| Author | Message | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1252 Registered: 7-2003  |
Part I Introduction: Some time ago we did a multi-part study on the Trinity. Iíve considered doing something similar again as I really enjoy putting together studies. Tonight I will provide an introduction and begin the first part of a study on the covenants. I will plan on posting a new installment of the study every 1-2 nights or so as time permits. I grew up in a tradition where I was taught what is often referred to as the ìproof-textingî method of Biblical interpretation. Because I used the Bible in a very fragmented way to support my own preconceived notions, I never had any real feel for the flow of scripture and how it all fit together. All this changed when I began to read and study whole books of the Bible in context and then began to read through the entire Bible. What instantly leaped out at me from the pages of scripture was the way in which the entire narrative was structured and defined by covenants. It suddenly dawned on me that redemptive history could not be fully understood without understanding the covenants that God had made with His people. Understanding the Biblical covenants opened the scriptures up to me in a way I had never experienced. Suddenly, I could see a beautiful arc across all of scripture. No longer were the scriptures a bunch of fragmented texts used for proving a doctrine. Now I could see God at work through the ages with all things pointing to the person and work of Jesus Christ. The realization that all the scriptures, both Testaments, are all about Jesus revolutionized my understanding of the Word. This Bible study is designed to provide an outline overview of the two major covenants in scripture. Because the material covers nearly the entire Bible, it is not possible to present an absolutely exhaustive study of every book and chapter dealing with the covenants. I will be presenting texts and passages that I believe provide the basic facts and structure of the covenants. However, because of the danger of falling into the ìproof-textingî trap, I strongly recommend that readers progress through this study with an open Bible. It is my hope that readers will not settle for only reading the texts I have quoted, but that they will conduct a much more extensive investigation that includes reading the surrounding chapters for context. I would especially encourage readers to read through entire books that are extensively quoted, such as Romans and Galatians. The key to avoiding proof-texting is context, context, context! I challenge every reader to read beyond the quotes in this study to absolutely assure that all quotes are fully in context. Background: The first step to understanding the Bible is to understand its historical context. In the case of covenants it is vital to understand that covenants were common in the near east during biblical times. Covenants were frequently used to establish lordship. A suzerain would make a covenant with his vassals that normally contained three parts: ï Promise ï Condition ï Sign The promise might be something like the suzerain promising not to kill the conquered vassals. Although some covenants might be unconditional, i.e. the vassal would do what he would do regardless, most held some sort of condition for fulfilling the promise. So the suzerain might promise not to kill the conquered vassals IF they provided him with a yearly tribute of grain and wine. The covenant was usually ratified with blood and a sign was setup as a way of showing that the vassals were in the covenant with the suzerain. The sign was often arbitrary and could be just about anything such as an earring in the left ear, an ankle bracelet, or almost any other external sign. So, with this background in mind, letís see if we can find the major elements in a couple of Biblical covenants. Letís start with an easy. The Noahic Covenant was an unconditional covenant. It did not depend on the vassals (men). The suzerain (God) sovereignly said what He would do without any condition applied. So we only need to look for a promise and a sign. Read through this passage and see if you can identify a promise and sign before reaching the end of the passage.
So how did you do? You should have discovered the following: ï Promise: all flesh would never again be destroyed by flood. ï Sign: the rainbow. Letís move on to a more complex covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant is an important covenant as it foreshadows a covenant to come. I believe you will be able to find a two part promise, a condition, and a sign. Give it a try.
So were you able to find all three parts of the covenant? Hereís what I have: ï Promise: a) Many descendants, b) possess the land. ï Condition: Belief/Faith ï Sign: Circumcision As an added note I think I should point out that some would refer to the Abrhamic Covenant as an "unconditional" covenant because God simply says what He will sovereignly do. I have no problem with this and understand the rationale. However, Genesis 15 strongly implies that the promises of this covenant were conditioned upon faith. At the very least we can say that faith is a central theme in this covenant. Next time we will compare and contrast this with the first of the two main Biblical covenants. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5609 Registered: 12-2003  |
Chris, I am so glad to see you doing this study! Thank youóit's great to see you come out of "retirement"! Colleen | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1253 Registered: 7-2003 |
Part II The Mosaic (Old) Covenant Last time we learned that covenants usually have a promise or promises and a sign. Some covenants are conditional and some are unconditional. We briefly looked at two biblical covenants, the Noahic Covenant and the Abrahamic Covenant. This time we will turn our attention to the most prominent covenant in the Old Testament, the Mosaic Covenant, also known as the Old Covenant. In fact, when we use the term ìOld Testamentî we are referring primarily to the Mosaic/Old Covenant. The Greek word ìdiathekeî can be translated into English as either ìcovenantî or ìtestamentî. The English words ìcovenantî and ìtestamentî are used almost interchangeably in the KJV, e.g. the KJV in one place translates as ìArk of the Covenant (diatheke)î and at another place translates as ìArk of the Testament (diatheke)î. So when we are talking about ìTestamentsî weíre really talking about ìCovenantsî. We have divided our Bibles in reference to the two most prominent Covenants in the scriptures. Letís take a look at the Mosaic/Old Covenant and see if we can distinguish the promise, condition, and sign.
So we see that the promise of the Old Covenant was that the descendents of Jacob would be Godís special people, a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. The condition of the covenant was obedience. Conversely, we see at many points in the Old Testament that if the Israelites disobey they will be driven out of the Land. Finally, we see that the sign of the covenant is Sabbath observance. To summarize: Old Covenant: ï Promise ñ Godís special people/The Land ï Condition ñ Obedience ï Sign ñ Sabbath observance So what specifically was the covenant? What were the very words of the covenant? Read the following text and ask yourself what the text says the covenant was.
This text clearly states the covenant was specifically the ìeser dabarî (literally ìTen Wordsî or Decalogueî. Letís look at another text. As you read it ask yourself again what the text says the covenant was.
This text also confirms that the words on the stone tablets of the Decalogue (ten words) were the covenant. Letís look at another text for further confirmation.
Again we see that the Decalogue was the covenant. I believe we could cite several more texts yet, but letís just look at one last one.
Here we get an interesting fact. Unlike the artist renderings we are used to seeing, the tablets of the Decalogue were not just written on one side, but on front and back. This is consistent with what we know of ancient near east covenant documents. These documents were often written on the front and back of tablets with two identical copies produced. One copy would go in the temple of the suzerain while the other copy would go in the temple of the vassal. Many biblical scholars believe that the two tablets of the Decalogue were actually two copies of the same Ten Words written front and back. In this case, because God (the suzerain) dwelt in the temple in the midst of His people (the vassals), both copies went into the one temple. In addition, we know that the sign of the covenant was usually inscribed in the very center of the covenant document. This is also consistent with the order of the Decalogue. Next time we will continue our examination of the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. Chris | ||
| Esther Registered user Username: Esther Post Number: 378 Registered: 5-2004 |
Chris, It's good to see you around here again! I'm thoroughly enjoying this study and appreciate all the time you're putting into it.  | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 3514 Registered: 3-2004  |
Chris, I printed the study on the trinity and I will do this also. I have a special notebook for these. That way I can read them at my leisure. Thanks for all the work you put into these studies. We do have an awesome God who has provided everything in His word for us. Diana | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1254 Registered: 7-2003 |
Part III The Old Covenant (continued) Last time we saw the Old/Mosaic Covenant had the following elements: ï Promise ñ Godís special people/The Land ï Condition ñ Obedience ï Sign ñ Sabbath observance We also reviewed a number of texts (Deut. 4:13, 9:10-11, 9:15, 10:4) showing that the ìeser dabarî (literally ìTen Wordsî or ìDecalogueî) were the covenant document. The Decalogue was structured like an ancient near east covenant document, written on two tablets with the sign of the covenant at the center of the document. Even its name is consistent with it being a covenant document. Unfortunately, our English invention of ìTen Commandmentsî confuses the fact that the Hebrew Old Testament never uses that terminology. Our English phrase masks the fact that the Hebrew term ìeser dabarî (full form is aseret haddebarim) is legal language for a covenant document. Therefore, throughout the rest of this study I will attempt to use more biblical language by referring to the Old Covenant document as either ìThe Ten Wordsî or the Latin form of the phrase ìThe Decalogueî (Deca = ten & logue = word). Tonight, Iíd like to continue by examining when the Old Covenant was given and with whom it was made. In Deuteronomy chapter 5, Moses repeats the words of the Covenant, the Decalogue. He leads into this with the following statement:
Weíre told that God made the covenant at Sinai. It was made with those who were alive at that time, NOT with their ancestors who had come before. This is a problem for SDA theology which says that the Sabbath (the sign of the covenant) was being observed by people prior to the exodus. To deal with this problem, SDAs have dramatically altered this text to make it say something entirely different in their Clear Word Bible:
This appears to be a deliberate distortion of the word of God in order to support the idea that Sabbath observance by human beings preceded the exodus. The author of the Clear Word Bible evidently found this necessary since there is not direct Biblical evidence for such an assertion. Although we see God resting after His work of creating, there is no recorded command for any human being to do so prior to the exodus. There is no mention of Adam or Eve ever observing Sabbath. There is no mention of Cain or Abel observing Sabbath. There is no mention of anyone in the godly line of Seth ever observing Sabbath. There is no mention of Enoch, who walked with God, observing Sabbath. There is no mention of Methuselah observing Sabbath. There is no mention of Noah observing Sabbath. There is no mention of any of Noahís sons observing Sabbath. There is no mention of Job, who lived at about the time of the patriarchs, ever observing Sabbath. There is no mention of Abraham, who was taken out of an idolatrous background, ever observing Sabbath or being instructed in Sabbath observance. There is no mention of Isaac ever observing Sabbath. There is no mention of Jacob or Esau ever observing Sabbath. There is no mention of Joseph ever observing Sabbath. There is no mention of any of Josephís brothers ever observing Sabbath. There is no mention of any of the Israelites observing Sabbath while in Egypt. In fact, the word ìSabbathî is NEVER used in the entire book of Genesis or in the first 15 chapters of Exodus! It is not until the Israelites are freed from Egypt and are headed towards Sinai (Ex. 16) that we first see the word Sabbath used in the Bible. As the Israelites approach Sinai we see God begin to teach them about the sign of the covenant that He will give them at Sinai. It seems clear that this is a new concept to the Israelites that Moses must explain to them. This is the very first time we see any human being instructed to keep Sabbath. There is no record of any human being doing so prior to the Israelites making their way toward Sinai. This is in perfect harmony with other parts of scripture:
Given the lack of biblical evidence for the sign of the covenant being observed prior to the exodus, and the strong biblical evidence for the covenant first being given to those who were at Sinai, not their ancestors, it is easy to see why the author of the Clear Word Bible felt it necessary to alter Deut. 5:3 to preserve his theology. So if the covenant had its beginning at Sinai, it raises the question, ìDoes the Old Covenant also have an end?î It appears that the Old Covenant was temporary. It had a beginning and would also have an end as prophesied by the prophet Jeremiah.
Jeremiah prophesied that God would make a New Covenant, not like the old one. Weíre told that Godís law will be within the heart. Weíre not told at this point exactly what that law entails, only that whatever the covenant entails, itís not like the Old Covenant. That is, the New Covenant is not like the Decalogue (see part II, the Decalogue is the covenant document). Whatever this covenant is, it will be fundamentally different in some way. Next time we will begin to compare and contrast the Old and New Covenants and see just how different they truly are according to scripture. The New truly is new! Chris | ||
| Randyg Registered user Username: Randyg Post Number: 382 Registered: 12-2004 |
Chris, It is so good to see you back. Thank-you for this insightful and concise summary of the covenants. Like Diana, I will print it out for future reference. Bless you, Randy | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1255 Registered: 7-2003 |
Thank you Colleen, Esther, Diana, and Randy for the welcome back. It's good to be here. I'm glad the study is helpful. Chris | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 553 Registered: 4-2006  |
Thanks for making the study Chris, when its done, maybe you should put up a document of it, in its entirety. In His amazing grace, Martin | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1256 Registered: 7-2003 |
Thanks Martin. I believe Colleen is going to do that. Chris | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1257 Registered: 7-2003 |
Part IV II Corinthians Chapters 3 and 4 Last time we saw that the Old Covenant began at Sinai and was made with those who were alive at the time of the exodus, not their ancestors. We also read the prophecy of Jeremiah foretelling a New Covenant that would be different from the Old Covenant. Tonight I would like to begin our examination of the ways in which the New Covenant is fundamentally different from the Old Covenant. We will spend our time tonight reviewing the entire third chapter of II Corinthians and little bit of chapter four. In II Corinthians 3, Paul calls the two covenants two ìministriesî and he compares and contrasts the covenant ìengraved on stoneî with the New Covenant. As we go through the chapter I would like to recommend the following: 1. Pray for the Holy Spirit to teach and guide you. Pray that He will show you truth and guard you against error. Pray that if there is any veil in place that the Holy Spirit will remove it in Christ. 2. Carefully read through the third chapter of II Corinthians for overall context. You may want to read through a couple of different reliable translations. 3. Now grab a pencil and paper. At the top of your paper write ìOld Covenantî on the left side and ìNew Covenantî on the right side forming two columns. As you read through II Corinthians 3 again, take time to carefully list everything you learn about each covenant in the appropriate column. List every thing even if it seems insignificant. 4. Review the list and pray over the things that the Holy Spirit has pointed out to you. As additional insights come to you, you may want to jot these down as well.
I would really like to recommend that you do the exercise I suggested above for yourself. I think you will find it fascinating to see your discoveries in black and white. However, if you would like to see the lists that I came up with, you can click HERE. Note: This link will not take you away from the FAF web page that you are viewing, but will open a second browser window where you can view the results I came up with. So what did you come up with? If your lists look anything like mine, then I think you will agree that this is a pretty shocking passage when you really begin to break it down and compare the two covenants. The apostle Paul leaves no doubt as to what this covenant is that he is talking about. He clearly states that it is the covenant that was ìengraved on stoneî. This can only be the Decalogue exactly as stated in Deut. 4:13, 9:10-11, 9:15, and 10:4. And yet Paul says the Old Covenant, the Decalogue, ìfades awayî! Not only that, but he refers to the Old Covenant as the ìministry of deathî and the ìministry of condemnationî. He even says that it ìkillsî! Contrast this to the New Covenant which gives life, is much more glorious, gives liberty, and remains after the Old Covenant has passed away. Given all this, which covenant do you want to be under? Before wrapping up todayís study, letís revisit the last seven versus of chapter 3 and continue into the next 6 versus of chapter four.
Notice that Paul says when the Old Covenant is read there is a veil that remains unlifted. When people focus on the Old Covenant, on the Decalogue, there is a spiritual veil that prevents them from seeing the full glory of the Gospel of Christ. Paul refers to those who are in their veiled state as ìperishingî and goes so far as to say it is the ìgod of this worldî (Satan) who is blinding them. Truly this dire warning ought to give us a great heart for SDA family, friends, and loved ones. If we have such a heart we should be praying passionately and regularly that they will be released from their blindness and that the veil will be removed the only way it can be, in Christ. Next time we will continue to compare and contrast the Old and New Covenants by delving into an allegory that will answer the question of how we should relate to the Old Covenant. Chris (Message edited by Chris on March 31, 2007) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5622 Registered: 12-2003 |
Chris, this chapter of your study is amazing. The reality of Jesus, of His completion of everything that was promised to Israel, of His rescuing us from deathófrom Satan himself who is blinding all those under the old covenantómakes me want to cry. Thank you for for your clear explanation of the contrast between these two covenants. And thank God for equipping Paul to teach us this amazing reality so unequivocally. Colleen | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1258 Registered: 7-2003 |
Part V Galatians 4:21-31: Two Women, Two Covenants Last time we saw that the Bible calls the Old Covenant engraved on stone ìthe ministry of deathî. The Bible states that the Old Covenant fades away. Finally, we saw that when the Old Covenant engraved on stone is read, a veil remains in place. That raises the question of how we should relate to the Old Covenant and what we should do with it. The Bible answers this question in the fourth chapter of Galatians. The Christians in Galatia had allowed false teachers, Judaizers, to convince them that they were obligated to keep parts of the Old Covenant. Paul dispels this serious heresy by telling an allegory.
Paul leaves little doubt here exactly what he is talking about. We discovered earlier that the Decalogue was given to the people alive at the exodus at Mount Sinai (Deut. 5:3) and that the Decalogue was the covenant document (Deut. 4:13, 9:10-11, 9:15, and 10:4). Paul now uses Hagar to represent the covenant given at Sinai and uses allegorical language to say that those who are under the covenant from Sinai are in slavery. Now contrast this with his description of the New Covenant.
Those who are under the New Covenant are free. They should rejoice because they are the children of promise. Unfortunately, there will always be those who try to steal that joy.
I think those of us who have faced the transition out of Adventism could echo Paulís words here and heartily say, ìSo it is now alsoî. It seems that that many of those who want to be under law also want others to be in bondage also. As it was in Paulís day, so it is now also. So what are we to do with the Old Covenant and those who teach it and try to put us under it? The Bible tells us in no uncertain terms in the very next verse.
SDAs are not the only group who would try to put New Covenant Christians under the Covenant document engraved on stone at Sinai. But the Bible tells us in no uncertain terms that we are to have no part of such Judaizing because we are not in bondage, but are free! Cast out the bondwoman and her son! What blessing and joy we have as children of the free woman! Let us rejoice, break forth and shout! But what if we really, really want to cling to the law? Can we keep one foot in the Old Covenant and one in the New Covenant? Next time we will answer that question with yet another biblical illustration. Chris | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 238 Registered: 2-2003  |
Hello Chris, I love this approach based on the covenants, it really makes sense of a whole lot of theological confusion. I use this approach with my college students too, and it was really only my encounter with Adventism which made this so clear to me, and to my friend and fellow elder Gyula who attended Adventist Bible college. We have taught this in the local church, and found it was really new even for many who have been Christians a long time. Although I am familiar with a lot of what you have written, I really had a wow moment just now over 2 Cor 4: 4. I have usually heard that verse quoted (as a proof text of course) to explain that unbelievers donít get saved because they are blinded by Satan. I dare say there is something to that, but looking at it in context actually shows it is people who want to please God by old covenant means and not according to the gospel are the ones who are blinded by Satan. That is amazing, and also very helpful. Just a couple of thoughts. I have had to deal with these in my studies too, as I have to teach theology! The two most popular theological systems among Evangelicals seem to be Covenantal Theology and Dispensationalism (as least, the ones I have come across). The problem is that neither of these seems to understand the new covenant properly. Covenantal Theology teaches that all the covenants in the Bible are basically the same, as they are the outworking of one single ìcovenant of graceî made before the beginning of time. So under the new covenant we just have the Holy Spirit to help us keep Godís law, which is still in place (the Ten Commandments anyway). This is classical Reformed Theology, as seen in the Westminster Confession, and is basically the same as the Adventist view (though with Sunday as the Sabbath and not Saturday). In Hungary there are very few Bible translations available, and we usually use the new Reformed translation. I tried to use Deut 5: 3 a while ago to support the covenant only being made with Israel, and found that this version reads, ìNot only with our fathers did the LORD make this covenant, but also with us, with all of us, who are alive here today.î Same as the Clear Word! The old Reformation period translation and the new Roman Catholic Bible actually get it right, in this case. (I also checked the Hebrew, and no way does it say, ìnot only, but alsoî). Dispensationalism, on the other hand, sees the new covenant, or the church age as an ìunforeseen hiatusî inserted into the middle of the Mosaic covenant, which is still in place and will be re-established following the (pretribulation) rapture of the church. Scary how much bad theology there is out there. I am enjoying your thorough study. God bless, Adrian | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 645 Registered: 9-2006  |
Chris, Thank you for this study, in another post I made this statement: There is some very interesting passages of scripture in Corinthians II 3:13 unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. Corinthians II 3:14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. Corinthians II 3:15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Corinthians II 3:16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Do the above scriptures sound very much like Adventism to you? To me it does, only with the IJ it even corrupts the old testament, otherwise to some extent at least, Adventism adopts the old covenant and so inherits the same veil. Notice in verse 16 what Paul is saying ìNevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.î The opposite of that is ìfailure to turn to the Lord and the veil remains.î Thus if the veil remains, then one has not turned to the Lord has he? The Bible teaches that there is no other name under heaven whereby we might be saved other than Jesus. If Adventism has drawn a veil over their eyes as many of you have said, including myself, then the veil remains and salvation has not come to them, Paul says when one turns to the Lord the veil is taken away. Mustnít we turn to the Lord to be saved? Unfortunately, I think my statement was taken as being judgmental and accusatory. Your Statement Chris: ìTruly this dire warning ought to give us a great heart for SDA family, friends, and loved ones. If we have such a heart we should be praying passionately and regularly that they will be released from their blindness and that the veil will be removed the only way it can be, in Christ. ì A little time ago as I anguished in my heart over the Adventist problem of heresy, I was just cruising along in the old testament and I came across this Amos 7:8 And the Lord said to me, "Amos, what do you see?" And I said, "A plumb line." Then the Lord said: "Behold, I am setting a plumb line In the midst of My people Israel; I will not pass by them anymore. The Holy Spirit said to me ìRiver, what do you see in my word? And I had to answer back ìLord I see a plumb lineî. What do you see in Godís word Chris? A time further back I anguished over my imperfection and I saw myself holding my filthy rags of my own righteousness and I saw Jesus standing there looking at me and there was nothing left but grace. River | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1259 Registered: 7-2003 |
Thank you for your comments, Doc. Your comments about the Decalogue, the Law, and the various competing views out there are quite pertinent. As part of this study I will be spending some time on the Law of Christ as well. I have recently had what I believe to be a Holy Spirit produced ìah-haî moment in regards to this. I find it very hard to express this in words, but Iíll try: Godís ultimate transcendent eternal law is God Himself. Another way of saying this is to say that Godís eternal law flows from Godís very being or essence, it is who and what He is. Anything that is in accordance with Godís essential unchanging nature and character is righteous. Anything that is contrary to Godís nature and character is sin. If this is true, then anything that we can put on paper or stone is, at best, only a representation of Godís being, essence, or nature. Hereís where I might shock a few people. Even the Law of Christ, as contained in the teachings of Christ and the writings of His apostles, is only a written representation of something greater that cannot be fully contained in writing. There is great value and authority in the instructions given to New Covenant Christians throughout the New Testament, but something on paper is not itself Godís being nor can it be Godís ultimate law in and of itself. A written law, whether itís on stone or paper, can only point us to God and his transcendent law. The only way we can truly have Godís transcendent eternal law written in our hearts, in the ultimate sense, is to have the eternal transcendent God Himself dwell within us. So hereís my ah-ha moment: As the second person of the Triune God, the Holy Spirit is not only Godís seal upon us, the Holy Spirit Himself is quite literally Godís eternal transcendent Law living within us. Jeremiahís prophecy, predicting that under the New Covenant Godís Law will be written in our hearts, is completely fulfilled in the person of the Holy Spirit and His indwelling presence. Itís not that the Holy Spirit merely points out certain commands and then empowers us to keep them (although He can do that as well). Rather itís that, as God Himself, the Holy Spirit is the Law in the ultimate sense. Because God is within us, so is His Law. Through Jesus Christ we have been given the gift of a New Birth. This is a literal act of God, not some metaphor. Our newly regenerate spirit is now able to commune with Godís Spirit. Our being is mysteriously united with the being of God. As such our life is intrinsically linked to and transformed by the Law in the ultimate sense, in the sense of being linked to and transformed by God Himself in the most intimate of ways. I suppose a few people might be saying ìDuh! You just got that?î I admit Iím sometimes slow to pick up on some of these finer points, but I sure find the concept beautiful. With this understanding I can finally say, along with David, ìYour law is my delightî. Chris | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1260 Registered: 7-2003 |
River, Although we cannot presume to judge the salvation of any individual, we are called to judge between Truth and falsehood. We are called to stand for the Gospel of Christ and to oppose other so-called ìgospelsî that corrupt the true Gospel. Is there spiritual danger to people trapped in bondage in false religious systems? Absolutely! Is it possible that some within those false systems have come to know the real Jesus of scripture and now have newly regenerated spirits? Yes, I think it is possible, but Iím not so sure we should just assume this is the case for most people who are inside a false system with a false gospel. This is what II Cor. 4:3-4 has to say about those who do not know the true Gospel of Christ: 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world [Satan] has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. If we really believe this passage, then we should have a great heart for reaching our loved ones who still have a veil in place. Chris | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 646 Registered: 9-2006 |
I can see why that was an Ah-ha moment to you Chris because when I read your post I had quite an ah-ha moment meself. I had never looked at it quite like that and it gave me a deeper insight that is most welcome. If you get any other ah-ha moments like that be sure and puttim up here and then we can all have a ah-ha moment.aaahhhh-hhaaa. River | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1261 Registered: 7-2003 |
Perhaps one note of clarification would be in order. It is my sincere hope that my rambling post above does not sound as if I am minimizing the Law of Christ or putting it on the same level as the Mosaic Law. Just as I believe that Jesus Christ is the greatest revelation of God I also believe that the Law of Christ is the greatest revelation of God's ultimate transcendent law. Perhaps I will leave it there for now. I have been developing a diagram that I think will be helpful for visualizing this which I will integrate into a future chapter of our study. The main things I wanted to emphasize above is that I think we sometimes fail to comprehend just how high, holy, and transcendent the law of God is and from whence it comes. Because of this we under appreciate the significance of God the Spirit dwelling within us. We also tend to under appreciate the reality and the significance of the New Birth. Having God's Law within us goes so far beyond simply transferring a few commands from one place to another. The implications of having the Holy Righteous God of the universe dwell within us boggles the mind and causes us to rejoice in the grace of Christ and in His Holy Law. I can say ìI love your Lawî with no hint of idolatry because ultimately the reality of the Law is found in a person, the person of Jesus. This is true whether we are speaking of Mosaic Law or the higher Law of Christ. Itís all about Him. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5630 Registered: 12-2003 |
Chris, you stated that so clearly. I have also concluded exactly what you explained, and it is so astonishing that it's hard to find words for it. Like you and Doc, I have also come to see the major ideas of Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism to be incomplete and, in some ways, outright erroneous. Neither of those theologies sees the Lord Jesus as the absolute, last, complete fulfilment of everything foretold in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44). Neither of them correctly identifies Jesus Himself as the actual essence of the new covenant and of the law itself. I so agree: the New Testament is a clear guideline for people's lives; it is NOT the "Law of Christ". Jesus Himselfóthe entire TrinityóIS the law. When the Holy Spirit gives us new birth by indwelling us and bringing our dead spirits to life, the LAW HIMSELF resides in us. He HIMSELF is the law written on our hearts. With the Eternal God literally (not metaphroically) living in us, it is an insult to claim we must have a written external law to guide us. God Himself will do a MUCH better job of convicting us of sin and sinful attitudes and godly living than our contemplation of ANY written code would ever be able to do. That is not to say we can thrive without knowing His word. He teaches us by His indwelling Spirit through His own words in Scripture. The Bible in isolation is just a book with a great Author. After all, look at what so many false prophets and teachers throughout the centuries have done with it! But when we read the Bible and humble ourselves before the Eternal God, He will teach us things that can never be known by cognitive analysis. When we are born from above, we literally have the mind of Christ indwelling us, teaching us, correcting us, disciplining us. God IS the Living, eternal Law, and that Law resides in us in the person of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the complete fulfilment of everything. All God's promises are "Yes" in Jesus (2 Cor 1:20)! Colleen |
