would hear". The old leading to the new, and the great revelation of the New Covenant given to Paul, who even called it "My Gospel". Christ is the center of all that is ever written in all the scripture, and revealed in word upon word, line upon line and precept upon precept, but they would not.

Isaiah 28:10-16 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

The old had to be done away, or the new could not overcome and swallow up the old and give life in Christ Jesus, the precious "Corner Stone", "a foundation Stone", a Tried Stone, a Sure Foundation, The Pure and New Covenant in ChRIST JESUS, being sent to those that have been given, "ears to hear".

In Christ: Phillip

P
philologos

Blessed is the man who truly knows God as his Covenant God; who knows what the Covenant promises him; what unwavering confidence of expectation it secures, that all its terms will be fulfilled to him; what a claim and hold it gives him on the Covenant-keeping God Himself. To many a man, who has never thought much of the Covenant, a true and living faith in it would mean the transformation of his whole life. The full knowledge of what God wants to do for him; the assurance that it will be done by an Almighty Power; the being drawn to God Himself in personal surrender, and dependence, and waiting to have it done; all this would make the Covenant the very gate of heaven. May the Holy Spirit give us some vision of its glory.

Andrew Murray: "The Two Covenants"

This is why I began this thread.

C
Christinyou

Amen, all our glory is in Christ Jesus and He in us. No greater gift could God give His own Son than the Glory of the Body of Christ His Church, and us birthed son's of God.

Every time I type this, I feel God in me and me in God;
"In Christ": Phillip

A
ADisciple

From the same book:

“If the New Covenant is to be better than the Old, if it is to be an everlasting Covenant, never to be broken, it must make some sufficient provision for the obedience of the Covenant people.

“And this is indeed the glory of the New Covenant, the glory that excelleth, that this provision has been made. In a way that no human thought could have devised, by a stipulation that never entered into any human covenant, by an undertaking in which God’s infinite condescension and power and faithfulness are to be most wonderfully exhibited, by a supernatural mystery of Divine wisdom and grace, the New Covenant provides a guarantee, not only for God’s faithfulness, but for man’s too! And this in no other way than by God Himself undertaking to secure man’s part as well as His own. Do try to get hold of this.” (End of quote)

This, I believe is what is pictured in Ex. 15.17, when the LORD Himself walked between the pieces while Abram was asleep. The LORD fulfilled both His own part of the covenant, and also Abram's.

And this is what we see in Gal. 2.20. "I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me, and gave Himself for me."

"Christ liveth in me..." fulfilling my part of the Covenant.

"...Christ in you, the hope of glory..."

Oh happy day!

S
sermonindex

"Andrew Murray: "The Two Covenants"


This book is a must read.........brother Frank

P
philologos

appolus on 2010/8/16 0:25:50 writes:
"This book is a must read.........brother Frank"

Frank, I agree but I have raised the question as to whether or not there really ARE two covenants available today. Is the Old Covenant a still-available second best or is it dead in the water?

If it is 'dead in the water' it raises the question as to what 'covenant' many are really living in.

C
Christinyou

How can I receive forgiveness if I am under the old covenant? Where do I take a blemish free Lamb for blood sacrifice? Where is the scape goat?

In Christ: Phillip

P
philologos

Christinyou on 2010/8/16 14:28:09 writes:
"How can I receive forgiveness if I am under the old covenant? Where do I take a blemish free Lamb for blood sacrifice? Where is the scape goat?"

This is my oft-repeated point. The Old Covenant cannot function without the Levitical priestly system.

B
BeYeDoers

I am drawing from different posts her and elsewhere, so forgive me if this is a little messy (I will try my best).

If Abra/ha/m was justified outside of covenant, it seems to follow that we are as well. Not that they aren't chronologically linked, but they are independent events. People in all ages have always been justified be faith, regardless of covenant. However, the pattern of scripture seems to be that in fact, they are separate chronologically. Furthermore, distinct to the new covenant is this idea of a new Spirit within us (regeneration). Romans 8 tells us that if we do not have the Spirit, we are not Christ's. But nobody before Pentecost "had" the Spirit (He was "with" them, but not "in" them). Justification does not make us "Christ's", nor does it place us in the new covenant.

So what happens to the man who is "only" justified but misses the covenant/is not regenerate when he dies? Is this possible now, or only possible to those Old Covenant saints? Were they "Christ's" since they didn't have the Spirit? Did they receive the Spirit after death/before eternity?

I told you that would be loaded, but I've been trying to sort all this out for a few years now. "Where do I fit in?" May we continue to pursue these glorious truths with humility before the throne.

C
Christinyou

My righteousness in not counted to me, my righteousness is made unto me by Christ that is in me. The righteousness of God is By the "Christ in you the hope of glory". This is what Christ preached to the dead also; 1 Peter 4:6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. Why?
1 Peter 4:11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

This is why the dispensations and covenants are so important. We must separate Law and Grace, righteousness counted by good works and righteousness by birthright, Being Born Again, a new creature, a new creation race of The Children of God in Christ Jesus the first born, our Brother and making us fellow heirs with Christ Jesus to the Kingdom of God where in spirit and our soul learning we are already in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus.

In Christ: Phillip

A
Areadymind

Ron, does Andrew Murray suggest that both covenants are available in that book?

I have it on my shelf and was told it was a must read, but have not cracked it yet.

P
philologos

No, Andrew Murray doesn't state it quite like that but he works on the premise that many are not living in the fulness of the New Covenant. I agree, it is a must read book but I am just questioning whether or not there really is a second option. If there isn't a second option, and I am sure there isn't, what covenant are those folks living under? Or is such a version of Christianity really Christianity at all?

P
philologos

BeYeDoers on 2010/8/16 16:07:01 writes:
"So what happens to the man who is "only" justified but misses the covenant/is not regenerate when he dies? Is this possible now, or only possible to those Old Covenant saints? Were they "Christ's" since they didn't have the Spirit? Did they receive the Spirit after death/before eternity? "

These are key and perceptive questions! I think it is because evangelicals often back away from these kind of questions that we end up with such a muddle of theology and biblical understanding.

I will try to answer them honestly although it is likely to bring the roof down on my head!

1. "So what happens to the man who is "only" justified but misses the covenant/is not regenerate when he dies?

I am glad that you avoid the 'heaven' word. This usually lurks behind all these kinds of questions but I think it skews the answers. There is remarkably little biblical warrant for many of our ideas of 'going to heaven when we die?' It isn't that I don't believe in heaven or that I am going to heaven when I die, it's just that this is never the focus of the gospel although we have made it so.

Let's take the example of Abraham.
"“I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ ? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”" Matt 22:32 NKJV

"There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out." Luke 13:28 NKJV

"And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom." Luke 16:23 NKJV

There can be no doubt on the basis of these scriptures that Abraham is 'with God' and if that is true for Abraham we may conclude that it is true for those who shared Abraham's kind of faith. Here is an interesting verse…

"The princes of the people have gathered together, The people of the God of Abraham. For the shields of the earth belong to God; He is greatly exalted." Psa 47:9 NKJV
"the people of the God of Abraham" Notice this is not 'Abraham's people' nor is it 'God's people' but this is the 'people who belong to Abraham's God'. What do we know about 'Abraham's God'? We know that this God 'justifies the ungodly'

"What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness," Rom 4:1–5 NKJV

So we may say confidently that those who share Abraham's faith with share Abraham's destiny. Yes?

However… Hebrews tells us …
"And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, 40 God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us." Heb 11:39–40 NKJV

This tells us very clearly that all the heroes of faith from Heb 11 "did not receive the promise'. Amazing. Their lives so often put ours to shame and yet they 'did not receive the promise'… NOT IN THIS LIFE. And that I think is the key to the first part of the answer…

For Abraham and those who shared his faith 'Eternal Life' was a future expectation to be received beyond the grave. The New Testament asserts that we may receive Eternal Life IN THIS LIFE. What the OT saints could only look forward to, we, by grace alone, are to enjoy now.

I'll take a pause to leave you time to respond to this first part...

A
Areadymind

On the topic of the gospel in terms of heaven, if you study the book of Romans, never one time...not one single time, does Paul present the gospel in terms of, "Get saved so you can go to heaven."

Heaven is only mentioned two times in Romans (at least in the KJV) and it is only referred to.

I was rather amazed when I discovered this. Not only that, every single "evangelical" sermon in the book of Acts neither mentions heaven in the 'offing' when they presented the gospel either. Heaven again is mentioned, but it is not pitted against the non-believer. Is this then a diluted down raw form of covetousness at work that we twist it around? I really wonder some times.

Right now for homework I am trying to answer the question, "What does it mean when Paul says in Philippians...'to live is Christ and to die is gain?'" I mean, I do not feel as if I have ever really known this full reality moment by moment.

As far as the gnashing of teeth, I assume your implication is that you think there will be people "justified" and not necessarily in Hell, but somehow separate?

R
RobertW

Or is such a version of Christianity really Christianity at all?

I think David Bercot is really on to something in his new book when he refers to much of what we are seeing as, 'Doctrianity.' He seems to have expounded on Tozer's idea of salvation by logical deduction drawn from proof texts.

M
mguldner

"Right now for homework I am trying to answer the question, "What does it mean when Paul says in Philippians...'to live is Christ and to die is gain?'" I mean, I do not feel as if I have ever really known this full reality moment by moment."

This is to say that for Paul living means proclaiming and spreading the gospel of Christ Jesus and strengthing the brethen, thus living is to continue in Christ. But to die is gain because we dont yet know the great wealth of being in the presence of our Saviour 24 hours a day 7 days a week completely engulfed in His glory. So for Paul to die was to gain eternal Life and Christ Jesus. I don't know if your question was literal or not, but I too agree this reality hasn't yet fully set in for me as well.

A
Areadymind

I believe it was Mr. Bailey here whom I heard say in a teaching the other day, "Just because you believe in justification by faith does not make you justified by faith."

Doctrianity...

I asked my pastor a couple weeks ago if we as the church today are not responsible for the weakness of faith in people when we regularly teach and promote the idea from pulpits worldwide that the highest virtue in Christianity is...listening to sermons. It is the end all. We think we are righteous because we go hear a preacher. We think that gathering more information about the bible makes us right before God. We feel we have done our weekly duties...
It is promoted that understanding is in itself an 'endish' virtue. When really understanding is only for the purpose in scripture of application.

It is subtle, and hardly perceptible, but is that the truth or no?

R
RobertW

Ron's: Their lives so often put ours to shame and yet they 'did not receive the promise'… NOT IN THIS LIFE.

I often think of this passage when these questions come to mind:

But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, (Hebrews 12:22, 23)

This seems to imply that the departed 'just men' (and women I'm sure) have been made 'perfect' (τετελειωμένων). This root is used of Christ in Hebrews 5:9 and also in 7;19, 10:14, etc.). It seems to me that God somehow perfected that which was lacking upon their departure.

B
BeYeDoers

I'm with you so far Philologos. While the New Testament doesn't really focus on "heaven", it does focus on the coming judgment, "the great separation" if you will: sheep/goats, everlasting punishment/eternal life, lake of fire/new heaven and earth. Would it also be accurate to say that the NT focuses on New Covenant life, and only teaches justification by necessity?

So the question is still: if justification is plainly distinct to regeneration/Spirit (="Christ's" Romans 8:9?), which I think at least you and I and Robert, and a few others firmly believe, then what is the fate of those who never enter the New Covenant? Does being in the New Covenant have eternal sheep/goat implications? Again, is this possible, or is the act of regeneration NOW chronologically linked to justification so that no such distinction is made, except for theologic discussions?

P
philologos

by BeYeDoers on 2010/8/18 11:24:18 writes:
"So the question is still: if justification is plainly distinct to regeneration/Spirit (="Christ's" Romans 8:9?),"

At the risk of acquiring a reputation for pedantry...
seriously I just wanted to underline what you have written here...

when we say distinct from we DO NOT mean separate from. The old theologians used to say of the Trinity that we must not confound the persons nor separate the substance. God's 'gospel of glory' has many aspects that we may 'distinguish' for the purposes of thinking things through, just as we may 'distinguish' the members of the Trinity but we must we careful not to put things into absolutley watertight compartments in these things.

I am aware that I haven't answered all your questions, and the most difficult are yet to come, but I wanted to give opportunity for 'dialogue'.

BeYeDoers on 2010/8/18 11:24:18 writes:
"Again, is this possible, or is the act of regeneration NOW chronologically linked to justification so that no such distinction is made, except for theologic discussions?"

There is an evangelical bishop over here who is causing some waves by suggesting that justification is tied inseparably to receiving the Spirit. I do not hold that view although I partly understand why he says it.

Let me start another hare coursing...
Who is the Bible written for? It is actually a 'covenant' document and was written for the benefit of those already 'in covenant' with God. John's gospel, for example, is not written as an evangelistic tract but to strengthen the faith of those who already believe. Paul's epistles, in the main, are written to situations that were well known to him. He was not writing a 'thesis' but expounding LIFE to those who had already begun to experience it.

I am not saying we should not use the Bible with unbelievers but I do think we should be very aware of the audience for which a particular letter is written. One of the dilemmas of modern evangelicalism is that we no longer quote the Bible we quote texts. Ask an evangelical what John 3:16 says and he will tell you. Ask him what John 3:14,15 say and often he hasn't a clue... and yet we cannot understand John 3:16 without reading and understanding John 3:14 & 15 which actually gives us a definitive example of what John means by 'believing'.

BeYeDoers on 2010/8/18 11:24:18 writes:
"Would it also be accurate to say that the NT focuses on New Covenant life, and only teaches justification by necessity?"

I don't think it would be strictly accurate although I think you are on the right track. Rom 1-4 lays the foundation of justification by faith but that is not the whole of Romans by any means. Paul bases Rom 5 onwards on the established foundation of justification by faith, so it is absolutely necessary that we get that foundation right but as Paul says frequently in Romans 5.. there is 'much more'.

B
BeYeDoers

distinct does not mean separate from, but this still leaves the door open for a chronological gap between the two (justification and regeneration), and in my understanding we see this gap all throughout Acts, in some cases this represents a significant amount of time in between. First with the apostles, then the Samaritans, then Paul, then the Ephesians. Cornelius is the only exception, and I'm not convinced he wasn't justified already at the beginning of chapter 10, so he too might fit the pattern. In some of Paul's epistles, Galatians and 1 Corinthians come to mind, he states that they all have the Spirit, they had "begun" in the Spirit, they were all New Covenant people. There is never an exhortation to become regenerate, or to receive the Spirit. But then again, I can see Paul asking them the same question he asked the Ephesians (did you receive the Spirit when you believed?), or he witnessed them receiving the Spirit, and that is how he knew they had Him when he wrote to them.

So, "Gap theory" 2nd edition? :-) And what are the implications?

S
sermonindex

Hi Ron,just got to see your question.........

"If it is 'dead in the water' it raises the question as to what 'covenant' many are really living in."

Very interesting question. Does the dead covenant still exist? Hmmmm :) Is the old man still alive? If he is dead, then what raises its ugly head? What does it really mean to "reckon,' something to be true? I have pondered all these questions over the years. I had a six month debate one time with a pastor friend of mine, Southern Baptist, lover of the Word, passionate man. It was definately iron sharpening iron. His premise was that Paul, in Romans 7 , was speaking from his present experience. I argued that he wrote it from the persepective of his pharisitical days. Yet as the years wore on and I lived out my Christianity, I saw that my old pastor friend may have been on to something, at least as far as Christians were concerned. It seemed to me that it was vital that Christians had to journey through Romans 7 in order to arrive at Romans 8. To truly understand and live in the freedom of Romans 8, one had to neccecarily come to the conclusion, after being a Christian mind you, of "Oh wretched man that I am."

I guess what I am trying to say badly is, that at least on the perception side, one is being a free man and a slave all at the same time, in one's mind. Reality is, that if you are genuinly born of Christ, then of course you are a freeman because as we know, "He whom the Son sets free is free indeed." Yet one has to "see," this. One has to recognize this, one has to " reckon ," this and until one does, he can be a free man living in a cell that has been opened but that he percieves to still be shut. So the slavery is very real, while at the same time it does not exist. I believe that is what is going on with the Old Covenant and many Christians. One has to know the depths of the wretchedness of self-effort, self-righteousness
in order to truly understand and walk in the freedom that we actually walk in. The tragedy is that people take up camp in Romans 7 and actually rejoice in Romans 7 because it gives them some kind of justification for not living the victorious Christian life. So the answer? Its dead and gone, but only in reality, in the perception of many Christians it is alive and well :) ........brother Frank

(seems to be a most unsatisfactory answer:)

A
ADisciple

Frank: "Does the dead covenant still exist?"

No, it doesn't. Andrew Murray in The Two Covenants does seem to say that there are two stages in the development of the Christian walk, and that trying to live on the basis of the Old Covenant is a work preparatory to entering into the New Covenant.

I don't accept that the Old Covenant is still in effect, but by and large the principle of "law" is something that many Christians try to live by, and so what Murray says is applicable just the same.

Paul teaches that as long as a man is in the flesh he is under "law."

"But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under (the) law" (Gal. 5.18). (There is no definite article there in the Greek: "...ye are not under law").

A
ADisciple

BeYeDoers wrote: "If Abra/ha/m was justified outside of covenant, it seems to follow that we are as well. Not that they aren't chronologically linked, but they are independent events. People in all ages have always been justified be faith, regardless of covenant. However, the pattern of scripture seems to be that in fact, they are separate chronologically. Furthermore, distinct to the new covenant is this idea of a new Spirit within us (regeneration). Romans 8 tells us that if we do not have the Spirit, we are not Christ's. But nobody before Pentecost "had" the Spirit (He was "with" them, but not "in" them). Justification does not make us "Christ's", nor does it place us in the new covenant."

This is surely where some of the most difficult questions come up.

For, what does this say of the countless Christians who know they are justified, but don't have a clear witness that they have received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit?Many have experienced their Passover. But not their Pentecost. Yet it's at Pentecost that the Spirit is given. So then, if as Romans says, "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His" (Rom. 8.9), where does this put these?

Looking at it historically, I know there were smatterings of the pentecostal experience here and there throughout church history. But in a major way this feast was restored in the early years of the 20th century, and multitudes entered into and received "the baptism." It was vehemently resisted by many, and some denominations still take a strong doctrinal stand against it. Are such, then, even part of the body of "Christ"? For "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body" (1 Cor. 12.13).

Just what is a Christian? Just who is, in truth, a member of the Body of Christ? (These words get used so loosely, it seems to me: "Christian," "body of Christ...") Just who is in New Covenant relationship with God through Christ? Just when does the New Covenant begin to come into effect?

Serious questions... and I pray that anyone reading this will not let it be something that overthrows or undermines their faith, but rather that it will become something that provokes to a deeper seeking. There is much Truth yet before us that our Great Shepherd desires to lead us into!

S
sermonindex

Hi AD, looks like we are both saying the same thing, you just said it better than me :) .........brother Frank

A
ADisciple

Just reinforcing what you said, Frank, which thought you said well. Paul as one born under the Law had his Romans 7 experience (in the wilderness of Arabia, I think... Mount Sinai, "in Arabia..."). He had a great struggle with "lust," or "covetousness" or "concupiscence," they are all the same word in the Greek. We are not told just what form this lust or covetousness took, but Paul quotes the commandment, "Thou shalt not covet..."

But even those of us who are not under the Old Covenant know well the struggle with the same thing, which "law" awakens in us... and we know what it's like to cry out, "O wretched man that I am..."

P
philologos

appolus on 2010/8/18 13:39:02
writes:
" Is the old man still alive? If he is dead, then what raises its ugly head?"

Frank
Oh what a topic to add at this point! and yet it is very relevant to this discussion. This deserves a thread of its own but I could certainly not sustain a conversation on that topic while this one is still running.

I think we are hitting the familiar struggle of scripture and experience. If we find that our experience does not square up with what the scripture seems to say plainly what shall we say? There are two main ways that we can go faced with this apparent dichotomy. We can use our experience as the controlling model and interpret the scripture in the light of that experience OR we can use the scripture as our controlling model and interpret our experience in the light of the scripture.

Our tendency is to say the Bible says A but my experience seems to be B, therefore what the scripture must mean by A is really B. Suppose we take a radical approach and say the Bible says A but my experience seems to be B therefore I must challenge my experience and look to God to bring my B into line with the Scripture's A. Hope that isn't too complicated.

The danger is, of course, that the conservative will say this will bring down the whole structure of our theology. I think we have to take the risk. well over 50 years ago AW Tozer challenged the evangelical textualisation of Christianity. 'because we have the word' he said 'we think we have the experience'. This it the source of the quotation that Robert W made some time ago. Tozer protested that in place of the genuine biblical experience of the witness of the Spirit we had 'substituted logical deductions drawn from proof texts'. During the 1950s and 1960s we institutionalised this by adding the category of 'seekers needing assurance'. The absence of 'assurance' was then 'cured' by a form of bible based brain-washing; those very verses that Tozer had warned about.

Let's suppose, for the sake of following this through, that for any man 'in Christ' it is literally and dynamically true that 'our old man was co-crucified with Christ'. If this is so then we have to find another explanation of whatever it is 'that raises its ugly head'. If 'our old man was co-crucified with Christ' then we have eliminated that possibility from our enquires (as the police here might say) and we shall have to find another suspect.

I would reason the same with regard to whether or not the Old Covenant exists today. If it is true that Christ took away the first in order to establish the second then the first is 'taken away' and is not available for those living today. So if we are not living under the power, privilege and responsibility of the New Covenant we are living under a do-it-yourself pattern of our own creation and one which has no divine authority.

My own take on Romans 7 is not that it is an inevitable template for every believer but is Paul's own personal testimony. My own testimony may follow his but not necessarily so.

S
sermonindex

Good answer brother Ron. I agree with 99% :) I believe that the sin nature and the old man are parts of we multi-faceted people. The old man was completely enslaved to sin and dies with Christ. The new creature is free to follow Jesus in victory. When the new creature sins after coming to Christ, its because he chooses to. Prior to Christ the old man was in charge, now Christ is in charge. Anyway, as you say, thats another subject. Thanks for your reply brother, and any day brother Tozer is quoted is a good day :)..........brother Frank

C
Christinyou

This ugly flesh and body of sin cannot enter the kingdom of God. That is why we have the privledge of this flesh, corn of wheat, can be planted in the ground and come forth a new creature, it will produce good fruit by its new nature, which I already have by the Spirit of Christ in me, and my soul is being conformed to the Image of Christ by the Holy Spirit. This mind is my war now, I know that no good thing dwells in me. But by the Spirit of God and the New Nature of the Seed of Christ in me, I am eternally saved, was saved, am being saved in my Mind/Soul, which is now the Mind of Christ warring against the mind of my soul, creating in me the exact thing the Law is for. I hate what I do and the things I do I don't want to do, making the Law of God Perfect and me under the power of it condemnation. But, It is no longer I who sin but sin that dwells in my flesh. Who will set me free from this body of death, "praise God through Christ Jesus", I am set free. Now through the power of the Holy Spirit I can overcome the flesh, not in my own power, when I say I will do this or that, but by the only Power on earth that can set me free, by the Power of the Christ Seed and His Mind warring against my mind, and the only One that can give the Power to give me the capacity and power to take up my cross which was and is the Cross of Christ, and overcome this sin daily to be conformed to the image of Christ that is in me, The Holy Spirit Himself. I fail every day, but in the Spirit I can not fail.

Gaebelein's Annoted Bible (he says it much better)
Romans 7:1

CHAPTER 7

1. The Law and its Dominion. 1-3.
2. Dead to the Law and Married to Another. 4-6.
3. Concerning the Law; its Activities and Purpose. 7-13.
4. The Experience of a Believer in Bondage to the Law. 14-24.
5. The Triumphant note of Deliverance. 25.
Verses 1-3.--The law is now more fully taken up. We have learned before that by the works of the law no man can be justified before God. But when the sinner is justified by faith, does he need the law to please God? Can obedience to the law produce in him the fruit of holiness unto God? What is the relation of the justified believer to the law? Is he still under the dominion of the law or is he also delivered from the law and its bondage? These questions are answered in this chapter. An important principle is stated in the first verse. The law has dominion over a man as long as he lives. The law has dominion over man (both Jews and Gentiles). The law, which is holy, just and good (verse 12) condemns man, his sinful nature and the fruits of that sinful nature, and in this sense it has dominion over every man and holds him in its grasp. But when death takes place, the rule of the law is broken. It cannot touch a dead man. The penalty of the broken law is death, when that sentence is executed, the law can have no longer dominion.

An illustration from the marriage law as instituted by God is given to make this clear. Husband and wife are united in a union till death dissolves it. The married woman is bound by that law to her husband as long as he lives. When he dies she is free and can be married to another. And we are become dead to the law by the body of Christ. The body of Christ means the death of Christ on the Cross. On the cross He bore the judgment which is our due. He bore the penalty and the curse of the law for us. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree" (Ga 3:13). The penalty of the broken law has been met and the law is vindicated. Inasmuch, then as His death is our death, in that we died with Christ, the law can have no more dominion over us; "we are dead to the law by the body of Christ."

Verses 4-6.--The old union is dissolved. Death has done its work and it is now possible after being freed from the law to be married to another. In Galatians the question about the law and its authority is viewed from another side. The law was the schoolmaster unto Christ; now after faith is come, the full truth concerning redemption by the death of Christ is made known, we are no longer under a schoolmaster (Ga 3:23-25). Being then dead to the law by the body of Christ we are married to another. And this other One is He who died for us and who is risen from the dead. Justified believers are in a living union with a risen Christ; He lives in us and we live in Him. And the result of this most blessed union is fruit unto God. The law could not produce any fruit whatever but only death; nor can the legal principle bring forth fruit unto God in a believer. Ephraim was joined to idols as we read in Hosea. But Ephraim observed the Lord, heard Him and became like a green fir tree. And the Lord adds, "From Me is thy fruit found" (Ho 14:8). The parable of the vine and the branches (Joh 15) illustrates in a simple and blessed way the apostolic statement, "Married unto another--that we should bring forth fruit unto God." As the branch is in closest union with the vine and the sap of the vine produces the fruit, so are we one with Christ, and abiding in Him we bring forth the fruit unto holiness, the fruit which pleases God.

And "when we were in the flesh" (our former state) the passions of sins were by the law. The law by its holy character brings out what the natural man is and stirs up the passions of sins. But it is different now. We are delivered from the law and we can serve in newness of Spirit. We have a new nature, even eternal life, and in that we can render a true spiritual service.

Verses 7-13.--"Is the law sin?" is the next question raised. It springs logically from the statement that the passions of sins, coming out of an evil, sinful heart, were by the law and bringing forth fruit unto death. Still another "God forbid" is the answer. The law was given that we might have through that law the knowledge of sin. "I had not known sin, but by the law." I would not be conscious of lust, unless the law said, "Thou shalt not covet." The law given by a holy God is God's detective. The law forbids and the commandment at once brings out what is in the heart of man. Therefore, no blame can be put upon the law. Sin is that which must be blamed. Sin is lawlessness, rebellion against God and the law brings out that rebellion. Therefore apart from the law sin was dead, that is, dormant. But as soon as the commandment is given, the evil heart rebels against it and man is detected to be a sinner and a transgressor. Let us notice the change of the pronoun "we" to "I." Some thirty times this little word "I" is found in verses 7-25. We are brought upon the ground of personal experience; it has to be discovered and learned experimentally. The Apostle personifies this experience and speaks thus personally describing how a believer learns the lessons about the law, how the law cannot help a justified believer, and but makes of him a wretched man. It must also have been his own experience.

"For I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." This is the experience of a man who is ignorant of the spirituality of the law. He thinks himself alive, but when the commandment came, its spiritual demands realized (the law is spiritual, verse 14), the false notion of being alive was detected, for sin revived and he died, which means that sin, discovered by the law, condemned him to death. "And the commandment which was unto life was found for me to be unto death." In connection with the commandment, the law, it is written, "This do, and thou shalt live." And so in this experience--he tries next to get life by the law, but he found it was unto death, for the declaration of the law is "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them" (Ga 3:10; De 27:26). He speaks of sin, his evil nature, as one who had deceived him into all this, so that the law could manifest its power in slaying him. Verse 12 is the real answer to the question, "Is the law sin?" The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just and good. And because the law is holy it gives knowledge of sin and detects sin, bringing it to light in all its hideousness and then pronounces the sentence of death. One other question is asked, "Was then that which is good (the law) made death unto me?" God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceedingly sinful." It all comes back upon sin (the evil nature, the flesh). Thus by the commandment sin becomes exceeding sinful.

Verses 14-24.--But all this must be learned by experience, especially the fact "I am carnal," the knowledge that in my flesh there dwelleth no good thing and that I have no power, I am powerless against indwelling sin. What person is it who describes his experience in these words? Some have applied it exclusively to the Apostle. Others state that it pictures an awakened sinner and not a converted man. The man described is born again, but is in bondage to the law and is ignorant of his deliverance in Christ. We find first the statement "we know that the law is spiritual." This is the knowledge which a true Christian possesses concerning the law. And the Christian who knows this great truth, that the law is spiritual, also has learned another truth. "I am carnal and sold under sin." Here then it is where experience begins. True Christian experience is to know our full deliverance in Christ and to walk in the Spirit; the experience of a Christian in struggling with the old nature and discovering what is that old nature, the flesh, is put before us in verses 15-24. That we have here a converted person is seen by the fact first of all, that he does not want to do evil, he wants to do good and cannot do it and therefore hates what he does. The carnal nature, the flesh, which is still in a converted person, is thus demonstrated as enslaving him, however, he is no longer a willing slave, but he hates that old thing which has the mastery over him. In hating it and condemning sin, he does the same what the law does, for it also condemns sin. In this way he consents to the law that it is good. The seventeenth verse is of much importance. "Now then it is no more I that really do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." He learns the difference between himself as born again, in possession of a new nature, and the old nature. He begins to distinguish himself as in possession of a new nature that wills to do good, hating evil, and sin in him, the flesh in which dwells nothing good, but all that is evil. "For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh dwelleth no good thing, for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not." It is a great discovery to find out by experience, that although the believer is born again, he has a nature in him which is evil, which cannot bring forth a good thing. But the will is present with him to do good, because he is born again; however, he finds not the power in himself to perform what is good. And now the conflict between the two natures is on. It brings out some important facts. "It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me." He as born again, no longer loves sin; he hates it. Because he does that which he does not want to do he can truthfully say "it is no more I that do it." Furthermore he delights in the law of God after the inward man. This can never be said of an unconverted man, but only he who has a new nature can delight in the law of God. But he finds himself in helpless captivity to the law of sin which is at work in his members. He finds out that while he has a new nature to will good and to hate evil, he has no power; sin is too strong for him. And this is to teach the believer that he must get power to overcome outside of himself. All his resolutions and good wishes cannot supply the strength to do. That he is self-occupied, seeking power by what he does and tries to do, is seen from the use of the little word "I." The name of the One in whom we have deliverance, Christ, is not mentioned once. The case is clear, it is the description of the experience of a believer, who is justified, born again, in union with Christ, dead with Him, risen with Him and indwelt by the Holy Spirit; but he lacks the knowledge of this and tries by his own efforts and in his own strength, through keeping the law, to obtain holiness. Having discovered that nothing good dwells in his flesh; that the flesh is not himself, but sin in him and that, because it is too strong for him, he is powerless, the cry of despair is uttered by him. "O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" He has reached the end of self. He looks now for deliverance from another source, outside of himself. The answer comes at once. "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord." In Him there is deliverance and what that deliverance is, we shall learn from the first four verses of the eighth chapter. The two laws are mentioned once more in the last verse of this chapter. With the mind, as born again, he serves the law and the law gives him no power; in the struggle with the old nature he is enslaved by the law of sin.

Praise God in Christ I can do all things, even when I don't walk in the Spirit, for He brings me back under the Law of Christ, who loves me and gave Himself for me.


Phillip

P
philologos

by appolus on 2010/8/18 21:09:26 writes:
"Good answer brother Ron. I agree with 99% :)"

That's a good score.. I don't agree with myself all the time! ;-)

M
mkal

Krautfrau - you wrote " A time of wandering is common for the children of God, not many enter into fullness quickly unless during a revival. During this time, God`s presence leaves them and they grow weary and cold until the day when they can cry out `O wretched man that I am who will deliver me` (from my sin nature) if the Lord grants them repentant and tender hearts. Otherwise they stay stiffnecked in their sins, thinking that they are not expected to be 100% obedient or that they can always come to say sorry (but do the same thing again) Brethren this is not love nor is it holiness.

If they respond to the Holy Spirit`s movement in them the new covenant is made clear and the necessity for Christ`s righteousness to be imparted through faith. Under the new covenant, disobedience is punished severely - they shall surely perish Deut 8:19 because it is not mans ability that enables him to obey absolutely it is the strength and the keeping power of the Lord our God so now there is no excuse.

Deuteronomy should not be thought of as concerning the people of Israel but as concerning all of God`s people. If the new covenant, after coming to Christ initially has not been made between us and God then we are in the flesh and flesh cannot see God.

"Take heed to yourselves that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside and serve other gods and worship them" Deut 11:16. What are we putting before the LOrd brethren? What comes first in our lives? Is it a partner, children, a job, our reputation as a Bible teacher? If we are not functioning within the new covenant then we will perish ie we will have no spiritual authenticity in our lives, our inward will not match our outward, we will be hypocrites and only our close family will know how empty and lacking in grace in the crisis we really are. Let Deuteronomy convict us in the name of the Lord."
_______________________________________________________

I am Responding to the comments above:

I believe the "wandering time," or "desert time," is a reality and meant to lead the child of God to the cross -to the wretched man experience and the reality of new covenant life - which is Christ himself, "the good land." Now, there are many who are very learned and who emphasize various doctrinal and denominational influences in all of this. I have to say though, while often some relate to Romans 7, how many consider they are to come out of Romans 7 into Romans 8. This is to say, sanctification is of course an ongoing process, but there seems to be a crises that many experience as well, in which God revealse the still lingering flesh, self life, sin nature - or whatever you want to call it. Then the Lord also reveals the fact of our co-crucifixion with Christ, and our resurrection with him as well. Now, I said all this because I think the experience of many is that of living under law, which relates to the old covenant, whereas living under grace relates to the new wine adn the new covenant. So then I have a question for you specifically and for any others who may care to comment. If indeed, there is an experience or crises, which I say there is/ coming differently in people, then what happens to the one who goes through this and comes to a new spiritual plane (I do not mean to say that we come to a place of being above other believers...no, we should actually be even more aware then of weakness of self). I want to say though, that brother Zac Poonen has stated this often as well - that only a very small portion of Christians have come into the new covenant life. Again, though, does this not create a problem for people who do come in (I know all true Christians are new creations in Christ - I don't mean to say they are not). I want to ask, how you now relate to teh body of Christ...do you find fellowship in a church where the cross is not seen in its fullness, where new covenant life is not taught in this way? Can you be in a fellowship, which law is expounded (not like the 10 commandments and so on, but law in the sense now of flesh adn man made rules, programs). Anyway, many may jump on this as stating that I or this philosophy means I am placing some Christians as super-Christians, above others adn all of that....but no. Paul said follow me as I follow Christ....He spoke often of a crucified life. He did not say he was a super Christian, but obviously he lived a new covenant, Christ life....how else could he say, Rejoice inthe Lord always, and the kingdom of God is not found in food and so forth but in righteousness, peace and joy and so forth - I add this to say, we are spurred on to holiness, victory over sin, living in love, and so on in the New Testament (and particularly in the actual New Covenant life written about in the NT). Well, lots of rambling, but these things puzzle me - so when I see other believers speak of such things as you say "granting them repentance," and an understanding that God wants 100% obedience, or new covenant, resurrection life I would say, well then I want to ask more of how you walk this out...how you find fellowship with other believers, etc.
Please respond...God bless.....Mkal

P
philologos

You shall keep My Sabbaths and reverence My sanctuary: I am the LORD. “If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments, and perform them, then I will give you rain in its season, the land shall yield its produce, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. Your threshing shall last till the time of vintage, and the vintage shall last till the time of sowing; you shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely. I will give peace in the land, and you shall lie down, and none will make you afraid; Lev 26:2–6 NKJV

that sounds good... but what about this...

“But if you do not obey Me, and do not observe all these commandments, and if you despise My statutes, or if your soul abhors My judgments, so that you do not perform all My commandments, but break My covenant, I also will do this to you: I will even appoint terror over you, wasting disease and fever which shall consume the eyes and cause sorrow of heart. And you shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. I will set My face against you, and you shall be defeated by your enemies. Those who hate you shall reign over you, and you shall flee when no one pursues you. “And after all this, if you do not obey Me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins. I will break the pride of your power; I will make your heavens like iron and your earth like bronze. Lev 26:14–19 NKJV

that doesn't sound so good...

it is easy to forget that the Sinai Covenant had a sword in its hand...

And I will bring a sword against you that will execute the vengeance of the covenant; when you are gathered together within your cities I will send pestilence among you; and you shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy. Lev 26:25 NKJV

Aren't you glad that Covenant with its blessings and its curses has been 'taken away' and a New Covenant 'established' in its place?

R
RainMan

Amen

B
BeYeDoers

Philologos, any thoughts or comments on my 2nd generation "gap theory" post?

P
philologos

BeYeDoers on 2010/8/21 10:59:37
"Philologos, any thoughts or comments on my 2nd generation "gap theory" post?"

Can you remind me of the date? I don't think I could wade through all this to find it.

B
BeYeDoers

just a few days ago...8/18

P
philologos

I prefer not to use the 'gap theory' label. Just because we have enough debris to sift through without creating more.

I think it does open up the prospect of a 'second blessing' although I don't usually use that label either.

The implications? I think we need to radically challenge preaching for a decision. There will be decisions and response is vital but we must not prescribe the manner of those responses. We must allow God to do his own work.

In a pastoral care I constantly find folk who have put their faith in the 'cross' link and have a genuine sense of sins forgiven but who have not 'received' life in any conscious sense. To say what do we do with these folks is to slip back into another counselling technique. We have to get people 'onto Christ' and 'get out of the way'. We can pray for them and talk to them but we must resist the temptation to programme them.

The implications? for the teachers... a more severe judgment.

B
BeYeDoers

In a pastoral care I constantly find folk who have put their faith in the 'cross' link and have a genuine sense of sins forgiven but who have not 'received' life in any conscious sense. To say what do we do with these folks is to slip back into another counselling technique. We have to get people 'onto Christ' and 'get out of the way'.

I don't know that the question is "what does the preacher do?", although wouldn't the answer be, like Peter and John and Paul, to lay on hands and pray for the Spirit? More importantly, for the person who hasn't had the life experience, what do THEY do? Do you think the "receiving life" experience is similar to the experiences in Acts, i.e. some sort of external manifestation. If so, then that points to most of the church throughout history not receiving life, except for trickles throughout history. Are those who only have sins forgiven "stuck" and are not yet "Christ's" via the Spirit of the New Covenant? What are the implications for these folks? Would scripture call them sheep? And if not, that means goats, so then what was the purpose of their justification?

R
RobertW

We can pray for them and talk to them but we must resist the temptation to programme them.

I think it takes going back and revisiting how we have come to decisional Christianity. We need to realize that there was a time when ministers refused to sort of bait responders into some form of response. I think it began with Finney and went downhill from there. Today it is so deeply intrenched in ministers minds that its hard for them to imagine that God could actually deal with a person without their step by step help. It seems that the disciples waited until they were asked questions before they offered solutions. Today evangelism often sounds like a staged sales pitch. I notice that Jonah went through town simply declaring God's pronouncements and allowed the people to use their horse sense to figure out what to do.

A
ADisciple

Ron said, "Aren't you glad that Covenant with its blessings and its curses has been 'taken away' and a New Covenant 'established' in its place?"

...Methinks I detect a bit of mischief. :)

"See that ye refuse not Him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused Him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape if we turn away from Him that speaketh from Heaven..." (Heb. 12.25)

P
philologos

BeYeDoers on 2010/8/21 18:03:44
"I don't know that the question is "what does the preacher do?", although wouldn't the answer be, like Peter and John and Paul, to lay on hands and pray for the Spirit? More importantly, for the person who hasn't had the life experience, what do THEY do? Do you think the "receiving life" experience is similar to the experiences in Acts, i.e. some sort of external manifestation."

This is EXACTLY what I was wanting to avoid. I think if we cannot distinguish between receiving the Spirit and external manifestation we are going to be constantly talking at cross purposes. I believe in a conscious 'receiving of the Spirit' but I refuse to acknowledge any 'initial evidence' of that experience.

P
philologos

ADisciple on 2010/8/21 21:23:22

"..Methinks I detect a bit of mischief. :)"

who? me? surely not?

Seriously I can see why you might have thought it but that wasn't my intention. I wanted to underline that the Old Covenant is a package deal and we have no biblical authority to cut and paste from that Covenant. If you sign up for it you are stuck with it. Or as Paul puts it...

And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. Gal 5:3 NKJV

or as James puts it...

James 2:10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.

A
ADisciple

Ron said, "who? me? surely not?

"Seriously I can see why you might have thought it but that wasn't my intention. I wanted to underline that the Old Covenant is a package deal and we have no biblical authority to cut and paste from that Covenant. If you sign up for it you are stuck with it."

...Okay, I'll let you off. :) I understand now where you were coming from. And the passage you quoted certainly shows that the Old Covenant is, as Travis, I think it was, posted a few pages back, like a plate glass window. You break it in one little place, and the whole thing is broken.

But where I was coming from... the New Covenant, like the Old, also has its teeth. I know it cannot be broken in those who have in themselves "the Surety" of the Covenant (Heb. 7.22) ...but also in Hebrews and other places there is much warning that there are consequences for trifling with God.

"For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense and reward, How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation..." (Heb. 2.3).

B
BeYeDoers

I would agree that the external manifestation can never be the focus, and I think the Pentecostals/Charismatics have caused as much harm as good by focusing on tongues and not "life". We must draw a distinguishing line. However, when asking "where do I fit in?" I have to do something with the experiences of those in scripture. I can't just ignore it, right? The "manifestations" in Acts were never exactly the same for any two groups of people, and for most of those "added to the church", no manifestations are mentioned at all. But at some level, they all KNEW the Spirit "came", and we know from Paul's letters that he too knew the Spirit came to those to whom he wrote.

Would I be right to conclude that external manifestations served specific purposes for specific groups, but the real question for each believer is "did you receive the Spirit when you believed?" (which only implies, as you say, a conscious experience, independent of anything that may or may not be external)

P
philologos

BeYeDoers on 2010/8/22 18:07:33
"The "manifestations" in Acts were never exactly the same for any two groups of people, and for most of those "added to the church", no manifestations are mentioned at all. But at some level, they all KNEW the Spirit "came", and we know from Paul's letters that he too knew the Spirit came to those to whom he wrote."

This is very much the way I would see the Scripture record.


"Would I be right to conclude that external manifestations served specific purposes for specific groups, but the real question for each believer is "did you receive the Spirit when you believed?" (which only implies, as you say, a conscious experience, independent of anything that may or may not be external)"

Can I add a single word? the word 'may'. I think external manifestations may serve more than one purpose in this. I think tongues 'may' have a particular significance in the context of 'unbelieving Jews'. By 'unbelieving' I don't mean that they are not genuine believers but that they may struggle with the notion of eg gentiles in the covenant. This seems to be Paul's comment in 1 Corinthians. Although this passage is notoriously difficult for the commentators.

God, after all, works 'all things together' and while tongues are a wonderful release for the individual they may, at the same time, provide a 'sign for Israel'.

C
Christinyou

Quote: "at the same time, provide a 'sign for Israel'.

If:

Acts 2:5-6 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

With understanding. 1 Corinthians 12:10-11 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

1 Corinthians 14:15-19 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

For the Body of Christ, tongues are for the unbeliever also.

In Christ: Phillip

P
philologos

continued from... philologos on 2010/8/12 7:57:40
"I'll take a pause and then go on to see how this covenant came into being and the nation of Israel became the Covenant Community of Jehovah."

We have the record of several covenants coming into being in the Scripture, they are all very helpful in understanding the nature of a covenant's inauguration. I'll just continue a little with the Sinai Covenant. Although the New Covenant is not the Sinai Covenant...

“Behold, the days are coming, says 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 that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. Jer 31:31–32 NKJV

...nevertheless the New Covenant is a covenant and will can learn much from watching how covenants were inaugurated. This is particularly true of the Sinai Covenant.

First a pre-amble. It seems that there was some rudimentary pattern of priesthood and cultic ceremony before Sinai. We can pick up several hints about this..

1. Also let the priests who come near the LORD consecrate themselves, lest the LORD break out against them.” Ex 19:22 NKJV

If we follow the narrative carefully we shall discover that the Levitical priests did not function until the Tabernacle had been built and the Levitical priesthood was inaugurated. The best part of a year later. So who were these priests?

2. And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD. And he rose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars according to the twelve tribes of Israel. Then he sent young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the LORD. Ex 24:4–5 NKJV

Again, if we follow the narrative carefully we shall find that the instructions for the Levitical Burnt Offering and Peace Offering had not been given at this time. It seems that these young men were following an older pattern of which we know little.

3. Moses took his tent and pitched it outside the camp, far from the camp, and called it the tabernacle of meeting. And it came to pass that everyone who sought the LORD went out to the tabernacle of meeting which was outside the camp. Ex 33:7 NKJV

Before the Tabernacle was constructed and the priesthood instituted a temporary Tabernacle was erected, not in the centre of the camp as was the case for the Tabernacle proper, but specifically outside the camp. It seems the restrictions of access did not operate on this tabernacle and Joshua, who was from the tribe of Ephraim, was able to remain in that tabernacle.

The point I am making is that people were already communicating with God in the era before the Sinai Covenant. The thing to notice about the Sinai Covenant is that these individuals who have 'accessed' God in previous times and ways are about to become Jehovah's Covenant Community and everything will change.

In a similar way the disciples of Jesus were able to 'access' him. He instructed them and guided them. But during the whole of his time on earth he was longing for something more...

“I came to send fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished! Luke 12:49–50 NKJV

That 'baptism to be baptised with' is his cross and beyond that an entirely different kind of relationship. A different kind of 'covenant'.

Moses began the inauguration of the Sinai Covenant with the words ...

And Moses took the blood, sprinkled it on the people, and said, “This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you according to all these words.” Ex 24:8 NKJV

Jesus, as the mediator of the New Covenant, took his cue from Moses...

Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. Luke 22:20 NKJV

A
Areadymind

OK, I know, here we go again. I had asked about how the gospel or Euangellion had been preached to those in the wilderness. Adisciple responded:

"Their glad tidings, their gospel, was the promise of an earthly inheritance in the land of Canaan... which gospel those in the wilderness drew back from in unbelief."

I agree this is in a sense the fullness of it. However I have often wondered if it did not go something like this...

1) Moses declared deliverance from Egypt (the world)

2) Judgment came in the face of pride as a result we saw a demonstration of the wrath of God.

3) The paschal lamb was offered in lieu of the lives of the firstborn, thus we see a massive picture of the gospel.

4) Israel is willing and more than co-operative in the blood on the posts, saving their own children from the wrath of the death angel. (salvation, justification)

5) The exodus (walk with God) begins.

6) Baptism in the red sea

7) The reception of God's intention for His people.

8) The advancement of the kingdom through participation with God in the land of Canaan.

It is at this point, where God requires of them to become participant in advancing His intention, that fear, cowardice, faithlessness comes to a logger head.

I have, in recent times, been praying about this in my own life. How it seems that the "glad tidings" and all the work God did through Moses was so readily accepted, but when the actual work and participation with those "glad tidings" was expected (partnering with God in the work of the good news)...hearts were hardened in the provocation.

I find this to be so consistently true in so many of our own lives, and wonder if the warning to not harden our hearts in the same way is not one of the more serious warnings in the New Testament. At least I have seen this to be so.

If so much of what has been said here about the New Heart is true, why is it then I find that my heart seems to need to be renewed so often? Am I not really there if I find my heart to be hardened to God's grace and I trip and fall into sin?

Someone may have covered this before, I just confess that whenever I read that passage in Jeremiah...some times it is like water slipping through my fingers.

D
davidc

"If so much of what has been said here about the New Heart is true, why is it then I find that my heart seems to need to be renewed so often? Am I not really there if I find my heart to be hardened to God's grace and I trip and fall into sin? Someone may have covered this before, I just confess that whenever I read that passage in Jeremiah...some times it is like water slipping through my fingers."

One of the difficulties of this way of communication is that we don't know each other. So when I hear such heartfelt cries, I can only pray and believe that the Lord hears you.

Whether you are really there at rest with Him, or are struggling with sin in your heart, there is still only one answer. 'Look to Jesus' and not to yourself. If you by faith have entered in and received the Holy Spirit, then you are finished with your own works and at rest.

There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Heb 4:9-10 (KJV)
Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. Heb 4:14-16 (KJV)

If you find your heart to be hardened to God's grace and you trip and fall into sin, and you hate yourself for falling short all the time, be assured that God agrees with you and you are agreeing with Him. This is Faith. On the basis of this mutual agreement, you can find true repentance and the free gift of His Spirit. You will cry with Paul

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 7:24-25 (KJV)

davidc

A
Areadymind

I understand that what I said can lead one to believe I am trapped in all sorts of heinous stuff.

This is not the case (well I guess that depends on if you think what I am about to confess is heinous or not.) As a believer I have received very much deliverance from the appetites of the old man if you will. I know to not earn the grace of God but to receive it humbly through His spoken word. I have experienced all sorts of victory in my life for which I am eternally indebted to my Lord. The old terrifying sins that kept me from God are almost instantly repelled by the Holy Spirit, and I turn to prayer with every wicked temptation which would lead me to intentional sin.

However...I guess that for me for the last year or so, I have been really stuck in Romans 7. It is the things that I know I am supposed to do (not the things I am not supposed to do, if you catch the difference) that so often are sin. Example: I stub my toe on my son's bouncy chair that my wife leaves in every possible place I could walk and I want to burst out in explitives...I don't, but the wretched desire is so still there in me. Or another example would be that my heart still seems so indifferent at times to the lost and dying world.

It seems that there is a dichotomy within me that is willing to suffer for righteousness sake but I am such a hypocrite in that the slightest physical suffering that I do not perceive to be "for the kingdom" just annoys me to no end.

I guess those are the sins I struggle with so much. It is the positing of the faith, it is the advancement of things it is the reacting to every thing that is thrown at me with the nature and character of Christ that I find to be so sorely lacking...this is the sin that is besetting me. It is these weights I feel hold me back so much, and keep me in a nearly perpetual state of Spiritual frustration.

I guess I have been terrified to realize that I would not have been one of the two spies who would have brought back a good report. I would have been one of the nay-sayers...I would have died in the wilderness.

A
ADisciple

Hi Jeremiah:

I think you're right that, in what Israel of old went through (to use your own words) "we see a massive picture of the gospel."

Paul says that what they went through happened unto them "for ensamples" (or types) for us "upon whom the ends of the ages are come" (2 Cor. 10.11).

I appreciated your post, and identify with a lot of what you said myself.

You said, "If so much of what has been said here about the New Heart is true, why is it then I find that my heart seems to need to be renewed so often? Am I not really there if I find my heart to be hardened to God's grace and I trip and fall into sin? Someone may have covered this before, I just confess that whenever I read that passage in Jeremiah...some times it is like water slipping through my fingers."

I assume by the passage in Jeremiah you are talking about Jer. 31.31-34 in which God promises the coming of a New Covenant.

One thing I think important to realize is the promise element of this New Covenant.

The writer of Hebrews in comparing the two covenants says this: "But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (Heb. 8.6).

Better promises, he says. Promises. When it seems this New Covenant is like water slipping through our fingers, seems it just isn't working the way it's supposed to, we need to continue to look to the mediator of this Covenant. We are told He is faithful, and will not fail to mediate this Covenant, "as also Moses was faithful in all His house" (Heb. 3.3). Moses fully and completely mediated the Old Covenant. Christ shall also be faithful to mediate the New.

I think also of Paul's words in 2 Corinthians, where he also compares the two covenants, saying that the New Covenant has the promise of a glory that does not fade. "Seeing then we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech, and not as Moses..." (2 Cor. 3.12).

Our experiences are of seeming inability to abide in this Life, and of having to have our hearts "renewed so often," as you said, or seeing it slip through our fingers. It seems to fade. Why, if it's not supposed to fade? But "seeing then we have such HOPE..." Paul says. And so we want to continue to embrace the HOPE which is an anchor for us that enters into that within the veil.

Or again in Romans, Paul again speaks of hope. You mean Paul himself didn't have the New Covenant yet? Yes, of course he did... but not in its fulness. He was anticipating a great fulfillment of it all. "For we are saved by hope..." he says. My Interlinear has "For in hope we were saved..." (Rom. 8.24). That is, in the sphere of hope. "But hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it."

So we, along with Paul, we look in HOPE for the great fulfillment of the Covenant.

...I think many Christians are in the place you are in now. I know I am. It isn't that this New Covenant has failed... or that something has gone wrong... or that we have just missed the boat somehow, or are maybe inferior material, or something. No, we must continue to look to Jesus (as David C said)... "the author and perfector of faith..." We must continue to present ourselves before our Great High Priest the mediator of the Covenant, as the priests of old presented themselves before Moses.

He will finish what He started. For our part, let us continue to believe Him, not as those in the wilderness who drew back, and short-circuited God's intention for them.

D
davidc

Two years is a long time to be stuck in Romans 7. I remember reading Bunyan's Pilgrims Progress where he said it was like a great dark high mountain looming over him. But you're not the only one to get stuck there. For Paul, it was his personal testimony. John Westley had his 'strangely warmed' experience when listening to Romans 7 being expounded. I, myself, miserable creature, was stuck there for 20 years, and attending and ministering in the most blessed of churches, but harbouring sin deep in my heart. Ah! the heart, the heart, so deceitful, so wicked, so desperate.

But God is merciful and patient. He took me away from all these things and got me on my own and began to show me my sin as He saw it. I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with God in His judgement of me. This was the beginning of Faith.
I saw that to escape Romans 7, I had to get into Romans 8 and live there. Obvious really.
But of couse, verse 9 threw me 'Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His'.
Then, two years ago, I was out cycling in the beautiful french countryside admiring the beauty of creation, singing and praising God, when He spoke to me and told me of his love to me, to me.
I found enormous springs of faith welling in me and I knew that He, the Holy Ghost had come.

What can I say to you my dear brother, The only way to live pleasing to God is by Romans 8; - walk after the spirit, no condemnation, Christ Jesus has made me free, to be spiritualy minded is Life and Peace, and of course - Nothing Nothing, shall be able to seperate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen. Not that I am made perfect, but better than that, I am crucified with Christ.

As God said through Moses to Israel:
"The Lord our God spake unto us in Horeb, saying, Ye have dwelt long enough in this mount: Turn you, and take your journey Deut 1:6-7 (KJV)

And Jesus grant you rest

C
Christinyou

Quote: """What can I say to you my dear brother, The only way to live pleasing to God is by Romans 8; - walk after the spirit, no condemnation, Christ Jesus has made me free, to be spiritualy minded is Life and Peace, and of course - Nothing Nothing, shall be able to seperate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen. Not that I am made perfect, but better than that, I am crucified with Christ."""

Praise God, "It is no longer I who live But Christ who lives in me".

This is who the Father sees now, for I have died with Christ and I am a new creature, "Christ in me the Hope of Glory".

In Christ: Phillip

A
Areadymind

Dear brother Phillip...Oh dear brother, do not ever ever ever let anyone accuse you of being inconsistent. I must admit, your post made me laugh with joy!

A
Areadymind

By the way, thank you for the encouragement David and Adisciple.

N
Nasher

I think that most of us will now agree that the New Covenant has replaced (yes I'll use the word) the Old Covenant.

The thing I want to know (as I'm not convinced in my own mind) is are the Church the only "people of God" / "God's people"?

I will refer to Romans 11 to further the discussion:

1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.

This seems to be referring to another people as "His people"


Where does the olive tree analogy fit into this also? There are two trees (one being the wild olive tree - refering to the Gentiles), but only ONE tree is His people / the Church?

T
twayneb

Nasher: I think you have probably opened a whole new can of worms. I am sure many people have differing opinions. I will give you what I see from scripture.

This verse in Romans is one of many that point to the fact that God is not finished with his chosen people Israel. Although we as the church are the children of God and in that respect the people of God, I have never heard the church referred to as the chosen people of God in the same sense or context as Israel. I think it is important to define some terms accurately so the discussion does not get muddled.

Israel was chosen of God to be the people through whom God would deal to bring about Jesus Christ and the New Covenant. It could very well have been some other group of people, but God chose to make His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (or Israel). It was through Israel that the law was given, through Israel that the prophets arose, both of which testified of Christ. God dealt with Israel in some very specific ways that were unique to them. He dealt with no other peoples on earth in the same way. This choosing was not always an easy thing for Israel. They have also suffered much in the earth because of being chosen by God.

The church is the worldwide body of believers who have placed their faith in Christ and received His atonement for sins. The church was the ultimate object of God's design foreshadowed in the law and prophets. God's covenant with Abraham was fulfilled in the New Covenant. The gospel that God showed Abraham is the same gospel that was revealed through the seed of Abraham through which all of the earth is blessed.

It is God's desire that the children of Israel enter into the same relationship with Him that I as a Christian enjoy. God will not "save" Israel in some way that is different from how any of us are saved. Salvation for the Jew is no different than Salvation for the Gentile. He has broken down the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile. Both are concluded under sin. Both must accept Jesus as their savior.

As to the olive trees. We were the wild branch that was grafted in to the root of the natural olive tree. As such we will provoke Israel to jealousy that they also might be saved. The natural branches will be once again grafted back in.

This is not to say that all people who are Jews will be saved any more than all Gentiles are. But the veil will be lifted off their eyes, and Israel will come to realize that Jesus is the Messiah and I believe a great number will come to saving knowledge of Him just as a great number of Gentiles have.

Hope that Helps.

D
davidc

Travis --- As one worm in the can, can I just say that I agree entirely with your first three paragraphs, especially your explanation of Israel.

But in paragraph 4 you speak of the church:
"The church was the ultimate object of God's design foreshadowed in the law and prophets."

But the ultimate object of God's design; the mystery of His will, which He has purposed in Himself; is revealed to us through Paul in Ephesians:
"That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him" Eph 1:9-10 (KJV)

The church is the heavenly people of God and Israel, the earthly people.

God's purpose is to make them one. When? In the dispensation of the fullness of times. For us, who believe and are called His heavenly saints, that dispensation has by faith come in Christ. But for Israel; they are the enemies of the gospel, and have been broken out of their olive tree for our sakes, the gentiles. God has shut them up in unbelief and has purposed that their unbelief should be salvation for us, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. At this time, the church will be taken up, (resurrected or changed) to be with Christ their bridegroom. Then Christ will come again and all His saints with Him, and all Israel shall be saved.

"According as it is written, The deliverer shall come out of Zion; he shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. And this is the covenant from me to them, when I shall have taken away their sins" Romans 11:26-27

It is true that now in this time of God's grace, Jews and Gentiles are made one in the church, His body. These are the heavenly saints. But God's promise to Israel and to Abraham is an earthly promise involving the land, and this promise will be fulfilled by Christ through Israel at His second coming.

So Christ will gather together earthly and heavenly in one. His church now, and Israel at His Glorious coming.

Worm David

T
twayneb

Hey Worm David :-). I guess it depends a little on your eschatology. I believe Israel will be saved in the same way you or I were, by receiving Christ as atonement for their sins. I do not personally believe in a pretribulation rapture, but rather that there is one day of the Lord, one second coming. So I don't believe the church will be raptured and then God will deal with Israel.

I see what you are saying about a heavenly people and an earthly people, but I cannot say I personally think that is totally accurate. It is not so much that one is heavenly and one earthly. It is that the first were chosen for God to work through to bring about the advent of the Savior. The covenant with Abraham was about the offering of an only begotton son. We are made one in Christ whether Jew or Gentile, bond or free, male or female. The first members of the church were born again out of Judaism. But as a whole Israel has had blinders on and have not been able to see the true intent of the law as pointing to Christ.

By saying the church was the ultimate purpose I meant that the ultimate purpose of the law and the prophets was to foreshadow and usher in Jesus Christ who was to pay the penalty for sin once and offer the way in which we all, Jew or Gentile, could be made righteous and once again enter into right relationship with Christ as sons of God.

I don't get too mystical about Israel. I love that people. I believe there is blessing pronounced upon those who love her. I believe she is still the apple of God's eye so to speak. But I don't see that Israel comes to salvation any differently than any other.

As to eschatology, I reserve the right to be wrong. I very well may be. It is just the best understanding of the scriptures that I have.

Your Fellow Worm...

D
davidc

Hello Travis

"As to eschatology, I reserve the right to be wrong. I very well may be. It is just the best understanding of the scriptures that I have."

Thanks for your gracious words. I understand where you are coming from. The new covenant approach to scripture is certainly most blessed. I myself spent 20 years of my life drinking in the teaching of redemption, Holy Spirit baptism, new birth, and the church and was very blessed. But when it came to understanding of a large proportion of scripture concerning prophesy and the end times, especially the book of Revelation, a new testament book, the new covenant teaching was confusing, vague and generally avoided altogether.

The new covenant teaching revels in Paul's letters and in comparing old and new covenants. But we have from God a full revelation of Himself in the bible and all shoud be understood equally. It is no use saying: "that part concerns the end times and cannot be properly understod." or: "that passage is full of symbolic language and who can properly interpret it?". So they ignore whole chapters and books, except to pick out the odd verses, which could perhaps speak of Christ or of the church and use them to preach sermons.

I found the whole approach very unsatisfactory. I may be totally misrepresenting you and your understanding, and if so, I apologise and will stay a worm.

I discovered:
a) that a more literal approach to scripture was necessary. and
b) that we should understand that God's dealing with Israel and with the church are completely different and should not be confused.

With this approach to the bible, a whole new understanding comes of Gods ways; in the past with Israel; now in the church, and future, ie the end times.

I do understand that there are wonderful blessings in the new covenant approach, but I truly believe that you are missing out on a far more full and glorious revelation of God's purpose in Christ.

a rejoicing worm

David

S
sermonindex

yet again, another Briton, forwarding the feckless theology of "replacement theology"....i've noticed the most ardent proponents of this damnable theo-spew call England their home, and i ask my self, why the British? But after all replacemnt theology came out of "british- israelism".

and what i come up with is, after all Britain WAS once of the most bloodthirsty rapacious imperial powers on this earth, (of course, we've followed in their footsteps) and weakened significantly after WW2, a small band of armed Jews was able to give Britain the boot from Palestine....that might play a role in Britons engaging in such theo-flights of fantasy as replacement theology.

and of course, centuries before that Britons made life hell for Jews, forced explusions, institutionalized anti-semitism, etc.

but what i find really telling is this, post WW2, England, definitely not pro-Israel has been sliding right down the tubes, Churches, cold, dead and dying, muslims on your shores, with vibrant mosques, setting you all up for sharia law, everything in daily life, frayed, gray and drab.

God's covenant's are forever. i didnt quote Scripture, because i dont want to waste one second engaging in dueling verses with yet another Briton spewing out that hellish theory of "replacement theology".

C
Christinyou

Nicodemus did not know it, they did not know it even after Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came to believers. Paul did not know it until it was revealed to him by Jesus Christ Himself, That God has birthed His Son in the believer. This is the difference before the Cross and after the Cross.

It takes a birthing to be a son and children of that Father.
We the Body of Christ His Church are the children of God, rebirthed not created and then made a people of God. We are not people of God, we are children of God our Father, whom Jesus Himself said we are to pray now this way, "Our Father".

This is not a separatist theology, this is truth of the scriptures. Before Nicodemus even ask the question, Jesus answered him; "John 3:3-8 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

The Nation of Israel is not born again of the Spirit of Christ or the Baptism into the Holy Spirit. Even to this day Israel still won't listen, except those individual Jews that are given to Jesus by the Father, these are the Born Again, where there is no Jew or Gentile, all one In Christ, with Christ born again in them.

Acts 28:27-29 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it. And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.

Still to this day, Israel is the same and won't hear, see and be converted and healed. This will happen when Christ comes to rule them on this earth from the Throne of David.

The difference in the New; birthed sons and the Old, chosen people.

Colossians 1:9-13 For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God; Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness; Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

Colossians 1:18-19 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

Colossians 1:25-28 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

Galatians 2:16-21 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

This is the Incorruptable Seed birthed in the believer and now we are the sons and children of God by birth right, not creation, but birth.

1 Peter 1:13-24 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

Who is the Word of God? John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

He is the Incorruptable Seed birthed in us, of which Jesus said this we must be born again or we cannot see the things of the Kingdom of God. No One was born again before Christ ascended to the Father and as He promised He would not leave us comfortless even when The Comforter, The Holy Spirit was sent by the Father, so also Is Christ in us the Hope of Glory and by these we are comforted.

John 14:18-20 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Does the Nation of Israel know this? No, not unto this day and they will not accept it, for they are even in all the evangelism that has occurred from the Cross; Acts 28:26-28 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

Christ in the believer, born again into One Spirit, even Baptized; 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. In particular;
1 Corinthians 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

Now the best way; 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

Is He come? Christ in you the Hope of Glory.

In Christ: Phillip

N
Nasher

i didnt quote Scripture, because i dont want to waste one second engaging in dueling verses with yet another Briton spewing out that hellish theory of "replacement theology".

Hi Natan4Jesus,

Thank you for your edifying post, however if you don't want to discuss scripture then I suggest you leave the "Scriptures and Doctrine" forum.

N
Nasher

Hi twayneb,

First and foremost I don't believe God is finished with anyone :-)

With regards to God's people, I do believe the Church are God's people based on Romans 9:24-26

even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
As He says also in Hosea:
“ I will call them My people, who were not My people,
And her beloved, who was not beloved.”
And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
‘ You are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

However, based on Romans 11:1-2 it says that God has another people, the Israelites?
How are these people different?

What is the olive tree is picture of? God's people? Israel? The Church? All three?

S
sermonindex

i love to discuss Scripture. Behind worshipping God, and secret prayer, it is joy to me, Pure Joy.

However, i been around this "block" again and again with proponents of this doctrine of demons called "replacement theology"...it is wickedness and spiritual arrogance taken to its absolute nadir.

since 315 Ad, when satan got up in the foul heart of constantine, who embraced the whore of babylon, and formed the "church of rome", thru the crusades, thru even the last writings of luther, going eastward vis-a-vis thru the "orthodox churches", whether they be eastern or russian, right till the 20th century, when the dark hearted lutheran "ministers" of germany gave covering to a demon went by the name of hitler, the witness of vast elements of the church, has the blood of the tribe of my flesh, the Jews on their hands, and on their heads.

an abysmal witness, a witness, that cried out from a foul institution, a mimicry of what Jesus gave His Blood for, hordes of dark hearted men screaming, 'you killed our savior, now we kill you!"...or "kill a Jew for Jesus!" This is not out of some vain imagination, but fact, a sordid history of YOUR ancestors.

What has the Ingrafted Vine done to make the Jew, "envious of so great a Salvation"? To this very day, even the mention of That Beautiful Name above all names...Jesus, literally will make the hairs on the neck of a Jew, stand up. i know. Its not a convicting fear, its the fear of darkened men, whipped and frothed in the fervor of "religious" hatred, which is the food of satan, abaddon, the destroyer.

satan, in that cesspool of a mind, has one last hope, futile hope to prevail over God, and that is wipe the earth clean of the Jews. But his schemes are futile, he has lost, but that doesnt mean, in his desperation, he'll stop...witness the times we live in.

Many today, say the modern state of Israel is not of God. i then ask, how could such a tiny nation prevail, vastly outnumbered by hordes of foes, bent on Israel's destruction, be defeated again and again by the Israeli army and airforces, if God was not with Israel?

i've noticed that the secular press ranks scorn on two things, those blessed followers of Jesus, who love the Jewish people, and support Israel, they are called derisively, "Christian Zionists", but i thank God for these brothers and sisters. secondly in the secular Israeli press, its been noted that the officer ranks in the Israeli army is being filled with observant Jews, as if this was something bad. it's good.

in conclusion Nasher, i dont know you, know your heart, you dont know me. my heart for the people of my flesh, dovetails with Pauls in Romans 9 and i thank God, that He took mercy on me, and revealed His Son to me and in me, cutting thru all the history, the tales i was told by my granmother, a 2nd generation Jew from those who fled the pogroms in the Pale of Settlement, cutting thru all the fear. It was NO MAN who spoke to me of the Reality of Messiah, NO MAN evangelized me, i was alone, and the Holy Ghost revealed Jesus Messiah to me, in my desperation, for which i thank God with all my heart, soul, body and mind.

if i seem vociferous on this matter, 'replacement theology' its because its a lie, and it is an attempt to thwart God, and close the Way to the Jews, and i have never seen, nor heard any repentance from the vast Protestant Church at large, in regards to this sordid past regarding treatment of the Jews. i expect none from the Crown of England, nor from papa in rome. (we could barely get an admission of guilt from him regarding his hell bound child molesting 'priests' recently)

and as far as 'discussing' Scripture on these forums, sometimes they are to the profit, mostly not. Folks love to deal in "dueling" Scriptures, using the Precious Word like arrows, which to me, is sinful.

i mean no harm, but i will not countenance this terrible thesis of 'replacement theology'.

in Jesus' love, neil

M
makrothumia

The unwholesome speech in your posts make them difficult to read.

makrothumia

S
sermonindex

"The unwholesome speech in your posts make them difficult to read."

then i beg, plead your forgiveness Alan, without reservation, or qualification.

But i implore, what if, as probably the only Jew on this forum, i speak the truth in Christ?

what if, i speak of things, that no Gentile follower of Messiah, would even want to remember in the history of his forefathers?

and i further beg you, as you have accused me of sin, please, as a brother, show me where i have sinned in unwholesome speech.

i ask that not in contention, but if indeed i am wrong in my forthtelling, believe me, i will admit my error in the blink of an eye, as i have no ego, or desire to "be right", "win an argument", or any such foolishness.

i write with God and history as my witness, i do not lie, these things happened, and are happening to this very day.

could it be, that these painful truths about the actions of those who were given so much by Jesus, that when one who remembers, unpacks them, that they are "difficult to read"?

again i beg, show me any unwholesomeness or lie from my keyboard/heart, and after weighing it, and found wanting, will be quick to repent.

M
makrothumia

Dear Nathan

Here is a simple test for you. Every matter must be established by two or three witnesses. If I am the only witness to this, then you can set my own concern aside. Why don't you ask the other readers of this forum if any of them would bear witness to with me. If they do not I will consider the problem my own and acknowledge that to you and others.

makrothumia

S
sermonindex

unwholesome speech

We all have at times such speech to other brothers and sisters. May we all search our hearts to allow God to teach us Himself and His ways in our speech. I stand in need of great grace to help me tongue to be under self-control and speak that which edifies my brother and uplifts him.

May we surrender all to Him including our tongues. As Ravenhill said: "Crucify our tongues, our little squirming member, nail it to the cross Lord!"

S
sermonindex

Alan,
i begged you, humbly, show me where my post went "unwholesome". Yet you propose, on an anonymous cyber platform, to gather others to bear witness with you?

anonymous, faceless, unaccountable?

the Scriptural "Every matter established by two or three witnesses" is applicable in a face to face ekkelsia, not a 21st century anonymous cyber forum, where for the joy of a stone, anyone can let fly.

i submitted this matter to you, your accusation of me, its between you, me and God. i assumed you are of courage, and a right spirit, therefore point me out specifically my sin of unwholesome speech, which i cheerfully an transparently submitted to you. But think not, that i will submit myself to a cyber mob.

so again i implore, be of courage, point me to the error of my ways.

neil

H
Heydave

Dear Neil,

I have to agree with 'makrothumia'. I was very upset to read your first post on this topic. I felt your post was uncalled for in response it what was written by Nasher.

For over 30 years of being a christian I have always been in and associated with churches/fellowships that upheld God's unchanging promise to the Jewish people, right from my first days as a Christian I was taught to support and recognise this fact (amazing that, and me being British!).

Now I don't want to get into this issue now, as the point of my post is to lovingly say to you that you need to consider before you write such a hot headed a post. I have appreciated many of your posts, but I have also noticed that on some issues you gently rebuke those who are too quick to judge and condemn, but on other issues such as this (which are close to your heart) you are very quick to 'shoot from the hip' with a scatter gun, casting accusations at all who dare question an issue.

BTW, I doubt if you are the only Jew on this site.:-)

M
makrothumia

You have asked for an answer and I will provide you one. Lest you be wise in your own eyes. Here are some of your unwholesome words. Below them I will explain the error and falacy they contain.

"yet again, another Briton, forwarding the feckless theology of "replacement theology"....i've noticed the most ardent proponents of this damnable theo-spew call England their home, and i ask my self, why the British? But after all replacemnt theology came out of "british- israelism".

and what i come up with is, after all Britain WAS once of the most bloodthirsty rapacious imperial powers on this earth, (of course, we've followed in their footsteps) and weakened significantly after WW2, a small band of armed Jews was able to give Britain the boot from Palestine....that might play a role in Britons engaging in such theo-flights of fantasy as replacement theology.

and of course, centuries before that Britons made life hell for Jews, forced explusions, institutionalized anti-semitism, etc."

I ask you brother Nathan, what does one being a British citizen have to do with this? Does it not really have to do with whether one is abiding in Christ or walking by the Spirit? Is a person's nationality really the root of their actions. Certainly it might be a part of their carnal thought process, but sin does not have its source from the physical country a person lives.

You have "categorized" Britons into one lump. Did all Briton's make life hell for Jews? If anyone really made life hell for another person, was it really because they were living in a certain nation, or was it that they were living in sin without Christ?

If you need further examples, I will glady provide them.

brother alan

S
sermonindex


Dear Neil,

I have a great difficulty with your Jewish schooling, which has taught you to think a certain way about Gentiles, history, and now, the Church.

You are so sure you understand, that you cannot hear what the Spirit is saying in scripture, which renders some of your points invalid. Don't you realise that the people in history who persecuted Jews weren't reading scripture properly either?

I did not at all like your post on which makrothumia commented, because it shows you have no real interest in understanding what brethren here write, (including posts I've written in the past), trying to show that 'replacement theology' is not a scriptural concept. Can you hear me? 'Replacement theology' is NOT a SCRIPTURAL concept.

I would dearly love to lead you through a Bible study, question by question, one at a time, after which it should be impossible for you to hold the opinions you expressed on the previous screen page, but that could only be, if you can approach scripture with a new attitude.

Lastly, it would be helpful if you would spend some time mediating on what it means to be a Jew who is DEAD in Christ (Rom 6:5). How is this any different from being a Gentile who is DEAD in Christ, with regard to being raised to walk in NEWNESS of LIFE? I don't understand.

Thank you for your help in this.

Greetings in Christ, and every upon you blessing today.


S
sermonindex

Saints,

One thing to note on the side of our brother Neil, replacement theology is a theology that began with many of the reformers and was propogated highly in england thinking themselves to be the "Israel of God" and now america has been following the same dangerous path.

No one is perfect but we should definetly see Romans 9-11 teach us to have "humility" as believers in Christ that we are ingrafted into God's promises given to Adam, Noah and then to Israel (Jacob) and now to the Church.

May we all have grace and love and mercy in our words. not accusing or excusing but sharing the truth in love.

as written above every "submit" button is this phrase:


The site moderators ask you before you post that you consider praying and ask the Lord if you have the right spirit to serve others in the body of Christ before posting and pressing the submit button. Please also look at these scriptures: Matthew 12:36, James 1:26, Colossians 4:6.

here are the scriptures from the amplified bible:

Matthew 12:36 - "But I tell you, on the day of judgment men will have to give account for every [a]idle (inoperative, nonworking) word they speak."

James 1:26 - "If anyone thinks himself to be religious (piously observant of the external duties of his faith) and does not bridle his tongue but deludes his own heart, this person's religious service is worthless (futile, barren)."

Colossians 4:6 - "Let your speech at all times be gracious (pleasant and winsome), seasoned [as it were] with salt, [so that you may never be at a loss] to know how you ought to answer anyone [who puts a question to you]."


S
sermonindex

"If anyone really made life hell for another person, was it really because they were living in a certain nation, or was it that they were living in sin without Christ?"

in many many instances, "they" WERE the church, which had been joined with the Crown, much as rome had appropriated the church in 315 Ad, so i'll pin up wikipedia articles applicable to what i wrote:(in the chance you are interested to read)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Expulsion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_England

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism

i'll stop there, but worse has been done to the Jews worlwide...."in the name of Jesus" by various denominations/churches....murdering mobs whipped up by clergy.

of course not, ALL Britons, hasty i was, but not unwholesome. Have you not noticed that every empire that has risen up and murdered the Jewish people, has come to ruin and destruction?

i stand by what i say and testify, i have not lied.

as far as other Jews who follow Jesus on this forum, would to God they testify to Messiah. in 8 years on this forum, i have seen not one...not one.

neil

M
makrothumia

There are two truths that live side by side:

In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek. God summed up all things together under One. His purpose was to make one new man out of the two - thus making peace. This is a peace we should strive to preserve between each other. Shalom atah - be ashim Yeshua.

The other truth that is just as valid, and I believe you recognize already - ia this - "AM YSRAEL HI" - the people of Israel live!

I ask once again that the spiritual truth be recognized over carnal truth. It is carnally true that men who live in a particular country join together to committ terrible atrocities. Yet, the spiritual truth is that they are all living in the same kingdom - the kingdom of darkness. They are all abiding in the same place - the are abiding in death. This is the real truth of why men hate. Men who hate are murderers and they all abide in death - they do not have eternal life in them. This is why they are cruel to their fellow man. It has less to do with what Nation they are from or what church they have joined and far more to the fact that they are under the slavery of the evil one - doing his will.

The reason men treat other men cruelly is that they have not known the Father or His Son. They may be members of a church, a denomination, a nationality, but that is only their external state. Their internal condition is that they are like unrighteous Cain, a son of the evil one, and they hate because they have not come to know the love of God in Christ Jesus.

There is not a nation or group of people on earth who are good by blood, culture, or creed. Those who know Christ, have been forgiven much - they love much.

makrothumia

T
twayneb

If what Nasher is promoting is replacement theology, I must say that it really is a gross distortion of scripture.

I am very familiar with those who see Great Britain as part of the lost tribes of Israel, and have read several works on the matter. They can be very convincing until one realizes the evidence is primarily circumstantial. But even if this were true and the Anglo Saxons of Great Britain were descended from one of the lost tribes of Israel, which I reject, that does not mean that the church has replaced Israel. In other words, replacement theology does not follow from British Israelism. Much of the British theory has to do with the throne of David. Again, it is in my opinion a distortion of the covenant made with David which was not talking about earthly kings and kingdoms.

As to replacement theology in particular, one must lift verses out of context and make them say things they do not plainly say to establish the doctrine. I believe any plain reading of scripture reveals clearly that Israel remains God's chosen people and the apple of His eye. I guess replacement theology fits will with a pre-tribulation rapture view of eschatology as it gives a convenient way to say that God will deal with the church in one time frame having replaced Israel with the church, and then taking them out of the way will deal with Israel again. But just because it fits well does not mean that either replacement theology or a pre-trib eschatological view are correct. I think replacement theology gross error but a pre-trib view simply incorrect as I understand it.

The question repeated by Nasher is, "what of the olive tree?" The church began as a primarily Jewish establishment. Among the 3000 saved at Pentecost were Gentiles, but the roots of the church were in Israel. Obviously this makes sense since the covenant with Abraham that Christ would come and bless the whole earth was made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and Jesus came from the tribe of Judah of the seed of David. Jewish people, Jewish Messiah, Jewish church. But the church was never intended to be a purely Jewish establishment. All nations would be blessed. It was very quickly after the day of Pentecost that the gospel was taken to the Gentiles specifically by Paul and indirectly by most all of the original apostles and others. Remember even Peter ministered to the household of Cornelius.

The olive tree was Israel, but they rejected the Messiah as a whole even though Israel was also the foundation of the church. Their rejection was prophesied and the Paul talks of the veil that remains over their minds at the reading of the law. They understood well the old covenant, but for the most part rejected the new. So God's olive tree, Israel, was cut off and another tree, the Gentiles, was grafted in. This does not at all mean that the church replaced Israel, but is speaking of the opening up of the way for the Gentiles and that the Gentiles would seek after God through Christ while Israel would still reject Him. But then we are told that the Gentiles receiving Christ would provoke Israel to jealousy. This is happening even today on a small scale and I believe will happen in ever increasing numbers as the day of the Lord approaches. At what point we see a huge shift I am not certain. They will be grafted back in though. Paul even goes on to say in 2 Cor. 3 that the veil that is in place at the reading of the law is removed whenever a Jew turns to Christ. You see the veil is more about the Jew understanding the reality of what the old covenant is about rather than thinking is is a way to righteousness. This is the context of the entirety of 2 Cor. 3. The olive tree speaks nothing of a replacement theology. But, as with any symbolism, it can be adapted to just about any idea if you want to force that upon it. Believe me, I have seen some strange ones.

S
sermonindex


Why does it have to be replacement theology, why can't it be, "Fulfilled Theology".

Doesn't anyone hear the scriptures, that the two shall become one flesh?

God grouped every single person both Jew and Gentile under one principle, we are all under sin.

We need to recognize that we are neither a Jew or a Gentile anymore but we are recognized in Christ's death, we are dead to sin, dead to this old man, whether it has the blood of a Jew or a Gentile in it, it doesn't matter. If we get angry because someone is touching my roots, there is deep seated issues that need to be addressed.

Love is the fulfillment of the law. It's all fulfilled in Christ, it's a New Testament, a new and living way. A new people.

S
sermonindex

Jeremiah 31:35-36

"This is what the Lord says, 'He who appoints the sun to shine by day,
Who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night,
Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar -- the Lord Almighty is His Name; Only if these ordinances vanish from My sight,' declares the Lord, 'will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before Me.'"

T
TheophilusMD

If what Nasher is promoting is replacement theology, I must say that it really is a gross distortion of scripture.

I think what Nasher said was that the new covenant replaced the old.

I think that most of us will now agree that the New Covenant has replaced (yes I'll use the word) the Old Covenant.

Just because he used the word "replaced" and he's a Briton do not mean he believes in replacement theology. I don't see him say it anyway. With all the discussions here, is it possible that words are being placed in his mouth?

D
davidc

Travis, you say
"So God's olive tree, Israel, was cut off and another tree, the Gentiles, was grafted in. This does not at all mean that the church replaced Israel, but is speaking of the opening up of the way for the Gentiles and that the Gentiles would seek after God through Christ while Israel would still reject Him. But then we are told that the Gentiles receiving Christ would provoke Israel to jealousy. This is happening even today on a small scale and I believe will happen in ever increasing numbers as the day of the Lord approaches. At what point we see a huge shift I am not certain. They will be grafted back in though."

All you write in your posting is right up to where above you say "This is happening even today...."

Earlier in the chapter (Romans 11) Paul writes : "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace." verse 5. And then :

"What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded:" verse 7

The remnant of jews according to the election of grace clearly speaks, I'm sure you'll agree, of the Jews who become christians and are added to the church at this present time.

But Paul is careful to compare this remnant with what he calls "the rest"; And it is "the rest" of Israel that he speaks of from verse 8 to 12

"(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? "

Verses 13 and 14 show that Paul sees part of his ministry is to magnify his office as apostle to the gentiles that he ...
"might provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them". These some would then be part of the remnant of grace.

Then verse 15 returns to the rest again "For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches". This "receiving of them" is not speaking of some being added to the church, but rather the re-establishment, the restoration of the root and branches, ie all the nation of Israel as prophesied throughout the old and new testaments. This can only happen at the return of the Lord.

If you believe that this is speaking of a gradual process of them being adde to the church, then you are really holding to a replacement theology, where the church is the fulfillment of all the promises to Israel and there is no future for Israel according to the flesh.

I am sure that as you say, some Jews are turning to Christ, even as Paul "might save some". But your expectation that this will increase as the day of the lord approaches, is not in line with scripture. The veil will not be taken from their eyes until the fullness of the Gentiles is come in and the Lord returns to Sion to establish his covenant with them.

This is how, I believe, scripture teaches that all Israel (ie the rest) will be saved. The whole chapter concerns the mercy of God towards Israel and the Gentiles.

For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. Romans 11:25-27 (KJV)

David

S
sermonindex


To David,

but rather the re-establishment, the restoration of the root and branches, ie all the nation of Israel as prophesied throughout the old and new testaments. This can only happen at the return of the Lord.
Isn't this at distinct variance with Peter's exposition in the Temple, after the lame man had been healed at the gate Beautiful?

Acts 3: 18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. 19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. 22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, [that] every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. 24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. 25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Last verse: 'Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.'

Isaiah 59:20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.


How is anyone going to turn from transgression? Notice how Paul slightly alters this statement to: 'There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob'.

That is significant because it is completely consistent with the way Jesus speaks at the last supper, and, the way the writer in Hebrews quotes the terms of the New Covenant:

Hebrews 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Hebrews 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

This is not because of something Jews have done for themselves (as implied in Isaiah's words, but countered in Rom 10:3, 4), but because of what Christ did for all people through His death and resurrection.


Regarding v 16, I believe Paul has mentioned the holiness of the firstfruit twice already in Romans:

Roman 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from [Berry's Interlinear includes the word 'among'} the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

By the time he alludes to it in 11:16 (For if the firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is] also [holy]: and if the root [be] holy, so [are] the branches.) it would seem reasonable to assume he is not talking about a different firstfruit.

He says the same again in 1 Cor 15: 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.


Only those 'in Christ' are alive. This necessarily excludes Israelites (and Gentiles) who died without receiving Him.

Again in Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.

'But ye ARE COME...' '... church of the firstborn [ones]'.


The Branch that was cut off for sins - but not His own - is the 'holy' 'firstfruit' from the dead, who showed forth Rom 9:'... the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises ...' through whom by 'the adoption' - which Paul placed before all those - any Israelite may become a firstborn one by faith in Christ.

Of course there is huge significance in the genealogy which Jesus received through His adoption into Judah through Joseph's family and through Mary, a relationship to Levi, but surely these all point us to God's heart and intention rather than man's?

Again Paul:

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.


As we 'have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.' Rom 8

Have we not received a new genealogy in the Spirit?
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19 Now therefore ye [Gentiles] are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.


I believe the doctrine of a great ingathering of Israel AFTER Christ returns, is insupportable from scripture. No-one else gets to wait till He returns, to make up their mind. Why should last day Jews? If there is a reason to consider the NUMBERS of converts in a coming revival across the world, surely it is related to the growth in population?

When Jesus put His words into the mouth of the father of the prodigal son, was He not referring to Israel turning back to the Father, as Paul hoped to turn some. 'For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.' Luke 15:24

Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

What day could be more 'great and dreadful' than than that which Christ lived through until He cried 'It is finished'?

Paul exhorted, 'feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.' (Acts 20:28)

Today is the day of salvation.

S
sermonindex

The veil will not be taken from their eyes until the fullness of the Gentiles is come in and the Lord returns to zion to establish his covenant with them.
To establish His covenant with them?

Land sakes alive, He already did.

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

I have presented this before, but there are few and far between of believers that are willing to hear what the Spirit is saying. Blindness is upon the Church for they can't see this. It's so simple, and yet so misunderstood.

If we are willing to learn than we will with meekness receive it, but if we want to argue and debate, than we are not willing to learn.

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.

I am only taking this one verse because it's here where the trouble lies.

"And so all Israel shall be saved".

We don't say it but we are really negating the scriptures when we believe that ALL Israel shall be saved. We need to keep the other scriptures in perspective when dealing with this verse.

Romans 9:27 Isaiah also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a REMNANT shall be saved.

Our ALL is now reduced to a REMNANT. We have to rightly divide the word or we get into trouble.

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.

Now take the latter portion of this verse and find out when the Deliverer came.

Who is the Deliverer? It's Jesus! We all should know that.

Jesus came to save His people from their sins.

Of the thousands that came on the day of Pentecost to hear Peter preach his first sermon who was his audience?

Jews! From every country all over the Roman empire, hundreds of thousands of them were there and thousands had received the message of the gospel that day. The remnant heard and were saved. Another day came and thousands were saved again. The early Church was saturated with Jews.

Don't forget, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a REMNANT shall be saved.

N
Nasher

I suggest we start a clean sheet we each other and then get back to scripture.

Before we do this I'd just like to make a few comments as to where I'm coming from:

I am British but left the Union Flag at the cross and now consider myself part of the body of Christ.

I don't really know what "Replacement Theology" is but by what's been said it seems to be a theology that says the Church has replaced Israel, if it is then I cannot say I believe in this but would like to find out more from scripture (and only scripture) as to what it says on the matter before I make up my mind fully one way or the other.

Let's please stick with scripture when discussing this topic as lots of races/religions/peoples have been persecuted throughout history, I read somewhere that an estimate was made on how many Christians the Roman Catholic Church has killed over time and the number was 50 million.


So can we begin with my comment that the new covenant has replaced the old covenant, does anyone (apart from Planetheus who has already stated his case) disagree with this?

T
twayneb

David: Again, it is wrapped in eschatology somewhat and I could be wrong. However, I do not necessarily hold to the teaching that God is going to bring salvation to Israel in a different way than anyone else is saved. In other words, the new covenant does not only apply to Gentiles and to the church, but to Israel as well.

Let me put it this way. The old covenant was never intended to bring salvation to anyone by keeping it. It was intended, as is stated over and over again in the new testament, to cause sin to be exceeding sinful and to conclude all under sin. Paul makes a point in Romans 1-4 that the same condemnation under law happens for the Gentiles who made laws unto themselves out of an intuitive knowledge of the fact that there must be a God who was holy. So Jew or Gentile the law concludes us all under sin. That is the only power of the law.

God promised Israel specifically a new covenant that would take in both the Jews and the Gentiles. ALL the world would be blessed through Jesus.

There was a deception though, a veil that was over the hearts and minds of Israel. They somehow thought they could be righteous through keeping the law. (Have you ever read the Talmud? Wow! The Rabbi's discussions on how to best keep the law.) This veil is still in place. What lifts the veil? Paul says when a Jew turns to Christ, the veil is lifted for him. He sees clearly. As long as a person (Jew or not) rejects Christ there is the same veil and the same attempt to be a good old boy to please God.

I do not believe God turned from dealing with the Jews to dealing with the Gentiles. He opened up the way for the Gentiles also. And, during this time, the Gentiles are streaming into the kingdom. There will come a time when the fullness of the Gentiles is come in, and I believe that will usher in the return of the Lord. I don't believe that God at that point turns His focus on the Jews and saves them by some other mechanism than Christ and His atonement. I believe Jew and Gentile alike will enter the kingdom of God through Jesus Christ. I think the Jews coming in must come at some point just prior to the day of the Lord.

S
sermonindex

Zec 12:10
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn.

S
sermonindex

Zec 12:1
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn.

Now this is a very good verse you posted Rev. It shows the grace that came by Jesus Christ and the day of Pentecost when the Jews heard the message they were pricked in their hearts, they were sorry that they crucified their Saviour and Lord. If we were there that day, there would have been a great mourning but the reading is silent as is a lot of passages.

S
sermonindex

Verses just previous to Zec 12:10 indicate a future fulfilment These events were not fulfilled at pentecost and as of 2010 AD they are still unfulfilled,
The reference is clearly to to Israel and God's future dealings with them.

6 In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.

7 The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah.

8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

D
davidc

Travis, you say:
"I believe Jew and Gentile alike will enter the kingdom of God through Jesus Christ."
"I think the Jews coming in must come at some point just prior to the day of the Lord."

Your say the truth in your first statement; salvation in this time of grace is for Jew and Gentile through faith in the atoning work of Jesus Christ, and I'm so glad it is.
But your second statement, as you say, what "you think", is the opposite of what the bible say will happen to Israel before the coming of the Lord.
The last times for Israel according to hundreds of prophesies is to be a time of Judgement by God on them as a nation.
It is called the time of Jacob's trouble in Jeremiah ch30 v7;
"A consumption determined in the midst of land" in Isaiah ch 10 v23, and "Jerusalem has drunk at the hand of the Lord the cup of His fury" Isaiah 51 v7;
a "time of trouble , such as never was since there was a nation' in Daniel ch12 v1,
and Jesus Himself in Matthew 24 v21 "For then shall be great tribulation , such as was not since the beginningof the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be".
The psalms also are full of the cries of the remnant of Israel during this time.
Isaiah cries to the Lord in chap 6 "How long" will this people have fat hearts, and eyes and ears that are closed. And the Lord replies
"Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, And the Lord have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land. But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof". Isaiah 6:11-13 (KJV)

It is with judgements that Zion is to be redeemed Is ch1 v27, Not with the gospel message (they are it's enemies).

David (soon to be a butterfly)

D
davidc

"Verses just previous to Zec 12:10 indicate a future fulfilment These events were not fulfilled at pentecost and as of 2010 AD they are still unfulfilled,
The reference is clearly to to Israel and God's future dealings with them."

Amen to that Rev

david

S
sermonindex

6 In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem. 7 The LORD also shall save the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not magnify themselves against Judah. 8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them. 9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

It's amazing and I say this with all due respect for you Rev, that we both see things in different perspectives. And I know that your mind on the matter as well as mine is clear and without a doubt. At one time, I would have wholeheartedly agree with you, however, those days are long gone.

When I read this, so many scriptures already come to mind as I am sure they do for you as well. It's just like that I guess.

Verse 6 is speaking of the Apostles (governors) that would receive power at Pentecost and the fire in the sheaf means that they would have fire within them and they would devour, that is they would spread the good news like wild fire all over. To the right hand and to the left means that the way has been opened for everyone, both good and bad.

Verse 7, The tents of Judah would be saved first, meaning, the Gospel is to the Jews first.

Verse 8, The Lord will defend Jerusalem, meaning, He shall be their God and they shall be His people. And he that is feeble shall be as David meaning, they shall be beloved because of their meek and mild spirit.
The house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them, meaning, Jesus will lead them, be in them, united as one with the Father.

Verse 9 the destroying of nations that come up against Jerusalem are those that come against the body of Christ.

S
sermonindex

With all due respect snufalapagus your exegesis of these verses are beyond my comprehension.
It seems that you are changing the clear meaning of these verses to conform to your views concerning Israel and the end times.

S
sermonindex

With all due respect snufalapagus your exegesis of these verses are beyond my comprehension.
Praise God, I had a hearty laugh when I read this first sentence Brother.
It seems that you are changing the clear meaning of these verses to conform to your views concerning Israel and the end times.
I wouldn't say my views, it's just easy to interpret the scriptures when you see Christ in every one of them and seeing them already fulfilled.

D
davidc

Nasher, you ask
So can we begin with my comment that the new covenant has replaced the old covenant, does anyone disagree with this?
It is certainly a question that gets to the rheart of the matter.

Can I say first, that most are agreed that both the old covenant and the new covenant were made originally with Israel as they were God's chosen people.

Now some say that as Israel has rejected Christ, that the new covenant now applies to the church, and that it was Christ and the church that was always in the mind of God when He revealed the new covenant. The old covenant having now ceased. This is repacement theology. The church has replaced Israel as God's people, and all the promises made to Israel are now appropriated spiritually by the church.-- the Land meaning heaven, Jerusalem meaning the new Jerusalem, corn and wine spiritualised to the body and blood of Christ. He said "This is my blood of the new covenant ....."

Personally, I believe that the bible does not teach this, but rather, that we are partakers of the inheritance with Israel. The bible speaks of a future time when Christ will set up His kingdom and reign on the earth. Israel will then be saved, have the Holy Spirit pouted out, and have a relationship with God under the new covenant. They will have a new heart and a new spirit and God by His Spirit will dwell in them. Jesus Himself in His glorious resurrection life will be with them, and will be their king and priest.

To me the church, the body of Christ is one body with one Spirit, a heavenly people, a purchased possesion, A people for Christ's own glory, His bride to be. As such, the church has nothing to do with covenants, new or old.

"Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him" Eph 1:9-10 (KJV)

Love

David

C
Christinyou

Acts 28:23-31 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not. And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it. And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves. And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

H
Heydave

Hi Davidc,

You wrote:

To me the church, the body of Christ is one body with one Spirit, a heavenly people, a purchased possesion, A people for Christ's own glory, His bride to be. As such, the church has nothing to do with covenants, new or old.

I find that strange. How can you believe that the 'church' has nothing to do with the new covenant? What covenant are you part of? Are you really saying that you think the New Covenant is only for Israel and not to ALL nations?

Now I will say that I lean heavily towards the pre-millennial interpretation of scripture and what you have outlined is pure standard teaching from this view (apart from the 'no covenant view'!).

However I am more interested in thinking intelligently about things, rather than just accepting what is taught by any one position. This is what I think Nasher is saying. It is good to question what we believe.

Davidc also said

Personally, I believe that the bible does not teach this, but rather, that we are partakers of the inheritance with Israel. The bible speaks of a future time when Christ will set up His kingdom and reign on the earth. Israel will then be saved, have the Holy Spirit pouted out, and have a relationship with God under the new covenant. They will have a new heart and a new spirit and God by His Spirit will dwell in them. Jesus Himself in His glorious resurrection life will be with them, and will be their king and priest.

You say that the above is the New Covenant fulfillment with Israel, but pre-millennial teaching also says that all the millennial references to the temple and sacrifices will also be observed during this time, so a continuence of the Old Covenant. I have always found this hard to understand. I know the standard Pre-Mil answer is that it is a looking back to the sacrifice of Christ, but this does not line up with what Hebrews tells us about the old sacrificial system being 'done away with'.


Just some things to consider and let's try and not divide ourselves into theological camps, but take an honest look at scripture.

C
Christinyou

Where is the temple for each believer in the Body of Christ?

1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1Co 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

How can the Holy Spirit now dwell in a lost sinner, that is light with darkness?

Galatians 2:16-21 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

"It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.

Now we have been made by the Christ birthed in us; 1 Corinthians 1:29-31 That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

The temple is now the Lords, It is Jesus Christ who lives in and makes this temple Holy, nothing I do or did or will do will separate me from the Christ and His Love that is in us.

Romans 8:35-39 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Oh, like as Paul, Colossians 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:

May we know that our old man is killed all the day long, that we like sheep are accounted as slaughtered. I die daily, that the life of Christ might live through me on this earth as He says: "It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me", now this temple can be the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit, for, we are Holy because He is Holy.

This is the Body of Christ His Church and not the Isreal of God on this earth in the millennium, with all the covenants that are still in place to become present as Christ on the Throne of David Makes Israel who God promised them they would be.

In Christ: Phillip

C
Christinyou

I am not a dispensationalist, neither Hyper, upper or lower. I do see Adam innocent in the garden and choosing our old Father Satan in whom we believe we will serve. The final dispensation that is to fulfill the Word of God, He Himself providing His own Son that we might become the sons of God and not the sons of Satan.

Colossians 1:24-29 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

These are Gods Words through Paul, by the revelation of the Christ in Paul, Personally by the Son and the Holy Spirit.

If this makes me a dispensationalist, then so be it.

In Christ, the fulfillment of the Word of God: Phillip

D
davidc

HeyDave said
"I find that strange. How can you believe that the 'church' has nothing to do with the new covenant? What covenant are you part of? Are you really saying that you think the New Covenant is only for Israel and not to ALL nations?"

I think that I was rash and in error to say that the church has nothing to do with the new covenant. It was very late at night and I was tired and probably wanting to provoke, having been provoked. It's been on my conscience all day , and I am now sorry to have written it.

Of course the basis of the redemption of the church (and myself) is the Christ's precious blood of the new covenant, and Christ Himself now is the mediator of the new covenant, mediating the heavenly things of the covenant now to us: his law in our hearts and minds and remission of sins (Heb10 v16&17) and the promise of eternal inheritance (Heb9 v 15).

I think that, to be honest, what provoked me to write what I wrote was reading my brother's and sisters writing as if this new covenant is all that we have in Christ and basing their doctrines and theology completely around this one thing.
But the church, I believe is a new thing, a new creation sprung out of the death and resurection of Christ. Yes, our inclusion as gentiles was due to the rejection of Him by Israel, but essentially, we are a heavenly people, the vast majority of us sleep in Christ till His coming. We that are left have new hearts, a new spirit (small s), The precious Holy Spirit and his laws in our hearts. But we shall be changed and will be like Him. And so we wait for just one thing; His coming

David

S
sermonindex

it is very early on the Lord's day, and before i could do anything after my early morning devotional readings, the Lord revealed to me and in me, that it is right, just and loving, that i ask for your forgiveness, beg in fact for your forgiveness, for my hasty, unwise, and unloving words to you in my posts prior. As well as asking forgiveness of anyone who read them and was offended, please forgive me.

These posts were born out of a Godly grief, a torment, a lamentation for the people of my flesh, the Jews. That is NO excuse, for one who says, 'please forgive me, but i did as such because.........'...really makes no humble confession at all, but makes a 'back door" way to butress their "opinion". God forbid i do that. Hence, i ask your forgiveness for previous posts.

the reason i mentioned 'early morning devotional readings' is not to boast in the flesh, but to boast in the Lord in that He blessed me with a Revelation of Himself, which is that i shall meet or hear from no man, before i hear from God in His Word, and His Voice via prayer. i bless and thank God that He put this need and hunger in my heart and soul, for as you well know, His Word is a Pure Thing, the Light Everlasting that illuminates our way...together.

(i would have written this sooner, but the thorn in my flesh, put me in the hospital for a few days, being released last night, Praise His Mercy!)

so this morning, having re-started in Genesis several weeks ago, i found myself, this morning in Leviticus 17. Leviticus 17:1 to Leviticus 26:46 is known as the "Holiness Code", and as i was eating of the Word, you came into my heart, meaning this "Old Covenant/New Covenant" tension that has betwisted the Church.

and the Lord God gave me a revelation. (i'm having a problem with my "d" key,it doesnt work, but a visit today to the computer store will solve that.)

now i pray that i am able to aptly communicate this revelation with my human words; there have many Covevenants, the Noahide, the Abrahamic, the Sinatic, up to the "Better", or New Covenant Which is Jesus and Him Crucified, Ressurected, withe the Provision of the Blood that is suitable to cleanse ALL sin.

and as i walked further into Leviticus 17, i began to see the Godly commands that the apostles gave the Churches in the "Jerusalem Edict(Council)' in Acts 15, to guide Gentile followers, when they were harrassed by those who wanted them to be impeded on the full Realization of Jesus Messiah. The Jerusalem Council's requirements, as led by the Holy Spirit was very simple, 'abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality'.

the divine roots of this are all in the "Holiness Code", including the Second royal commandment of Jesus, which is

"Love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18b)

the first Royal commandment being a recitation of the Sch'ma, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might". (deut 6:4-5...cant capitalize the "d", sorry)

an then the Spirit spoke into my heart, and said, 'you see this Covenant and that Covenant, as if they are different roads thaT end, much like highway 57 ends here, an highway 14 ends there, but My Covevanants are a continuum, a long long Road, that has One Final destination, Mount Zion ,the Heavenly Jerusalem, God, Judge of all, angels in festal gathering, the assembly of the first born, the spirits of the righteous made and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled Blood than speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. (Hebrews 11:22-24)

Covenant leads to Covenant leads to Final Covenant, the New Covenant, which is the Final destination, opened by the Blood of Jesus, much the same way, a highway is built section, by section by section, and the sadness, the terrible grief i feel is that many of the people of my flesh, are using incomplete 'roadmaps', dissauded in picking up a "new roadmap", by either hardness of heart, or focusing on the terror of history, and by God's design, so that the full measure of Gentiles may be brought in to be Children of Abraham, then by the Mercy of God, they shall be given the 'full roadmap' leading to Messiah in the blink of an eye.

God has not forgotten the Jew, He said He wouldnt, and i believe God. The earth is God's, the nations are God's, therefore i do not believe for one second that the creation of the modern state of Israel, is born of man's will, it is born of God's plan and Sovereignty.

So, dear Nasher, that is the post i SHOULd have made previous to you, instead of my harsh unwholesome post, which i pray you forgive me for.

many may disagree with me, but at 3:30 in the morning, it was God the Holy Ghost gave me such a revelation, an the thought that countless Gentiles have been ingrafted into the Vine, gives me no end of JOY!!! I PRAISE JESUS' NaME FOR THAT!!!!

This Most Holy Faith is not some exclusive little club, It is Light and Life, Life more abuntantly in Messiah Jesus, Branch to the Nations, the Morning Star, Prince of Prince, the Fourth Man in the furnance, an He Who wrestled with Jacob, and gave him a New Name, Israel. Jesus, to Whom every knee shall bow, amen.

neil

H
Heydave

Dear Neil,

Although your previous posts were not directed to me, as a Brit I appreciate your humble apology as I did indicate I was offended. So please accept forgivenss from me.

Covenant leads to Covenant leads to Final Covenant, the New Covenant, which is the Final destination, opened by the Blood of Jesus, much the same way, a highway is built section, by section by section, and the sadness, the terrible grief i feel is that many of the people of my flesh, are using incomplete 'roadmaps', dissauded in picking up a "new roadmap", by either hardness of heart, or focusing on the terror of history, and by God's design, so that the full measure of Gentiles may be brought in to be Children of Abraham, then by the Mercy of God, they shall be given the 'full roadmap' leading to Messiah in the blink of an eye.

There is much truth here. Although some would say that the covenants are seperate and different, I would tend to agree that there is a common goal that our LORD has been wanting to establish in mankind; i.e. He wants our hearts and not just the outward form. He aways planned that the law be written on our hearts and circumcision be of the heart, not just the flesh.

S
sermonindex

God has not forgotten the Jew,

Very lovely post brother, and I most certainly forgive you.

Just a comment on the comment in quotes. When Jesus came He came for the Jews. As it is written, "John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews."

Your a Jew by flesh, if hardness is upon Israel, how did you believe? And Jesus further said, "Few there be that find it". So only a few will receive and that includes both Jew and Gentile.

As much as the Jews will not receive the Gospel, the same goes for the many Gentile who do not.

I guess what I am saying is, the hardness had to have been lifted ages ago because not only you have received, but the thousands in the early Church as well as the "few" in this day and age receive the gospel.

I am just thinking out loud Brother.

S
sermonindex


Neil,

Thank you, greatly, for sharing what the Lord has now shown you. That was an awesome revelation, which will continue to be a joy to meditate upon. It is giving me much food for thought.

S
sermonindex

Snuf,

I guess what I am saying is, the hardness had to have been lifted ages ago because not only you have received, but the thousands in the early Church as well as the "few" in this day and age receive the gospel.

I am just thinking out loud Brother.

I don't want to throw the direction of the thread, but I'm beginning to notice that scripture is utterly consistent on one point, which is, that hearing comes by the word of God.

Only within the context of having recognised the word of God, can Paul write:

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art...'

So, in every generation there are those who hear of God, and His word, or, from God directly, who do accept the faith which His word creates, and by believing begin to enter a deeper relationship with Him. Those who reject His word find they have received the alternative - the instead-of-God, (or the I-am-god), which by default is untrue and cannot lead to light or life.

1 Cor 14:10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them [is] without signification.

R
RainMan

The word of God cannot be understood by the carnal (non-spirit-led) man he can only be confused and come to erroneous exegesis. Thats why covenant theology causes so much confusion. There are too many bible scholars who use their carnal mind to try and derive conclusions of the truth. Whilst we have a responsibility to study the word of God our focus should yield to the holy spirit and let him teach us as the scripture promises. If you try to teach yourself you will only end up in error.

A new covenant but the same "ancient of days" God that has been faithful to his covenant people. Death of christ on the cross ushered in a change of priesthood and reformation to how people entered into a covenant relationship with God. Gods ultimate plan for fallen humanity was always Jesus. The bible is simply a story of Gods plan for the redemption of man. Along the way he cuts various covenants but ultimately they all lead us to Christ.

Conclusion

Same old covenant God but a reformation in covenant with much better terms and conditions (see small print)
When reading the law and the prophets (OT) do you see and are you led Christ? or does your study led away from chirst into incessant never ending controversies and disputes? What do you think are studying of the OT is supposed to do?

N
Nasher

I think that, to be honest, what provoked me to write what I wrote was reading my brother's and sisters writing as if this new covenant is all that we have in Christ and basing their doctrines and theology completely around this one thing.

Hi David, I'm not sure I understand your point here, what else are you saying that our doctrines and theology should be built upon if not the New Covenant?

But the church, I believe is a new thing, a new creation sprung out of the death and resurection of Christ. Yes, our inclusion as gentiles was due to the rejection of Him by Israel

I don't believe the bible teaches that the gentiles were included into the Church because Israel (in the most part) rejected Jesus, if we read John 17:

24 “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. 26 And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”

If the love with which the Father loved Jesus was before the foundation of the world and this love is now in us then God loved us before the foundation of the world also. Therefore I don't believe the gentiles were an afterthought in God's mind as he loved us (the Church) before the foundation of the world.
A careful reading of Romans 11 will uphold this.

N
Nasher

it is very early on the Lord's day, and before i could do anything after my early morning devotional readings, the Lord revealed to me and in me, that it is right, just and loving, that i ask for your forgiveness

Hi Neil,

I forgive you brother. I'm glad you have Zeal though, it is in short supply these days, it just needs to be in line with God's will, something like zeal in love.


God has not forgotten the Jew

I don't believe God has forgotten or rejected anyone ;-)

N
Nasher

I guess before we can really start talking about Israel, we must first establish what / who Israel is.
Also what a Jew and a Hebrew also (if they are any different)
I'll start to do some word studies on them so in the meantime feel free to comment if you already know the answers!

D
davidc

Hi Nasher. You wrote:
"what else are you saying that our doctrines and theology should be built upon if not the New Covenant?"

Well what about on Jesus Christ. " On this rock, I will build my church"

Also you say:
"I don't believe the bible teaches that the gentiles were included into the Church because Israel (in the most part) rejected Jesus...............A careful reading of Romans 11 will uphold this."

You quoted from Jesus' prayer in John 17, and I agree and the scriptures and the Spirit bears witness that He loved us before the foundation of the earth and chose us in Christ. I was not meaning to imply that we Gentiles were an after thought. He knew when He sent His son into the world that He would suffer death through the council of the Jews. His death on the cross is the stumbling block to the Jews which prevents them form entering into His kingdom, (except there is now a believing remnant according to the election of grace) But Israel as a nation has been blinded in part and God has given them a spirit of slumber even at this time.

Coming to Romans 11, as you suggested; Paul asks in verse 11:
'I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, "
And in verse 12, about Israels fall: "the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles"
And verse 15: the casting away of them (Israel) be the reconciling of the world"
And speaking of the Gentiles as the wild olive tree in verse 17: "And if some of the branches ( ie of Israel, the natural olive tree) be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree"
And verses 19 and 20: "Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:"


By the way, all the best in your word studies on Israel, but The bible shows this to be a mystery (verse 25) which the Holy Spirit reveals.

"How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen" Romans 11:33-36 (KJV)

David

N
Nasher

Hi Nasher. You wrote:
"what else are you saying that our doctrines and theology should be built upon if not the New Covenant?"

Well what about on Jesus Christ. " On this rock, I will build my church"


The Church is built upon Jesus Christ, yes. What about our doctrines and theology though?


With regards to Romans 11, are you saying (or saying the bible says) that if God's people which he foreknew did not stumble then the Gentiles would never have come to salvation?


By the way, all the best in your word studies on Israel, but The bible shows this to be a mystery (verse 25) which the Holy Spirit reveals.

Actually the bible says we shouldn't be ignorant of this mystery - the mystery being that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
God has given us the bible and the Holy Spirit to understand all that is necessary, there is nothing else we need to know that is hidden or is still a mystery.

D
davidc

Hi Nasher

"The Church is built upon Jesus Christ, yes. What about our doctrines and theology though?"

They too must come from a revelation of Jesus Christ. Personally I have found that new covenant theology has blinkers on. It expounds scripture according to its own narrow doctrines amd is blind to many parts of the bible. It looks at scriptures like the prophets and the psalms, much of the new testament especially the gospels and revelation and asks "How can I fit these passage into a new covenant interpretation? Thus the doctrine takes precedence over the scriptures themselves. This is the blind leading the blind.
I have read through all of this new covenant thread and find it to be narrow and hiding the full revelation of Jesus Christ and who He is.
I am not criticising any person, as I love all Gods saints, but there is much more revealed in scripture than is set forth through this doctrine.
If you read a few of my posts, you will know where I stand as regards doctrine. It should be the full revelation of Jesus himself as shown in the scriptures.


"With regards to Romans 11, are you saying (or saying the bible says) that if God's people which he foreknew did not stumble then the Gentiles would never have come to salvation?"

How can anyone answer a "what if" question? But God knew that they would stumble at the cross, as he knows all men, and knows what is in men. But the bible is gods word, and when the fullness of the gentiles is come in, then all Israel will be saved.

Love
David

N
Nasher

I have read through all of this new covenant thread and find it to be narrow and hiding the full revelation of Jesus Christ and who He is.

Please enlighten us to where it has been narrow and where it has hidden the full revelation. Then you could perhaps reveal it for us?

How can anyone answer a "what if" question?

How do you interpret the passage then?

But the bible is gods word, and when the fullness of the gentiles is come in, then all Israel will be saved.

Then? I can't find a single translation that says "then all Israel will be saved", I see two ways of it being translated - "and so all Israel will be saved" (KJV, NIV, AMP, NASB, NLT, Darby, ASV, WYC) and "and in this way all Israel will be saved" (ESV, CEV, TNIV, NCV, HCSB)
Why do you think it should be translated as "then"?

S
sermonindex


Hi Nasher and davidc,

I understand the 'then' as to mean that by the time (a time in the future) when all the Jews who are going to be saved have been saved AND all the the Gentiles who will have been saved are saved, 'Israel' will be complete.

I say 'complete' because that also has to do with fulness.

That is how it reads to me in the Spirit. It is not about some future great inpouring of Jews to the Church (which is founded on the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the Chief Cornerstone), which will somehow mystically include 'all' Jews who have ever lived (as some people seem to believe).

Thus 'so' and 'in this way' can mean 'then', although this may not match the Greek.

Paul makes clear in his olive tree analogy, that at any time an unbelieving Jew may believe, and by that means is grafted into Christ, the olive tree.

D
davidc

Alive to God, you say
Thus 'so' and 'in this way' can mean 'then', although this may not match the Greek.

I apologise to you and Nasher as I agree that the Geeek word does mean "in this way", rather than "then" - as refering to a time line.

The phrase "in this way" refers to the way Paul has just expounded in chapter 11. The chapter is Pauls answer to "has God cast away His people?"

Unfortunately you and I disagree fundamentally on the interpretation of this way in this chapter. I agree with Alive to God that it is not speakng about "some future great inpouring of Jews to the Church".
The chapter in fact does not speak at all of the church as Paul does in Ephesians and Collossians as being one body with no Greek or Jew. The chapter is rather concerned with the mercy of God to 3 classes of people. Believing gentiles, believing Jews, and Israel.
The first two have salvation now through faith in Christ and compose the church. Israel, now is hardened, but those of Israel who are alive at Christ's second coming, will be saved by believing in Him.I have shown below the references in the chapter to these three groups and ask for your patience in reading them.

a) The Gentiles: through the fall of Israel, salvation has come to the Gentiles v11 Israels diminishing has become the Gentiles riches v12 Paul has been made by God the apostle to the Gentiles v13 likened to an olive tree which is wild by nature v17 &22. but graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; v17. Warned not to boast against the natural branches v18 Gentiles stand by faith, not by any natural inheritance.v20 Gentiles told to continue in Gods goodness, otherwise will be cut off v22 There will be a time when the fullness of the Gentiles will come in v25. We have obtained mercy from God through Israel's unbelief. v30.

b)The remnant of Jews. Elect of God through grace not through works vs 5&6. They have obtained what they were seeking for v7. Paul is one of them v1; and seeks to save some of them v14. God through history BC has always had this believing remnant of Jews, as in the time of Elijah v 2,3&4. And also "at this present time" v5.

c) Israel: hath not obtained that which he seeketh for. v7. Distinguished from the saved elect who had obtained it, and called "the rest" but the rest were blinded v7 Their inner blinding, hardening and stumbling descibed in detail v8 to 10 as a deliberate act of God. They have not stumbled that they might fall, but rather to open a way for the Gentiles v11. They also are to have a fullness v12 They are to have a receiving which will be "life from the dead" v15. They are described as branches broken off from their holy root v16&17, because of unbelief v20.
God is able to graff them in again v23. They are the natural branches v24 . Paul addressing the brethren says they should not be ignorant of this mystery, that it is a blindness in part that has happened to them v25. This partial blindness will continue until all the gentiles have come in v25. And in this way, all Israel will be saved.v26. The when and how is now revealed. When there shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and how? He "shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob" v26. He will also perform his (new) covenant with them, taking away their sins v27 Concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes (gentiles) v28. But as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes v28

When the difference is seen between the believing Jews (christians) and "the rest" (part blinded Israel), the chapter opens itself up to a clear understanding of the riches of the council of God.


David

S
sermonindex

We are in danger of appearing foolish, and we can't read the English properly. Whether it's in the Greek or Aramaic, it's still foolish to put that verse off into some unknown future when in fact it has been fulfilled.

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Romans 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Since this thread is about the New Covenant, verse 27 is that New Covenant which Christ took away their sins. We can't just lift verse 26 to mean some futuristic event when Paul was speaking of the present because the Deliverer had turned away ungodliness from Jacob. Jesus is that Deliverer and He had made a New Covenant with them to the "ALL" of the Remnant that would be saved in that day. If we continue to put this off into the future, we are only trying to uphold something that doesn't hold water. ALL the scriptures must agree with the one and the one must agree with the whole. If the one does not agree with the whole then it's not agreeable.

In trying to throw this into the future, we are first not reading the passage right, secondly, we negate that the Deliverer even came to save the Jews and Gentiles from their sins and we simply can't comprehend the thousands of Jews that were being saved in that first century. The "ALL" that were being saved were being saved, "such as should be saved". And thirdly, we have no respect for the writer that wrote it for they were seeing the fulfillment before their very eyes and told about it and we do not believe them.

Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

Again, this is apart of that whole that agrees with the part, that not "ALL" in verse 26 means "ALL". Because there are those that simply will not believe.

C
Christinyou

Gaebelein's Annoted Bible
Romans 11:1

Israel's Restoration.

("The Jewish Question", by A. C. G., gives a
complete exposition of this great chapter.)

CHAPTER 11

1. God Hath not Cast Away His People. 1.
2. Israel's Apostasy not Complete; a Remnant Saved. 2-6.
3. Israel's Blindness for a Season. 7-10.
4. To Provoke Them to Jealousy. 11.
5. Their Fulness and Reception Life from the Dead. 12-15.
6. The Parable of the Two Olive Trees. 16-24.
7. A Mystery Made Known. All Israel Saved. 25-32.
8. The Doxology. 33-36.

The apostasy of Israel was not a complete apostasy. The Lord had preserved a faithful remnant. Even so at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. In the beginning of this present age there was in existence a distinctive Jewish remnant. This Jewish-Christian remnant in the beginning of the dispensation was an evidence that God had not cast away His people. A similar remnant of believing Jews will be called for a definite work and testimony during the end of the age. And throughout this Christian dispensation it has been abundantly demonstrated that God has not cast away His ancient people, for thousands of them have been saved by grace and have become members of the body of Christ.

Verses 7-10.--When the apostle speaks here of the election he has in view the believing part of the nation at all times, the remnant past, the future remnant and all those who believe in Christ now. When he speaks of the rest being blinded he means the unbelieving part of the nation. Judicial blindness has come upon them for their unbelief. Three quotations are given from the Old Testament showing that the Lord foreknew their unbelief and predicted the judgment which was to come upon the nation (De 29:4; Isa 29:10 and Ps 69:22-24). A careful study of these chapters will show that the threatened judgments and the judicial blindness are not permanent. All the Prophets and many of the prophetic Psalms reveal the fact that the judgments which have come upon the people are for a season only and that there is glory and blessing in store for them. The curses pronounced upon them have found their literal fulfillment; the unfulfilled promises of blessing and glory will also be literally fulfilled and Israel will be saved and restored to their land.

Verse 11.--The setting aside of Israel is not final; their present blindness is not their permanent condition. But have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid. They stumbled over Him in whom they saw no beauty and whom they did not desire. They received Him not, who had come to His own. But this did not result in their complete fall. God in His infinite wisdom and all-wise purpose brought by their fall salvation to the Gentiles to provoke them to jealousy. In this statement we see again that God has not cast away His people Israel. If He had cast them away, why should He wish to provoke them to jealousy? And this provoking to jealousy is with the intent that some of them might be saved (verse 14).

Verses 12-15.--And now the Apostle of the Gentiles addresses us Gentiles. "I speak to you Gentiles." It is a message of much importance. The fall of Israel was the riches of the world, the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles (verse 13); the casting away was the reconciling of the world. Thus blessing, great blessing came to the Gentiles by Israel's unbelief and fall. But this is not all. All this is far from accomplishing the promise made to the father of the nation, when God said to Abraham "In thy seed all the nations of the earth shall be blest." Israel's fall, the means in God's purpose Israel's fall, the means in God's purpose to bring salvation to the Gentiles, is not the final thing, and the blessings the Gentiles received by their fall is not the fullest blessing which God has in store for the world. Much more is in store for the world in blessing through Israel's restoration. To Israel is promised in the Old Testament a time of fulness, a time when they shall be taken back. Their time of fulness comes when Christ returns in power and in glory. If then God brought blessing to the Gentiles by their fall, how far greater will be the blessings for the world, when their time of fulness has come. It will be life from the dead. Israel is now nationally and spiritually dead. They will be nationally and spiritually made alive (see Eze 37:1-17; 39:25-29; Ho 5:15-6:5). And the whole world comes in for blessing then. The nations will be converted and the kingdom will be set up on earth (see Zec 2:10-13).

The Nation of Israel is in a holding pattern until it is clear that the work of Christ to the Gentiles is made full.
The remnant have already been cleared for their approach and are in safety already in the arms of Jesus Christ and grounded in His Love and Gospel of Paul, "Christ in you the Hope of Glory".

Now the mystery of The two olive trees, which are separate but one in Christ. All elect branches are now in Christ and those of the Promise to Israel will come, making the Body of Christ One, no gentile or Jew.

Verses 16-24.--The parable of the two olive trees illustrates great dispensational facts and contains solemn warnings for Christendom. The good olive tree typifies Israel in covenant relation with God in the Abrahamic covenant. The olive tree is evergreen; and so is the covenant, unchangeable. Israel's faithlessness and disobedience cannot annul it. The root is Abraham, who was holy, separated unto God. On account of unbelief some of the branches were broken off. They are now separated from the good olive tree and are withered. The wild olive tree is a picture of the Gentiles. The branches of this wild olive tree are grafted among the branches of the good olive tree to partake of the root and fatness of the good olive tree. The wild olive tree branches grafted upon the good olive tree do not represent the true church. The Gentiles are meant by it, who are, after Israel's unbelief, put upon the ground of responsibility which Israel had, to partake now of the promised covenant blessings. The grafted in branches represent the Christian profession, Christendom, as we call it. The grafted in branches are solemnly warned. They are not to boast, not to be high-minded; they must abide in goodness. If the warning is unheeded they will not be spared but cut off. And when that happens God will graft in again the natural branches into their own olive tree if they no longer abide in unbelief. God is able to do this. He can and will put back Israel into their former relation. It is prophetic. Christendom is exactly that which is here warned against--boasting, high-minded, not abiding in goodness, in one word, apostate. The unbelief and failure of professing Christendom is as great, if not greater than the unbelief and failure of Israel. The time will come when God will not spare, but execute judgment upon Christendom. He will spew Laodicea out of His mouth (Re 3:16). Then the hour of Israel's restoration has come.

God has chosen a gentile nation and a Jewish Nation, Israel and that remnant will all be saved and are the Body of Christ His Church which He will present to the Father and all will become One. But for Now, this Body of Christ and the Nation of Israel, not the remnant elect but the rest of the Nation of Israel God's People will be saved at that time. There will be a difference of the Body of Christ and God's chosen people. Body of Christ is heavenly, Chosen People of God and their promises, earthly for 1000 years. Then What? It does not say.

This is the mystery that we must rightly divide to understand God's plan for the Body of Christ and the chosen people of God, Israel.

Verses 33-36.--A doxology closes this dispensational section of the epistle. What depths of riches, both of wisdom and knowledge of God, in His merciful dealings with the Gentiles and the Jews! How unsearchable His judgments! How untraceable His ways! For of Him, and through Him and to Him are all things to whom be glory forever. Amen.

So what is the Glory? Even our glory, which is "Christ in you the Hope of Glory", all Glory for the Body of Christ His Church given to Him by the Father who will come to Him and He will reveal the Father to us.

In Christ: Phillip

S
sermonindex

All Israel will be saved - Understanding Romans 9-11

I thought this was a good article on the subject.

https://www.givengain.com/cgi-bin/giga.cgi?cmd=cause_dir_news_item&cause_id=1507&news_id=92672&cat_id=536

C
Christinyou

All Israel who are True Israel will be saved.

Ezekiel 3:7 But the house of Israel will not hearken unto thee; for they will not hearken unto me: for all the house of Israel are impudent and hardhearted.

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

In Christ: Phillip

S
sermonindex

All Israel who are True Israel will be saved.
Correction,, Were and Are being saved as well as those who are outside the commonwealth of Israel.

A
ADisciple

Davidc said,

Personally I have found that new covenant theology has blinkers on. It expounds scripture according to its own narrow doctrines amd is blind to many parts of the bible. It looks at scriptures like the prophets and the psalms, much of the new testament especially the gospels and revelation and asks "How can I fit these passage into a new covenant interpretation? Thus the doctrine takes precedence over the scriptures themselves. This is the blind leading the blind.

Actually, the blindness is in denying that in the New Covenant, God has shed greater light on the Scriptures we call the Old Testament.

It's like-- and this is an illustration I have used before-- I am walking around trying to see in the dark with a flashlight. But then the sun comes up... and I still insist on using the flashlight?

We must recognize that what the apostles of the New Covenant wrote is an expression of the ministry of the ascended Christ Himself. And so, the way the apostles interpreted the Old Testament, the light they shed on those passages, this is no "private interpration" of their own. It is the greater light that God had in mind when He inspired those Scriptures in the first place.

I came across a passage the other day in a book called Prophecy and the Church, by Oswald T. Allis. Allis argues strongly and convincingly against this dispensational theology that has its foundation, and stands, only on a literal interpretation of the Old Testament scriptures. Dispensationalists teach that all those Old Testament passages that speak of Israel will yet have their fulfillment (literally) in a dispensation after the church has been raptured out of the picture. They teach that the church is more or less a parenthesis in the purposes of God for Israel.

On the contrary, Allis says: "...the Church is the fruition of the Old Testament economy, as identical with it and also as different from it as the butterfly which comes out of the chrysalis differs from the caterpillar which formed it."

How beautiful! That's the most beautiful and apt description of this that I have ever read. How clearly that sets things! The church is not a replacement of Israel. Absolutely not. The church does not replace Israel.

"...As identical with it and also as different from it..." The church is the butterfly that the caterpillar has become. It is still Israel, but on a far higher plane now: God's new creation Man.

How awesome all this is!

S
sermonindex

Can I get an agreement from anyone out there in la la land that thousands of Jewish men were being saved in the early Church?

Those thousands of men would have taken that message home to their wives and children and they in turn would believe or not. Then those men and women would speak to their neighbours and then they would get saved or not. The news of this was spreading like wild fire throughout the area and then persecution sprang up and then everyone was dispersed to other regions to spread the word.

There was no blindness going on with these thousands of Jewish people that were being saved, "such as should be saved".

Where is the need that God has to return to the Jewish people, when in fact that the prophecies concerning the return and salvation had in fact taken place on that Pentecost day?

Paul doesn't even elude that there is a future fulfilment of this, rather he is confirming that the Deliverer had come to save them from their sins. He is quoting from the Old , "as it is written".

Allis says: "...the Church is the fruition of the Old Testament economy, as identical with it and also as different from it as the butterfly which comes out of the chrysalis differs from the caterpillar which formed it."
Excellent!

If it be of any consolation perhaps the use of the word Church needs to be replaced with being called the "Called Out Ones".

The doctrine of Replacement Theology is just plain dumb and the bible doesn't even suggest that idiocy.

C
Christinyou

"Can I get an agreement from anyone out there in la la land that thousands of Jewish men were being saved in the early Church?"

Were amd still are being saved, They are the Body of Christ with the Gentile Church of whom all are in Christ.
No Jew or Gentile, but all baptized into One Spirit. The Spirit of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit making their abode with and in us.

IN Christ: Phillip

D
davidc

"Were and still are being saved, They are the Body of Christ with the Gentile Church of whom all are in Christ.
No Jew or Gentile, but all baptized into One Spirit. The Spirit of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit making their abode with and in us.

IN Christ: Phillip"

I agree completely and also agree completely with the exellent exposition of Romans 11 which you provided.

David

D
davidc

Hi Snufalagapus

Can I ask if you believe that the Christ will come again in the future? If so, for what purpose?

David

C
Christinyou

Is this not true even today and for the elect body of Christ also.

Romans 9:3-8 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

N
Nasher

We have lots of different uses of Israel in the bible, such as (this is not all the uses):
The Children of Israel
The sons of Israel
The stone of Israel
The land of Israel
The house of Israel
The people of Israel
Israel after the flesh
The Israel of God

Perhaps we could start by examining each of these phrases in turn and also see which people it is describing and how a person is part of the group being described?
I know this may take some time but I think it may be worthwhile.

So to start we have "children of Israel" which is probably the most common usage.
Does anyone care to analyse?

S
sermonindex


Hi Nasher,

I'd like to take 'children of Israel'.

I believe the term 'Israel', [God prevails] mainly speaks of the spiritual man, the 'new name' (in the white stone?) which God gives to a person who has understood the frailties of their natural man. Jacob, by the end of his life 'worshipped'.

Hebrews 11:21 By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshiped, [leaning] on the top of his staff';

Genesis 49:1 And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you [that] which shall befall you in the last days. 2 Gather yourselves together, and hear, ye sons of Jacob; and hearken unto Israel your father'.


Then Jacob died. And Joseph fell upon his father's face, and wept upon him, and kissed him. 2 And Joseph commanded his servants the physicians to embalm his father: and the physicians embalmed Israel.

Note: they 'embalmed Israel'.

Genesis 50:24 And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die: and God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. 25 And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence. 26 So Joseph died, [being] an hundred and ten years old: and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.


'The children of Israel' make it through the years in Egypt, the plagues, the Passover, the wilderness (receiving the Law, the priesthood and the separation of Levi instead of the firstborn of every family), to the land of promise from whence the eleven 'children of Israel' originally had come, for four generations, until David has reclaimed all the original borders.

Then in his son Solomon's time, the tribes are divided into Judah and Benjamin, and the other ten who turn to idolatry under their king in Samaria, and eventually become Samaritans, and mixed with invading peoples.

I'm not clear at what point or how, Ephraim remains connected to Judah and Benjamin, but the latter two share Jerusalem. The term 'Jew' is linked to the name 'Judah'.

An important prequel to Jacob being Israel, is that the promises God made to Abraham are passed from Isaac (Abraham's promised son) to Jacob through his elder brother Esau's disdain for his formal birthright his blessing. Thus, all the promises to Abraham (that through him all nations of the earth would be blessed), we handed (in spirit) to Jacob's children to deliver.

See Romans 4 (whole chapter) and Galatians 3:

6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Is this any help? (Any corrections needed, please tell me!)

D
davidc

A good start, Nasher

Perhaps in looking at the children of Israel or Jacob, it would be worth while mentioning Jacob's grandfather Abraham and his father Isaac, just as a point of comparison.

Abraham had one son according to promise - Isaac and one according to the flesh Ishmael (see Gal 4), and afterwards many more children. But God said to him "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest,". God was chosing, selecting the beloved son in order through him to bring forth the seed, which is Christ (see Gal 3)

Isaac was 40 years old when he married Rebecca, but she was barren and Isaac entreared the Lord for her and she conceived. Twins were born - Esau and Jacob, and God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Again God was chosing and calling Jacob, although what a mess he was in -but God loved him, and brought him to h(H)imself

But when we come to Jacob's (Israel's) children, God has no favorites, although, He knew that the seed (which is Christ) would be through Judah. So at the beginning, God's intention was that the children of Israel should all become a great multitude, and a great nation. Jacob testified to Joseph in Egypt:

"God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed me, And said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people; and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession." Gen 48:3-4

So Israel and his children were promised fruitfulness and abundance, and his seed (which is Christ) was promised the land for an everlasting posession - please note, all unconditional promises and before the giving of the law.

David

PS can I just say that it is such a blessing to recount the mighty works of the Lord in this way, (Like Stephen did) . thanks Nasher

S
sermonindex

Hi Snufalagapus Can I ask if you believe that the Christ will come again in the future? If so, for what purpose? David
No I do not.

I believe the Lord when He said, "Behold I come Quickly". How He came I do not know, but He did come at some point in that first century. The time statements are very important and when the Angel told John not to seal up the vision for the very things that are written therein were coming to pass as he was being shown them. Today we are living in the kingdom of God, or the Kingdom age. As far as I understand the scriptures from the angle that I view scriptures as all being fulfilled, there is no such a thing as any last day.

A
ADisciple

No I do not.

Snuf, I would like to exhort you to re-examine that stand.

I often find your posts have good insights... but in this, may I say you are missing something very major.

"...Looking for that blessed Hope, and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savious Jesus Christ..." (Titus 2.13).

There are so many Scriptures that could be quoted...

Yes, we are living in the kingdom age, and the wheat and the tares are growiong together. But the fulness of that Kingdom-- which the apostles saw in prophetic vision on the Mount of Transfiguration, and which they called "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Pt. 1.16)-- has not yet arrived.

S
sermonindex

Snuf, I would like to exhort you to re-examine that stand.
My dear precious brother, this came by revelation and it is of no private interpretation unlike the 'tribulation' teachings are. I am the Lord's and I am open to His corrections, I've been through the mill so to speak so it's not worth holding unto something that is not worth holding unto. I do regret answering the question.

But I wish to say no more as I prefer peace in the forums and I would prefer that this discussion return to the original thought.

Fraternally

Snuf

C
Christinyou

Quote:

Today we are living in the kingdom of God, or the Kingdom age. As far as I understand the scriptures from the angle that I view scriptures as all being fulfilled, there is no such a thing as any last day."""

What days are these?

Joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Joh 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

Joh 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

The Kingdom age cannot come until the Kingdom is established on this earth in the millennum-1000 YEARS OF THE REIGN OF CHRIST ON THIS EARTH ON DAVIDS THRONE.

Our kingdom is heavenly and we are already seated with Christ in His heavenly place. The Kingdom Age is especially for those name it and claim it Kenneth Copland, Pentecostal types.

The Last day the body of Christ will be taken up in the clouds with Him and so will we ever be with the Lord.

The Last day, the great white throne judgement.

If we study the "Last Day" we see more than one. We must rightly divide the Word of God.

In Christ, a son of God already in His Heavenly Kingdom, not earthly:

Phillip

N
Nasher

So Israel and his children were promised fruitfulness and abundance, and his seed (which is Christ) was promised the land for an everlasting posession - please note, all unconditional promises and before the giving of the law.

Hi David,

A little later on in Leviticus 26 there is an "if / then" statement about the covenant with Jacob / Isaac / Abraham and also about the land:

40 If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me;
41 And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:
42 Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.
43 The land also shall be left of them, and shall enjoy her sabbaths, while she lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity: because, even because they despised my judgments, and because their soul abhorred my statutes.
44 And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God.
45 But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.
46 These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel in mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.

What do you think?

D
davidc

Hi Nasher

I think that God never ceases to be gracious. He says that even in a land of captivity, If they will confess their iniquities, He will remember His covenant with their ancestors.
Just confession; we think, how simple. But we forget that without Christ, the heart is desperately wicked and deceitful. and it was their hearts that He was speaking to, which had turned away from God to idols.

Even with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, God was trying their hearts to bring forth faith, and they three failed in many ways, Yet God was faithful and long suffering as He wanted to bring forth a seed. This seed (Christ) would inherit the land as God had unconditionally promised.

He gave them the law at Horeb and called them His nation, but they rebelled in heart and turned again to idols. But God through Moses intercession bore with them with patience and long suffering and started to talk about a remnant of them inheriting. And the seed would come through this remnant. The remnant of the children of Israel can be traced and identified throughout the old testament and in the gospels as they waited for the consolation of Israel.

And in the fullness of time Christ, the seed of the woman came. He came firstly to the remnant of Israel who believed on Him. He led them to the cross and there the Son of God himself made atonement for their sins (and much more, though they did not know it). He rose from death, gathered them together again and spoke peace to them. They watched Him ascend to His Father and waited together in prayer till the day came that everything changed. God never ceases to be gracious. Amen and Amen

David

D
davidc

Dear precious brothers and sisters

As I read all your contributions to this thread, it is clear that we have differing views concerning the last days and the coming of Christ. This may be due to the way we have come to know Christ, the churches we have been to, or the way the Spirit of God has led us in our walk with Him. Some like myself would take what is called by some a dispensational approach, others would take a covenant approach. When it comes to scripture, a lot depends on the way we interpret passage like Romans 11, Matthew 24, Daniel 9 or the book of Revelation. We all seem to believe strongly that our interpretation is the Spirit taught one, and I do believe that we are all waiting on God to be taught by Him.

When it comes to our salvation in Christ, new birth and baptism in the Spirit, this thread and ohers show that we are all generally agreed. So we are brethren in Christ, His church, one body in His eyes.

But in things about the last days we differ. What should we understand from this? Should we just say that we will not know these things until they happen, so we should not discuss them or even read what the bible says about them? I think not.

Is it possible for us to ever come to agreement about these things, or has God deliberately written His word in this way - perhaps to confound the understanding of the wise? I constantly look to God for the answer to these questions.

Can you help

David

PS Snufalagapus also says that what he believes comes from revelation of the Holy Spirit, and we should respect him in these things, as with all of us, as long as our salvation in Christ is secure.

N
Nasher

I think that God never ceases to be gracious. He says that even in a land of captivity, If they will confess their iniquities, He will remember His covenant with their ancestors.

Hi David,

Taking one step at a time, would you say that the covenant with Jacob, and the covenant with Isaac, and also the covenant with Abraham were conditional covenants?

H
Heydave

DavidC wrote:

PS Snufalagapus also says that what he believes comes from revelation of the Holy Spirit, and we should respect him in these things, as with all of us, as long as our salvation in Christ is secure.

David, Although I agree that concerning the end times we can and will all differ according to interpretation of scripture, I cannot agree that not believing in Christ future return (2nd coming) is a matter of interpretation, it is is a denial of scripture!

If someone says they do not believe in Christ coming again for His bride, they have to deliberately ignore the scriptures that clearly say He is. to say 'it was revealed by the Spirit' is not good enough and is entering the realm of Gnosticism. The second coming is a foundational and important truth of Christ and any Bible believing Christian could have no other view, even if we may differ on some of the details.

What if someone said I don't believe Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, because 'it was revealed to me by the Spirit' Would we say 'that's OK, we respect that'? No we would say 'you are deceived' and stand for the truth.

Here is just one scripture (many more we could quote):


2 Peter 10-13:
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

[Seeing] then [that] all these things shall be dissolved, what manner [of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness,

Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this 'Day of the Lord' has come yet!

S
sermonindex

The Kingdom age cannot come until the Kingdom is established on this earth in the millennium-1000 YEARS OF THE REIGN OF CHRIST ON THIS EARTH ON DAVIDS THRONE.
Since this falls under the heading of the New Covenant, I will answer this with scripture.

Please read it like reading the fine print of a legal document.

Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Matthew 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven IS AT HAND.

Dictionary idiom meaning, close or near at hand. Within easy reach, nearby, as in I like to keep my tools close at hand.

The law and the prophets were until John, if one is being done away with (or rather fulfilled in Christ), than something else needs to take it's place. And I have no trouble believing that the Kingdom of God did come.

What is the Kingdom of God?

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

We have Peace, we have Joy and we have the Holy Ghost.

When was the Holy Ghost given?

Acts 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

In the Holy Ghost! If you can hear it, that is your kingdom.

N
Nasher

snufalapagus, Amen!

S
sermonindex

Acts 1:
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Rev 1 :7
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

D
davidc

"would you say that the covenant with Jacob, and the covenant with Isaac, and also the covenant with Abraham were conditional covenants?"
Good question Nasher

"He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance: When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and strangers in it. Psalms 105:8-12

This psalm indicates that the covenant was made with Abraham, an oath unto Isaac, but a law and and everlasting covenant to Jacob/Israel - I believe this refers to Israel, the famiy (when they were a few men in number, and srangers. ie before they went down to Egypt).

Abraham
in Gen 15 is told, after the smoking furnace: "In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:". This in an unconditional covenant.
When he was 99, the covenent was confirmed ("My covenent is with thee"), His name was changed, and it was said to be an "everlasting covenent, to be a God unto thee" Chap 17.
When Abraham offered his son up to God, God again confirmed the land covenant, but also swore His Oath to Abraham. The Oath is "In blessing, I will bless thee" Whereas the covenent speaks of the inheritance, the Blessing always speaks of the Holy Spirit "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."Gal 3:14 Completely unconditional.

Isaac
according to the psalm, received the oath, ie the blessing, but no direct mention of the covenant with him: "Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. Gen 26:2-5 . Unconditional blessing, and all because his father obeyed God's voice. Speaking so much of Christ.

Jacob, after his ladder dream at Bethel,(Gen 28) is promised by God the same land promises as to Abraham, plus " and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed". Again, unconditional. (To me, this speaks not of present gospel blessings to the Gentiles, but of the age to come, when Christ will reign on the earth, Israel will be chief among the nations and The gentiles will be blessed and bring their offerings yearly to Jerusalem.)
After Jacob's Mahanaim experience, he returns to Bethel (Chap 35) his name is changed to Israel, and again God promises the land. Unconditionally.

But we have gone away from the children of Israel

David

S
sermonindex


Just out of interest, I looked in Young's Literal for the word everlasting. (The rest are translated 'age-during'.)

I found ONE!

Jude 1:6 messengers also, those who did not keep their own principality, but did leave their proper dwelling, to a judgment of a great day, in bonds everlasting, under darkness He hath kept,

J
jimp

hi,God is a covenant keeping God and this is why He hates any form of a broken covenant.we live in a day when most do not have a clue what real covenant is and are marrying and giving in marriage in the church and behind the pulpit.it is my belief that covenant is the most important teaching we can learn.Jesus,being very God and very man,cut a covenant for God and man in His finished work at the cross and it is a better covenant but it is not a covenant that ends the covenants He made with the jews even though a jew must come to Jesus to be saved.jimp

S
sermonindex


So, is the covenant which was broken in these verses, of no significance?

Zech 11:10 And I took my staff, [even] Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. 11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it [was] the word of the LORD.

J
jimp

hi,it must not be because it does not fit into my statement or theology.jimp i do not know .

N
Nasher

But we have gone away from the children of Israel

You are correct we have digressed slightly from defining the children of Israel, however i'm sure covenants will come back very shortly.
It's seems to me as if "Children of Israel" firstly meant Jacob's/Israel's physical Children (12 sons and 1 daughter), and then to signify their Children etc? Is this correct? What about after then, i.e. when we get to Moses?

D
davidc

Alive to God, you ask
"So, is the covenant which was broken in these verses, of no significance?"

Zech 11:10 And I took my staff, [even] Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people. 11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it [was] the word of the LORD.

Which covenant do you believe he is speaking of here, the covenant with Abraham or the "old covenant" under the law?

When I read Zech 11 with the breaking of the staffs, I want to get to the end of the book to see how it ends. And there is chap 13 v 8 God says concerning His people Israel:

'And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God." Zech 13:8-9.

Or do you think this means a third of the world will be christians?

David

S
sermonindex

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

Philogos started this thread with this verse, let me boldly update the verse.

"Behold, the days CAME, saith the LORD, when a New Covenant was made with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah."

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

S
sermonindex


Hello David,

I already know I have a non-standard view of what Zechariah is saying, so I think I ought to spare readers of the thread my half-baked conclusions. For sure I know I don't go along with what seem like carnal interpretations, to my spirit.

So, while I'm pondering how to answer you, I thought it best to quote from an earlier page in this thread, what the LORD showed Neil, when He revealed His heart to him two Sundays ago. It's worth re-reading:

'the Lord God gave me a revelation... now i pray that i am able to aptly communicate this revelation with my human words; there have many Covevenants, the Noahide, the Abrahamic, the Sinatic, up to the "Better", or New Covenant Which is Jesus and Him Crucified, Ressurected, withe the Provision of the Blood that is suitable to cleanse ALL sin.

and as i walked further into Leviticus 17, i began to see the Godly commands that the apostles gave the Churches in the "Jerusalem Edict(Council)' in Acts 15, to guide Gentile followers, when they were harrassed by those who wanted them to be impeded on the full Realization of Jesus Messiah. The Jerusalem Council's requirements, as led by the Holy Spirit was very simple, 'abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality'.

the divine roots of this are all in the "Holiness Code", including the Second royal commandment of Jesus, which is

"Love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev 19:18b)

the first Royal commandment being a recitation of the Sch'ma, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might". (deut 6:4-5...cant capitalize the "d", sorry)

an then the Spirit spoke into my heart, and said, 'you see this Covenant and that Covenant, as if they are different roads thaT end, much like highway 57 ends here, an highway 14 ends there, but My Covevanants are a continuum, a long long Road, that has One Final destination, Mount Zion ,the Heavenly Jerusalem, God, Judge of all, angels in festal gathering, the assembly of the first born, the spirits of the righteous made and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled Blood than speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. (Hebrews 11:22-24)

Covenant leads to Covenant leads to Final Covenant, the New Covenant, which is the Final destination, opened by the Blood of Jesus, much the same way, a highway is built section, by section by section, and the sadness, the terrible grief i feel is that many of the people of my flesh, are using incomplete 'roadmaps', dissauded in picking up a "new roadmap", by either hardness of heart, or focusing on the terror of history, and by God's design, so that the full measure of Gentiles may be brought in to be Children of Abraham, then by the Mercy of God, they shall be given the 'full roadmap' leading to Messiah in the blink of an eye.

God has not forgotten the Jew, He said He wouldnt, and i believe God. The earth is God's, the nations are God's, therefore i do not believe for one second that the creation of the modern state of Israel, is born of man's will, it is born of God's plan and Sovereignty.'

May the Lord speak to our hearts, and may our minds be renewed by the working of His Spirit.

D
davidc

The children of Israel cont.,

I suppose we should start at Mount Sinai and the giving of the law.

Before this, though, it should be noted that the previous condition of the children of Israel, from the beginning of Exodus up to Mount Sinai, had been unfolded as resting entirely upon grace. This grace was manifested in their deliverance from the power and prince of this world; in the healing of the water which they had to drink; in the giving of the sabbath in which the manna would be an abiding portion—bread given daily otherwise; in the waters given in the time of their need, though they murmured and tempted the Lord, yet freely given to them from the stony rock; in the power of intercession against their enemies, the Lord being their banner, and Joshua their leader.

But when we come to mount Sinai and to the covenant made with Israel there, The Lord says.
“Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine; and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation… And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord.”
Nothing could be more distinct than this condition, “If ye will obey my voice, and keep my covenant, ye shall be,” etc.; and the people agreed, and we know, to the shame of man, what happened.
All the promises and blessings of the covenant with Abraham were included in this covenant, but God made it conditional upon obedience to His commandments. Later God also added the curses which would come on disobedience. Why did God make His covenant conditional to Israel at Sinai, but unconditional to Abraham.

Because of sin, and to show the full sinfulness of sin, for this is the main work of the law, to reveal the true state of the hearts of men, and their (and our) total inability to please God. Alongside the law, God introduced a second new thing: the priesthood and laws relating to sacrifice and atonement. This second new thing was given to them to point them to better things to come in Christ.

David

N
Nasher

All the promises and blessings of the covenant with Abraham were included in this covenant, but God made it conditional upon obedience to His commandments. Later God also added the curses which would come on disobedience.

Perhaps we could list what each covenant promised and to whom and the similarities / differences between them? I'll have a think before posting but if anyone else already knows feel free to post.

Why did God make His covenant conditional to Israel at Sinai, but unconditional to Abraham.

I guess when we answer the above we can get onto this?

S
sermonindex


Hi Nasher and David,

Are we beginning with Adam, or Noah?

I am still reading in Zechariah, for the answer to your question to me, David, about to which covenant I think the prophet is referring.

You also asked

All the promises and blessings of the covenant with Abraham were included in this covenant, but God made it conditional upon obedience to His commandments. Later God also added the curses which would come on disobedience. Why did God make His covenant conditional to Israel at Sinai, but unconditional to Abraham.
I believe savannah in her post on p5 in WHEN DOES AUTHROITY GO TOO FAR??? has answered this partly.
We find similiar words regarding the significance of a name(a shem)as Abram's name is changed and is made Abraham in Gen 17:5,

"Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee."

The same with Sarai in Gen 17:15,16

And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.

Noteworthy it is that the blessing of God accompanies the name change in these three examples. I tell you that the same is true with each and every one of us who've been adopted in Christ and made acceptable to Him as dear children.

"But while Abram and Sarai, from the time when God changed their names (Gen. 17:5 and Gen. 17:15), are always called by their new names; in the history of Jacob we find the old name used interchangeably with the new. “For the first two names denoted a change into a new and permanent position, effected and intended by the will and promise of God; consequently the old names were entirely abolished. But the name Israel denoted a spiritual state determined by faith; and in Jacob's life the natural state, determined by flesh and blood, still continued to stand side by side with this." (K&D)

Thus, we understand that when God chose Abram to establish a new family, which would eventually become a nation at Sinai (pointed out by philologos earlier in this thread), it was permanent in comparason with what we now call the Old Covenant, even though the 'Old Covenant' was given to that new nation. The nation has continued, but God has given a new covenant to them.

Another part of the answer lies in God's word to Moses in Deuteronomy, in which He tells Moses the people won't keep the covenant to which they agreed; He even gives Moses a song to teach them, to this effect. And, that they will ask for a king and God will give him. He also gives Moses a prophecy about Christ, Who is the solution to that difficulty.

As to the conditional nature of the Old Covenant, no doubt we would quote a lot from Romans! Is not that God knew the Old Covenant was NOT the whole answer to sin, one of the reasons He knew some people would abandon it?

N
Nasher

Are we beginning with Adam, or Noah?

Hi Alive-To-God,

Neither, we were just starting to define "children of Israel" however we have digressed a couple of times in the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants.

S
sermonindex

Beloved,
i know we kind of started off on the "wrong foot". for which i accept my culpability. Hence, you might be wary of dialogue with me, presuming i am of a contentious nature.

Thats not really the case, i receive much joy in the humble, meek and loving setting of my soul, as opposed to my heart, which rises in contention, for there is never shalom in that setting, only the bitter dregs of sour wine.

that preamble aside, you wrote:

...." we were just starting to define "children of Israel" however we have digressed a couple of times in the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants."


How Deep the Mind of God, how can we, son of men, define such? (if that came across as patronizing, i did not intend it to be...AT ALL)


i relish "disgression"...to digress, and allow me to tell you why, because right now, God has given me the luxury of the Wilderness, the B'Midbar.....to wander in it, alone with Him, alone with the Word, far from Jerusalem.

not that i'm "lost", God forbid, or eschew the fellowship of the saints, the tsdaqim.....no. But my mind is restless, and the mind, the human mind, as i see it, cannot receive a Deeper Revelation of God, of Jesus, only the soul and spirit of a man wrestling with the Spirit of God can recieve such....a Baptism, a Deeper Revelation...to be pressed out, or even to wrestle with God, if one is so blessed as Jacob was on the banks of the Jabbok.

i dont know what i'm saying, or alluding to...i might be out of my head, or foolish, but thats not a bad thing....OR, like Paul relayed in the latter portions of his 2nd Epsitle to the Corinthians, i might be so blessed by the LORD to caught up to the third heaven, but in that struggle, Paul, in his weakness, thorn lodged in him, pleading with God, was given this answer:

"My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."
2 Corinthians 12:9b

how very weak we all are, so as to show His Strength, amen.

(i know i'm rambling, indulge my foolishness, brother)

in Jesus love, neil


N
Nasher

.

Hence, you might be wary of dialogue with me, presuming i am of a contentious nature.

Not at all, you are a person of zeal. I hope we both come to the truth of these matters in faith.


that preamble aside, you wrote:

...." we were just starting to define "children of Israel" however we have digressed a couple of times in the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants."


How Deep the Mind of God, how can we, son of men, define such?


Simply because I believe God has revealed his word to us to be able to study and understand (by faith)
If we cannot define what something is, then how can we discuss it in any measure?


I don't really understand the rest of what you wrote i'm afraid.

D
davidc

Alive to God you write
"Is not that God knew the Old Covenant was NOT the whole answer to sin, one of the reasons He knew some people would abandon it?"

Yes, I agree, the old covenant was temporary until the seed came, which is Christ.

At Sinai, God gave His people the law, written on tablets of stone. Later, when they had made the ark of the covenant and all the other things relating to the tabernacle, Moses instucted the Levites

" Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the Lord; and how much more after my death" Deut 31:25-27 (KJV)

Thus the law and the covenant were linked inseperably, the one inside the other. Of course, for us, this speaks of new things in Christ, Hallellujah. But, for Israel, the law was given at the same time that the covenant with them was made conditional on them keeping the whole law. (hope you follow that sentence).

God brought in this new thing, the law, (before that, they were under grace). He brought it in deliberately to show Israel their real state of heart, that they could not keep it, and He made all the promises and blessings of that same covenant conditional on them keeping the law, which they could not do. The law had no power in itself to prevent men from sinning, or to take away sin. As Paul writes it was given to show the utter sinfulness of sin.

David
I look forward to you meditations in Zechariah

S
sermonindex


Hi David,

I'm interested in how you have managed to keep the Old Covenant separate from the law in the way you explain things.

I look forward to you meditations in Zechariah
It's a work in progress. Keep talking among yourselves (lol). I'll get back when I've something to share. :-)

D
davidc

Alive to God, you write
I'm interested in how you have managed to keep the Old Covenant separate from the law in the way you explain things.

As I wrote in my last post, the ten commandments were put inside the ark of the covenant. But the law is not the same as the covenant. Paul wrote that Christ, on the cross: "abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances" Eph 2:15 (KJV) The law was given for Israel to obey. It was the sign to the nations, together with their worship that they were the people of God. The law was given to Israel, the nation at Horeb, but before that, god's law was revealed to all men individually who had faith to see it through their consciences. Paul says that the Gentiles "shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness" Romans 2:15 (KJV) Job is an example of this.The law given to Israel however was a law for the nation to live by, including every aspect of life.

Nasher suggested:
"Perhaps we could list what each covenant promised and to whom and the similarities / differences between them"

I and others have already quoted the covenant promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I would like to trace the covenant given to the children of Israel below and see how they compare with the Abrahamic covenant. It is a long posting for which I apologise. Please bare with me.

The covenant with the children of Israel is God's promise to them as a nation. A promise of fruitfulness, multiplication, health, happiness and blessing. It is in essence the same covenant which the Lord made with Abraham. (only now conditional on obedience).. It was His covenant with Abraham which caused Him to have respect to the children of Israel when they suffered in Egypt (see Ex 2:23-25).

After Moses and Aaaron had spoken first to Pharoh to let the people go, God met with Moses again, and revealed to him the name "Jehovah", by which He would be known by the children of Israel.

"And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant.6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the Lord" Ex 6:2-8 (KJV)

So here God was promising to give to the children of Israel the inheritance ie the land promised to Abraham.

In chapter 19 the covenant promise is expanded to them as He had respect to them as a nation, not just an individual like Abraham:

"Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. Ex 19:3-6 (KJV)

In chap 31, again the covenant was expanded for their refreshment as a nation:

"Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. Ex 31:16-17 (KJV)

God was shown to them to be a marvel working God in chap 34"

And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the Lord: for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee. Ex 34:10 (KJV)

The book of Leviticus deals mainly with the priestly role of Israel, and the covenant and law is expanded to include rules for every aspect of life as the chosen nation of God.. Lev 26 includes a reminder from God that whatever they do as a nation, if they humble themseves, then God will remember His covenant with Jacob, Isaac and Abraham (deliberately reverse order by the spirit)

"if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity: Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land. The land also shall be left of them, and shall enjoy her sabbaths, while she lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity: because, even because they despised my judgments, and because their soul abhorred my statutes. And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the Lord their God. But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the Lord Lev 26:41-45 (KJV)

He says the same thing in Deuteronomy chap 4

"When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; (For the Lord thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them. Deut 4:30-31 (KJV)

Then in Deut chap 5, He shows them the difference between the covenant with them and the covenant with their fathers, ie that theirs included the law, the ten commandments; it was conditional:

"The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire, (I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to shew you the word of the Lord: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount;) saying,
The ten commandments
I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, etc Deut 5:2-6 (KJV)

And in chap 7, they are told that if they keep the laws, God will keep the covenant with them - the same covenant as with Abraham:

"Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers: And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee. Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle Deut 7:12-14 (KJV)

When Moses was 120 years old, He said to the children of Israel, just before they went into the land:

"Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, Your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water: That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day: That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath; But with him that standeth here with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day:" Deut 29:10-15 (KJV)

Conclusion: the covenant which God made with the children of Israel was the same as the one made with Abraham, and involved their living in the land. It was expanded for Israel to include their status as the nation of God, and at Horeb, it was made conditional on obeying the law.

David

S
sermonindex

Hi David,

Thank you for all the scripture you quoted. I see you are particularly attached to 'the land' aspect of what you see in the Old Covenant, unless I've misread your emphasis.

Is this really the central theme, though, of what God revealed of His heart to them, way back then?

D
davidc

Alive to God, you ask concerning the theme of "the land"
"Is this really the central theme, though, of what God revealed of His heart to them, way back then?"

We should be careful to distinguish betwen what God has revealed to us through his son and given us in his son, and what he revealed to the fathers, especially Abraham. We have the revelation of Christ, the Head of His body the church exalted in the heavens, and the Holy Ghost sent down to change us into His likeness from glory to glory. We have known the love of the Father and have fellowship with Him and with each other by the Holy Ghost.

I am quoting next a passage on the covenants by J N Darby, as he expresses these things better than I can. I'm not being lazy as I have this evening again gone through all the passages where God speaks to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and made detailed notes of what promises were made.


"The Abrahamic covenants (though wider in the scope and testimony, as we have seen, than the local blessings and promises to Israel, as the apostle also so fully argues) contained none of these things (ie the things revealed to us).They proposed the person of the Redeemer, the promised Seed; they proposed the blessing of all nations, but they went not beyond Abraham’s being the heir of the world. This may disclose brighter things now that the veil is rent; but in the promises and covenants given to Abraham, he did not outstep as yet in expression the limits of what belonged to the first Adam, because the second Adam (who was also the Lord from heaven) was not revealed, and was simply testified of as the seed of Abraham in whom this blessing should come, whatever it was.

These promises and covenants are in Genesis 12 and 15, and confirmed in chapters 17 and 22. The first promise runs thus: “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing; and I will bless him that blesseth thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Afterward the Lord appeared unto Abram and said, “To thy seed will I give this land”: here we have nothing beyond the earth and the families by whom it has been divided.

In chapter 15 we have the promise of a seed, numerous as the stars of heaven, and (after stating the circumstances in which they would be intermediately placed) the giving of the land to them, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, confirmed by the covenant of the Lord passing between the pieces of the victims.

In chapter 17 this is established as an everlasting covenant with Abraham (his name being changed), and with his seed after him, throughout their generations—that God would be a God to him, and to his seed after him; and that He would give to him, and to his seed after him, all the land wherein he was a stranger, for an everlasting possession; and that He would be their God. And circumcision was given to Abraham as a seal.

In chapter 22 we have the confirmation of the promise to the seed. “In blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is by the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” In the latter part of this promise we have the confirmation of the blessing of the families of the earth to the seed, that is Christ; which was (in chap. 12) made originally to Abram. Still (whatever be the manner of its accomplishment), it reaches not beyond the original promise to the families of the earth; nor is He, in whom it was to be fulfilled, revealed otherwise than as the seed of Abraham. The other promises, and the formal covenant, are all of the land, and of a seed numerous and prosperous, who should inherit it, and be a blessing. In all this (however unconditionally it establishes that) we have nothing beyond that which is earthly. The promises and covenants in Abraham are established upon grounds which cannot be shaken—not the stability of a professed obedience, but the stability of the declared promise of God—two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie, His promise, and His oath. Whatever intimations of circumstances or gathering of hope there might be, the covenants themselves expressed no more. They were confirmed to Isaac, chapter 26, and to Jacob, chapter 28; but no particular remark is called for as to the terms of the covenants in them"


Can I finish by quoting again from psalm 105

"Seek the Lord, and his strength: seek his face evermore. Remember his marvellous works that he hath done; his wonders, and the judgments of his mouth; O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen. He is the Lord our God: his judgments are in all the earth. He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance: When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and strangers in it. Psalms 105:4-12 (KJV)

So, yes, I do believe that the land and earthly things were at the heart of the covenant with Abraham and with Israel as a nation.

David

C
Christinyou

Quote:

"Conclusion: the covenant which God made with the children of Israel was the same as the one made with Abraham, and involved their living in the land. It was expanded for Israel to include their status as the nation of God, and at Horeb, it was made conditional on obeying the law."

And yet for all this there is no life in the Nation or in the Law.

For: 1 John 5:11-13 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Life in the Son, not in the Law, lest why was their given a better way if the old could save to the Utmost, only in Christ can this be accomplished, this mystery which was hidden, even from Isreal, until it was revealed through Paul and his final Gospel of Christ in you the Hope of Glory.


Colossians 1:25-28 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

The whole fulfillment of the Word of God, "IN CHRIST".

It is not Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Moses or anyone else, It is Christ who lives in me, He is my only life.

Galatians 2:16-21 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

This is our life.

In Christ: Phillip

A
ADisciple

So, yes, I do believe that the land and earthly things were at the heart of the covenant with Abraham and with Israel as a nation.

David, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that God still intends to honour the covenant He made to Abraham by giving the nation of Israel the earthly land of Canaan.

But the writer of Hebrews say that Abraham himself, even way back then, looked for something greater than the earthly land. We are told he "looked for a city that hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God" (Heb. 11.10).

We are also told that many of those of old, while looking for the fulfillment of the promise, "confessed they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth" (Heb. 11.13).

This would certainly include David the king, who had already entered into that earthly land and inheritance, yet cried out to God saying, "Hear my prayer, O LORD, and give ear unto my cry; hold not Thy peace at my tears: for I am a stranger with Thee, and a sojourner, as all my fathers were" (Ps. 39.12).

David was already in the land, yet what did he know that so many of our dispensational teachers don't seem to grasp? For he was already IN THE LAND, yet called himself a stranger and a sojourner with God. He numbered himself among those who the writer of Hebrews said were "seeking a country (a fatherland)" (Heb. 11.14).

What country would that be? The earthly land of Canaan? Apparently not: "But now they desire a BETTER, that is an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He hath prepared for them a City" (Heb. 11.16).

...David, we are going to get hopelessly lost in our interpretation of Old Testament Scripture if we don't take advantage of the Light that the New Testament sheds upon them.

S
sermonindex


We have decided to close this thread now. The conversation has gone on very long and we feel most of what needs to be discussed about this subject in this context has been covered. Perhaps there needs another thread to start on a more specific part of this conversation.

This thread is being locked.

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
1 of 598 posts

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate