God's Wrath On All Mankind For Breaking His Law. The Courtroom Setting
Paul states "all flesh" is under God's wrath for breaking his law [Rom 2:19; Gal 3].
In [Rom 1:18-3;19] we have one section. The Gentile world going back to creation (antediluvians).up until Paul's day, telling us all will be judged on their performance in keeping the law [Rom 2:14f]. Not perfect in thought, word and deed, only God's wrath awaited them at the Parousia along with the Jews of [Rom 2]. This going back to creation shows a worldwide judgment on "all sons of disobedience" to disobey the goapel [Rom 1:18,32; 2:4; Eph 4-6; Col 3]
In [Rom 3:9] we see both Jew and Greek (non-Israelite) by definition. are ALL charged under sin. This is [Rom 3:19] where all appear before God's judgment seat and their mouths are "shut up" as ALL have broken the law [cf. Rom 14; 2 Cor 5:10; Phil 2:5-11].
The word "charge" in [Rom 3:9] is a strong judicial (judgment) term where true charges are brought against someone in law. BUT. Jesus Christ was "condemned" in the flesh [Rom 8:1,3; 33-34 cf. Gal 3:10-14]. Jesus is our "substitute" Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Taken God's wrath in our stead for breaking his law as becoming a "propitiation" [Rom 3:25; 1 Jn 2:1]
The word "charge" in [Rom 3:9] is a strong judicial (judgment) term where true charges are brought against someone in law. BUT. Jesus Christ was "condemned" in the flesh [Rom 8:1,3; 33-34 cf. Gal 3:10-14]. Jesus is our "substitute" ''Penal Substitutionary Atonement''. Taken God's wrath in our stead for breaking his law as becoming a "propitiation" [Rom 3:25; 1 Jn 2:1]
And also kept the law perfectly in the place for mankind [Rom 8:4] meaning that Jesus died in my place doesn't mean I am just "innocent" before God, but because of Christ's "active obedience" in keeping the law is also imputed (credited to our account, so when God looks at us we are not only just innocent but accepted as perfectly righteous. Justify (dikaoo)""to forgive one's sins, declare, accepted as righteous.' God doesn't see person as a filthy sinner anymore when they receive the "free gift" [Rom 3:34; 5:12-21] but perfectly righteous as if we kept the law perfectly in thought word and deed.
Thursday, December 27, 2018
Thursday, December 20, 2018
An Overlooked Problematic Passage For Full Preterism [1 Cor 6:13-14]
An Overlooked Problematic Passage For Full Preterism [1 Cor 6:13-14]
Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. Now God has not only raised the Lord but will also raise us up through His power. (1 Cor 6:13-14) (NASB)
This passage is one I noticed years ago which seems pretty straightforward when it comes to the nature of the resurrection if one has no presuppositions and are doing exegesis instead of "theology." The same body that is not for "immorality" (or fornication) is the same body that will be raised. As we go on in the chapter it is even clearer that Paul isn't speaking of some "corporate body."
Paul in the previous chapter, 1 Cor 5 is dealing with sexual immorality within the church. A man has taken his Father's wife. That is literal sexual immortality, same as 1 Cor 6:9-10. So sandwiched in between 1 Cor 5 and 1 cor 6::9-10 which both speak of LITERAL PHYSICAL sexual immorality we have Cor 6:13-15 saying flee sexual immorality! No guesswork involved. (Unless you have a previous theology like Covenant Eschatology)
In vs. 18 Paul states, "Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body." (NASB) Again it doesn't take a very deep bible student to see that Paul is speaking of the believer's physical body. I could take the time and do a deeper exegesis but this should suffice.
Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. Now God has not only raised the Lord but will also raise us up through His power. (1 Cor 6:13-14) (NASB)
This passage is one I noticed years ago which seems pretty straightforward when it comes to the nature of the resurrection if one has no presuppositions and are doing exegesis instead of "theology." The same body that is not for "immorality" (or fornication) is the same body that will be raised. As we go on in the chapter it is even clearer that Paul isn't speaking of some "corporate body."
Paul in the previous chapter, 1 Cor 5 is dealing with sexual immorality within the church. A man has taken his Father's wife. That is literal sexual immortality, same as 1 Cor 6:9-10. So sandwiched in between 1 Cor 5 and 1 cor 6::9-10 which both speak of LITERAL PHYSICAL sexual immorality we have Cor 6:13-15 saying flee sexual immorality! No guesswork involved. (Unless you have a previous theology like Covenant Eschatology)
In vs. 18 Paul states, "Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body." (NASB) Again it doesn't take a very deep bible student to see that Paul is speaking of the believer's physical body. I could take the time and do a deeper exegesis but this should suffice.
A Thumbnail Sketch On The Doctrine Of Justification
[Was asked by someone if I could break down the doctrine of Justification succinctly]
A Thumbnail Sketch On The Doctrine Of Justification
The Doctrine of Justification in a nutshell. First the meaning of "justify" or "justified" is to declare, accept as righteous & all our sins forgiven. All mankind is under God's wrath for breaking His law [Rom 1:18-3:19]. As Paul states in [Rom 5:9]; "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."
Jesus took our sins and deserved wrath in our place on the cross. He also kept the law perfectly in thought, word, and deed. This is Christ's righteousness which is imputed {credited) to our account. His doing and dying in our place is imputed to us, and our sins are imputed to Christ.
By holding out the empty hand of faith, and receiving the "free gift" of justification [Rom 3:24; 5:12-19] we become justified and looked upon as perfectly righteous in God's eyes as we are clothed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
Faith is only the instrumental cause in our justification, that like a beggar accepts the free gift of justification. But this faith is saving faith, not the dead kind James speaks about [Jas 2:14-24]/
To be justified is to be saved from God's wrath, and to experience salvation. And as a result, we become adopted children of God, as part of the covenant family of God [Rom 4; Gal 3-4] and United to Christ with full assurance of salvation as a new believing Christians, as God actively looks upon us as righteous [Rom 5:1-11] (Present Active Indicative).
This is the glorious gospel of Grace. And as we lay our heads down tonight, we be can be assured that we have eternal life because of the merit's of Christ alone. Sola Fide (by faith alone).
A Thumbnail Sketch On The Doctrine Of Justification
The Doctrine of Justification in a nutshell. First the meaning of "justify" or "justified" is to declare, accept as righteous & all our sins forgiven. All mankind is under God's wrath for breaking His law [Rom 1:18-3:19]. As Paul states in [Rom 5:9]; "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."
Jesus took our sins and deserved wrath in our place on the cross. He also kept the law perfectly in thought, word, and deed. This is Christ's righteousness which is imputed {credited) to our account. His doing and dying in our place is imputed to us, and our sins are imputed to Christ.
By holding out the empty hand of faith, and receiving the "free gift" of justification [Rom 3:24; 5:12-19] we become justified and looked upon as perfectly righteous in God's eyes as we are clothed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
Faith is only the instrumental cause in our justification, that like a beggar accepts the free gift of justification. But this faith is saving faith, not the dead kind James speaks about [Jas 2:14-24]/
To be justified is to be saved from God's wrath, and to experience salvation. And as a result, we become adopted children of God, as part of the covenant family of God [Rom 4; Gal 3-4] and United to Christ with full assurance of salvation as a new believing Christians, as God actively looks upon us as righteous [Rom 5:1-11] (Present Active Indicative).
This is the glorious gospel of Grace. And as we lay our heads down tonight, we be can be assured that we have eternal life because of the merit's of Christ alone. Sola Fide (by faith alone).
Saturday, December 15, 2018
Legal Courtroom Scene & Deathblow To Past A.D. 70 Judgment [Rom 8:33-34]
Legal Courtroom Scene & Deathblow To Past A.D. 70 Judgment [Rom 8:33-34]
by Joel Sexton
[Rom 8:33-34]
Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. [Rom 8:33-34]
The passage under consideration is very destructive to Full Preterism, as was Mike Tyson was to the heavyweight division. This is mainly for two reasons. First. [Rom 8:33-34] is a highly eschatological context in Romans. And second, the courtroom language in the Greek has this as the future judgment brought into the here and now, into the justified sinner's life. In other words, if the judgment has taken place in the past in A.D. 70, then there can be no justification for sinners at this present moment. This is a FUTURE verdict of "not guilty" and "righteous" for the sake of the merits of Christ being brought into the here and now. There is no justification without this FUTURE judgment verdict! This text is even more damaging than [Rom 3:19-36; 5:9-10] which would be a parallel passage on the doctrine of justification
Our first point is the context. It must be remembered that eschatology is just coming into the forefront in chapter 8 of Romans. This is significant as Paul places the passage under consideration smack dab in the middle of it all.
In [Rom 8:10-11] Paul speaks of the resurrection of the Romans, "mortal bodies" by the same Spirit that raised Christ. Next, in vs 17, he speaks of them as "heirs" In [Rom 8:18-24] he talks of the "not yet" of adoption, glorification, recreation & resurrection. [Rom 8:29-30] Paul speaks of what the Reformed would call the "Golden chain of redemption" or as I prefer an "ordo solutis. In vs. 29 he mentions being "conformed to the image of His Son" as the goal of all salvation, which is glorification and resurrection. In vs 30, he mentions those who would be "glorified." Then we have our passage vss. 33-34. And finally in vs 38 after speaking of persecutions, tribulation etc. will not keep the elect from the love of God. Also in vs 38, he states, "nor things to come." Then, of course, we get into [Rom 9-11[ which of course is eschatological.
So very clearly and distinctly we see our present passage is an eschatological one, with our second point laying the hammer down.
At this juncture, we will hit on our second reason for why this text is a savage against Full Preterist by examining it grammatically. We will quote the Greek scholar's and lexicon to first establish the courtroom language behind the greek which is also apparent in the English translation
A.T. Robertson states,
Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? (τις εγκαλεσε κατα εκλεκτωνθεου?). Future active indicative of εγκαλεω, old verb, to come forward as accuser (forensic term) in a case in court, to impeach, as in Ac 19:40; 23:29; 26: 2, the only N.T. examples. Satan is the great Accuser of the brethren.accordingto his plan for justification ( 3:21-31). The Accuser must face the Judge with his charges. ]Rom 8:34]
Shall condemn (κατακρινων). Can be either present active participle (condemns) or the future (shall condemn). It is a bold accuser who can face God with false charges or with true ones for that matter for we have an "Advocate" at God's Court (1Jo 2:1 ), "who is at the right hand of God" (ος εστιν εν δεξια του θεου) "who also maketh intercession for us" (οςκα εντυγχανε υπερ ημων) [15]
Robinson in his greek English lexicon states; to call in, i. e. to demand; in N. T. to call in question, i.e. to accuse, arraign, bring a charge against, foil, [16]
Gerald R. Cragg in his commentary on Romans,
In this passage we have 1) the "accuser'' or the one bringing "a charge" against "God's elect." We also have 2) the accused party, "the elect" believer, 3)the Judge, God who is the "one who justifies." 4) And finally, we have a lawyer present. Our High Priest making intercession with the blood of His atonement. We have a similar passage in 1 Jn 2:1-2.
Condemn means to establish or prove guilt, not merely affirm it. [16]
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. [1 Jn 2:1-2]
N.T. Wright from his massive commentary on Romans concerning our present text;
"Whatever we think about that, with vv33-34 we are back to the lawcourt, as in the middle of chapter 3. In 2:1-16 the whole family faced the judgment of God: in 3:19-20 the whole world was on the dock, with no defense to offer against massive changes. Now we look around for possible accusers and find none. Any that may appear have to face that fact that God, the judge, is the justifier, in other words, that the verdict has already been pronounced by the judge whose righteousness has been fully displayed, And that verdict - that those in the Messian, marked, out by faith, are already seen as " righteous''' even ahead of the final vindication- is precisely what the law court dimension of ''justification'' is all about. We should note at this point Paul is once again speaking of the final day of judgment, as in 2:1-16 and 8:1. As he looks ahead to the future moment, he puts his confidence in the past event of justification and hence the present standing of God's people that results from it, knowing that God "those that God justified, God also glorified" The logic of justification comes full circle [17]
Robert Mounce, in his standard work on Romans, states the following,
The Greek word for charge "egkaleō" {to bring a charge) is a legal technical term for bringing a charge against someone in the court of law (BAGD, 215). Used here in the future tense it points to the final judgment. [18]
Greek scholar and apologist Dr. James R. White has written this generation's most important work on the doctrine of justification in, "The God Who Justifies." Dr. White also beside the above also shows the power of the Greek text in [Rom 8:33-34]
The phrase "bring a charge" (ἐγκαλέω0) is a legal term. It is used in numerous ancient texts in this very context. At this point, Paul put this conversation squarely in the court of law. To bring a charge against God's elect is to engage in formal legal proceedings. Paul's question is rhetorical, meant to indicate the impossibility of the proposed action [19]
Notes
[1] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures, pg 1200
[2] George Bell, London, 186 Flet Street, 1851, Dr. Robinson's Greek Lexicon To New Testament Lexicon, pg. 116
[3] Gerald R. Cragg, Romans, pg 529, The Interpreter's Bible Commentary, Vol. IX, Abingdon Press, New York, 1954
[4] The New Interpreter's Bible Commentary, Copyright 2015, Abingdon Press. vol ix, Romans, N.T. Wright, pgs. 520-521
[5] The New American Commentary, Vol. 27, Romans, Robert H. Mounce, 1995, B & H Publishing Group, pg. 190
[6] The God Who Justifies, The Doctrine Of Justification, Dr. James R, White, pg 249, Bethany House, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Copyright 2001
by Joel Sexton
[Rom 8:33-34]
Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. [Rom 8:33-34]
The passage under consideration is very destructive to Full Preterism, as was Mike Tyson was to the heavyweight division. This is mainly for two reasons. First. [Rom 8:33-34] is a highly eschatological context in Romans. And second, the courtroom language in the Greek has this as the future judgment brought into the here and now, into the justified sinner's life. In other words, if the judgment has taken place in the past in A.D. 70, then there can be no justification for sinners at this present moment. This is a FUTURE verdict of "not guilty" and "righteous" for the sake of the merits of Christ being brought into the here and now. There is no justification without this FUTURE judgment verdict! This text is even more damaging than [Rom 3:19-36; 5:9-10] which would be a parallel passage on the doctrine of justification
Our first point is the context. It must be remembered that eschatology is just coming into the forefront in chapter 8 of Romans. This is significant as Paul places the passage under consideration smack dab in the middle of it all.
In [Rom 8:10-11] Paul speaks of the resurrection of the Romans, "mortal bodies" by the same Spirit that raised Christ. Next, in vs 17, he speaks of them as "heirs" In [Rom 8:18-24] he talks of the "not yet" of adoption, glorification, recreation & resurrection. [Rom 8:29-30] Paul speaks of what the Reformed would call the "Golden chain of redemption" or as I prefer an "ordo solutis. In vs. 29 he mentions being "conformed to the image of His Son" as the goal of all salvation, which is glorification and resurrection. In vs 30, he mentions those who would be "glorified." Then we have our passage vss. 33-34. And finally in vs 38 after speaking of persecutions, tribulation etc. will not keep the elect from the love of God. Also in vs 38, he states, "nor things to come." Then, of course, we get into [Rom 9-11[ which of course is eschatological.
So very clearly and distinctly we see our present passage is an eschatological one, with our second point laying the hammer down.
At this juncture, we will hit on our second reason for why this text is a savage against Full Preterist by examining it grammatically. We will quote the Greek scholar's and lexicon to first establish the courtroom language behind the greek which is also apparent in the English translation
A.T. Robertson states,
Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? (τις εγκαλεσε κατα εκλεκτωνθεου?). Future active indicative of εγκαλεω, old verb, to come forward as accuser (forensic term) in a case in court, to impeach, as in Ac 19:40; 23:29; 26: 2, the only N.T. examples. Satan is the great Accuser of the brethren.accordingto his plan for justification ( 3:21-31). The Accuser must face the Judge with his charges. ]Rom 8:34]
Shall condemn (κατακρινων). Can be either present active participle (condemns) or the future (shall condemn). It is a bold accuser who can face God with false charges or with true ones for that matter for we have an "Advocate" at God's Court (1Jo 2:1 ), "who is at the right hand of God" (ος εστιν εν δεξια του θεου) "who also maketh intercession for us" (οςκα εντυγχανε υπερ ημων) [15]
Robinson in his greek English lexicon states; to call in, i. e. to demand; in N. T. to call in question, i.e. to accuse, arraign, bring a charge against, foil, [16]
Gerald R. Cragg in his commentary on Romans,
In this passage we have 1) the "accuser'' or the one bringing "a charge" against "God's elect." We also have 2) the accused party, "the elect" believer, 3)the Judge, God who is the "one who justifies." 4) And finally, we have a lawyer present. Our High Priest making intercession with the blood of His atonement. We have a similar passage in 1 Jn 2:1-2.
Condemn means to establish or prove guilt, not merely affirm it. [16]
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. [1 Jn 2:1-2]
N.T. Wright from his massive commentary on Romans concerning our present text;
"Whatever we think about that, with vv33-34 we are back to the lawcourt, as in the middle of chapter 3. In 2:1-16 the whole family faced the judgment of God: in 3:19-20 the whole world was on the dock, with no defense to offer against massive changes. Now we look around for possible accusers and find none. Any that may appear have to face that fact that God, the judge, is the justifier, in other words, that the verdict has already been pronounced by the judge whose righteousness has been fully displayed, And that verdict - that those in the Messian, marked, out by faith, are already seen as " righteous''' even ahead of the final vindication- is precisely what the law court dimension of ''justification'' is all about. We should note at this point Paul is once again speaking of the final day of judgment, as in 2:1-16 and 8:1. As he looks ahead to the future moment, he puts his confidence in the past event of justification and hence the present standing of God's people that results from it, knowing that God "those that God justified, God also glorified" The logic of justification comes full circle [17]
Robert Mounce, in his standard work on Romans, states the following,
The Greek word for charge "egkaleō" {to bring a charge) is a legal technical term for bringing a charge against someone in the court of law (BAGD, 215). Used here in the future tense it points to the final judgment. [18]
Greek scholar and apologist Dr. James R. White has written this generation's most important work on the doctrine of justification in, "The God Who Justifies." Dr. White also beside the above also shows the power of the Greek text in [Rom 8:33-34]
The phrase "bring a charge" (ἐγκαλέω0) is a legal term. It is used in numerous ancient texts in this very context. At this point, Paul put this conversation squarely in the court of law. To bring a charge against God's elect is to engage in formal legal proceedings. Paul's question is rhetorical, meant to indicate the impossibility of the proposed action [19]
Notes
[1] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures, pg 1200
[2] George Bell, London, 186 Flet Street, 1851, Dr. Robinson's Greek Lexicon To New Testament Lexicon, pg. 116
[3] Gerald R. Cragg, Romans, pg 529, The Interpreter's Bible Commentary, Vol. IX, Abingdon Press, New York, 1954
[4] The New Interpreter's Bible Commentary, Copyright 2015, Abingdon Press. vol ix, Romans, N.T. Wright, pgs. 520-521
[5] The New American Commentary, Vol. 27, Romans, Robert H. Mounce, 1995, B & H Publishing Group, pg. 190
[6] The God Who Justifies, The Doctrine Of Justification, Dr. James R, White, pg 249, Bethany House, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Copyright 2001
Soteriological Implications Of Full Preterism In A Nutshell
The act of justification is God bringing a FUTURE judgment into the here and now into the believing sinner's life. No future verdict of "pronounced righteous "justified" (dikaioo) no justification, i.e. salvation today! [Rom 3:19-26] It's as simple as that, but get's even worse. In [Rom 5:1-4] Paul stated the one who is now justified can "exhalt in the glory of God." This is [Rom 8:18-24] the resurrection. So no justification today= no resurrection. Also in [Rom 5;9-11] Paul speaks of the justified one as escaping Gods "wrath" (orge). Now. If there is no justification, then there is no wrath to be saved from!And yet wrath would be poured out at the Parousia on ALL ungodly men, including the Gentiles! People. [Rom 1:18, 32; 2:4f]
Sunday, December 9, 2018
A Brief Survey Of Israel's Consummated Salvation In Matthew & Hebrews
A Brief Survey Of Israel's
Consummated Salvation In Matthew & Hebrews
In [Heb 12:18f] the Lord would "shake" again heaven and earth. Verse 25 gives the Hebrews a warning of those that failed in unbelief in the first exodus. The "heaven and earth" first represented the Covenant from Sinai. "Once more' is a reiteration of the warning given in [Heb 10:25f] of the believer's in Palestine to preserve as the Day of judgment is coming.
N.T. Wright states in His "Victory" work that "heaven and earth" represented the temple during the Second Temple Peroid. They have come "to Mount Zion" This is the consummation of the second exodus which the writer is comparing to the first. This of course is a major motif of the book [Heb 3:7-4:11; 10:25-39; 12:22; 13:10-14].They were also "receiving the kingdom" The timing of the kingdom according to Christ would be in the demise of Jerusalem [Lk 15-20; 21:31; Mtt 8:11-12;16:24-28; 21:33-44; 22:1-14] And yet the timing of Zion / Kingdom being restored is at the time of the resurrection and marriage [Isa 25:6-9]. And we see clearly the marriage would be "when the sons are cast out" at when the "city is burnt with fire" [Mtt 22:7b].
In [Mtt 8:11-12] we read, "I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; 12 but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Christ is alluding to the great Isaianic prophecies of the regathering of the faithful remnant and the Gentiles, (Body of Christ) into the land / Zion [Isa 2:2-4; 11:9-12; 27:9; 43; 49; etc.] Yet the "sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" [Mtt 8:12]. The sons being cast out into outer darkness in A.D. 70. [Mtt 22:13] states this would happen when the marriage ready was ready but judgment came to those who spurred the invitation, the Jews. This is Gehenna, the wrath of God and the same as the lake of fire.
So in [Mtt 8:11-12], we have the banquet, kingdom, second exodus, and the resurrection. How else would Abraham, Issac, and Jacob be in the kingdom without first being raised? In [Heb 11] Abraham and the rest of the O.T. saints would be resurrected into the "heavenly country!" [Isa 25:6-9] has Zion (the kingdom), banquet, second exodus, and the resurrection, This is [Mtt 8:11-12]. Also, it should be noted in using the analogy of scripture we see in [Mtt 22:1-14] when the marriage and kingdom would take place. At the burning of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 {Mtt 22:7]. There is no mysteries 2000 year gap between Mtt 22:7-8. After the burning of the city THEN ...the wedding is ready. Also, it should be noted you don't invite guests to a wedding that is not ALREADY "prepared!" [Mtt 22:3-5}
It should also be noted that most scholars attribute [Gal 4:26 is Heb 12:22] (F.F. Bruce, R.T. France & Ben Witherton lll) Yet Gal 4:28-31 is the casting out of Hagar and Ishmael who represented the Jews of the earthly Jerusalem, which is a reference to A.D. 70.
If the restoration of Zion and the consummation of the Davidic Kingdom was in A.D. 70 as Hebrews attests to [Heb 10:25-39; 12:18f; 13:10], then this means ALL of the covenantal promises have been fulfilled, as they are not given out in piecemeal. For instance [Isa 25:6-9] has the second exodus, Zion's restoration, the marriage, and the resurrection. Since above we briefly showed the first three were fulfilled than by necessity the resurrection took place at the fall of Jerusalem. Again, it is imperative to understand this fact. If just one promise is consummated at the Parousia then all are. They are not broken up in piecemeal.
Consummated Salvation In Matthew & Hebrews
In [Heb 12:18f] the Lord would "shake" again heaven and earth. Verse 25 gives the Hebrews a warning of those that failed in unbelief in the first exodus. The "heaven and earth" first represented the Covenant from Sinai. "Once more' is a reiteration of the warning given in [Heb 10:25f] of the believer's in Palestine to preserve as the Day of judgment is coming.
N.T. Wright states in His "Victory" work that "heaven and earth" represented the temple during the Second Temple Peroid. They have come "to Mount Zion" This is the consummation of the second exodus which the writer is comparing to the first. This of course is a major motif of the book [Heb 3:7-4:11; 10:25-39; 12:22; 13:10-14].They were also "receiving the kingdom" The timing of the kingdom according to Christ would be in the demise of Jerusalem [Lk 15-20; 21:31; Mtt 8:11-12;16:24-28; 21:33-44; 22:1-14] And yet the timing of Zion / Kingdom being restored is at the time of the resurrection and marriage [Isa 25:6-9]. And we see clearly the marriage would be "when the sons are cast out" at when the "city is burnt with fire" [Mtt 22:7b].
In [Mtt 8:11-12] we read, "I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; 12 but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Christ is alluding to the great Isaianic prophecies of the regathering of the faithful remnant and the Gentiles, (Body of Christ) into the land / Zion [Isa 2:2-4; 11:9-12; 27:9; 43; 49; etc.] Yet the "sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" [Mtt 8:12]. The sons being cast out into outer darkness in A.D. 70. [Mtt 22:13] states this would happen when the marriage ready was ready but judgment came to those who spurred the invitation, the Jews. This is Gehenna, the wrath of God and the same as the lake of fire.
So in [Mtt 8:11-12], we have the banquet, kingdom, second exodus, and the resurrection. How else would Abraham, Issac, and Jacob be in the kingdom without first being raised? In [Heb 11] Abraham and the rest of the O.T. saints would be resurrected into the "heavenly country!" [Isa 25:6-9] has Zion (the kingdom), banquet, second exodus, and the resurrection, This is [Mtt 8:11-12]. Also, it should be noted in using the analogy of scripture we see in [Mtt 22:1-14] when the marriage and kingdom would take place. At the burning of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 {Mtt 22:7]. There is no mysteries 2000 year gap between Mtt 22:7-8. After the burning of the city THEN ...the wedding is ready. Also, it should be noted you don't invite guests to a wedding that is not ALREADY "prepared!" [Mtt 22:3-5}
It should also be noted that most scholars attribute [Gal 4:26 is Heb 12:22] (F.F. Bruce, R.T. France & Ben Witherton lll) Yet Gal 4:28-31 is the casting out of Hagar and Ishmael who represented the Jews of the earthly Jerusalem, which is a reference to A.D. 70.
If the restoration of Zion and the consummation of the Davidic Kingdom was in A.D. 70 as Hebrews attests to [Heb 10:25-39; 12:18f; 13:10], then this means ALL of the covenantal promises have been fulfilled, as they are not given out in piecemeal. For instance [Isa 25:6-9] has the second exodus, Zion's restoration, the marriage, and the resurrection. Since above we briefly showed the first three were fulfilled than by necessity the resurrection took place at the fall of Jerusalem. Again, it is imperative to understand this fact. If just one promise is consummated at the Parousia then all are. They are not broken up in piecemeal.
Monday, December 3, 2018
A Response To Joel McDurmon Concerning [Heb 8:10] And Utter Silence On His Part To Interact With My Article
A Response To Joel McDurmon Concerning [Heb 8:10]
And Utter Silence On His Part To Interact With My Article
by Joel Sexton
“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, And I will write them on their hearts. And I will be their God, And they shall be My people.'' [Heb 8:10]
I originally posted a concise article pointing out my understanding of the relationship of Torah to the believer. Joel McDurmon asked for my opinion concerning [Heb 8:10] while not even attempting any type of interaction of my article. But going on 24 plus hrs no sleep and McDurmon ignoring my piece and says answer me, answer me! (If I miss anything just point it out. Half asleep. I won't be like McDurmon and purposely ignore everything stated)
Outline
A. Summary of [Heb 8:1-1:18]
B. Christ Not Of The Tribe Of Levi. There Was A Change In The Law [Heb 7-8]
C. [Jer 31:31] Doesn't Help McDurmon One Bit!
D. Paul's Apologetic Of Israel's Fulfilment [2 Cor 2-7]
1. 2 Cor 3:1-5
2. Cor 3:6-11 cf. Eze 11; 36:26-27
3. OC / NC Chart Comparison Of 2 Cor 3:6-11
4. 2 Cor 5:17-Isa 43:18 / 2 Cor 5:21 cf. 3:9 / 2 Cor 6:2 cf. Isa 49:8f
5. 2 Cor 6:16 cf. Eze 37:26-27
6. Isa 52:11 cf. 2 Cor 6:17
7. 2 Cor 6:17 cf. Jer 31:9
8. 2 Cor 6:18 cf. 2 Sam 7:14
E. The Covenant's & Promises Are Not Giving Out In Piecemeal! Commensed & Consummated
F. The Second Exodus [cf.Isa 43; 49; 52; Jer 30-31; Eze 36-37
A. Summary of [Heb 8:1-1:18]
[Heb 8-10:18] could be the meatiest part of the book of Hebrews. In [Heb 5-10] but especially here in [Heb 8-10:18] we have the Day of Atonement at the forefront. In [Heb 8] we see Christ as the true High Priest ministering a much better and new covenant sealed in His blood. We also see a remarkable fulfillment of [Ps 110:4; Zech 6:12-13] where Christ is enthroned on David's seat as King and Priest! Also here with [Heb 10], we see the covenant's contrasted. In [Heb 9:1-10] we see the "outer court" which represented the Holy Place and Old Covenant. While in [Heb 9:11f] we see a "But." A shift in the positive. Now because of the work of Christ we can enter the "inner court" the Most Holy Place which symbolized the New Covenant which Christ was a minister of [Heb 8:6]. In [Heb 10] we find of course the Day of Atonement along with more fulfilled prophecy on Christ's part as the seed of David and ratifying the New Covenant. And of course, we see the Gospel of grace beautifully propounded in [Heb 9:15; 10:10-14].
Now to our text. It first should be pointed out that in [Jer 7:21-24] we have the same language used in the warning by the prophet of the coming captivities and siege B.C. 605-586.
"Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, “Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat flesh. 22 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 and sacrifices. 23 But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.’ 24 Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward and not forward."
Like so many times in the prophets (especially northern & Christ) we see a contrast of what Yahweh really wants compared to the temple cult. An obedience of love in response to Yahweh's faithfulness in the first exodus.
Yahweh would put his Torah in their minds and hearts. The question is, is this the Torah given at Sinai? Or a refurbished Torah under the New Covenant?
B. Christ Not Of The Tribe Of Levi. There Was A Change In The Law [Heb 7-8]
In the same chapter [Heb 8:4-5] reads, "Now if He was on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.”
According to Torah Christ could not be a priest on earth as they "offer gifts according to the law.." vs 4b In [Heb 7] we see this more explicitly brought out.
"Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. 13 For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests." [Heb 7:11-14]
So according to [Heb 7-8] we see clearly by the letter of the law Jesus could not act as our High Priest, but this changes with Him having an ordained priesthood after Melchizedek. There "has been a change in the law" to accommodate the superior priesthood of Christ.
Jesus is Priest & King, enthroned on David's seat in the heavenly Zion. What once was physical has become spiritual. The "law'; (Torah) of [Jer 30-34; Eze 34; 36-37] interpreted by the N.T. writer's via the power of the Holy Spirit have the last say. (More on this below with Ezek 36-37 which Joel McDurmon ignored from my piece).
C. [Jer 31:31] Doesn't Help McDurmon One Bit!
Now [Jer 31:33] of [Heb 8:10] is found within [Jer 30-34]. In [Jer 30] we see BOTH "Jacob's trouble (tribulation) and her restoration to Zion / Land in the same chapter. As a matter of fact [Jer 30:22 is verbatim of Jer 31:33, but Jer 30 is Israel's salvation and judgment. Joel, is the "time of Jacob's trouble referring to A.D. 70? If not why not? And if so, does not this suggest that both houses restoration takes place at her judgment, which is not an uncommon prophetic theme (cf.Deut 28-34; Isa 2-4:6; 65-66; Joel 2:1-11, 11-21; Mal 3-4).
We also see this theme of salvation and judgment of Israel at the Parousia in the teaching of John [Mtt 3:3f], Christ [Mtt 13; 21:33-43; 22:1-14; 24:29-31; Lk 15-21] & Paul [2 Thess 1:4-10; Gal 4:21-31].
Back to Jeremiah. Let's compare to Paul's usage of [Jer 31:9; Eze 36-37] in [2 Cor 2-7]
I have written a 20-page article on Paul' apologetic in 2 Cor 2-7,
"Paul's Apologetic & Fulfillment of the Abrahamic, Davidic, & New Covenants: An Exposition of [2 Cor 2-7]"
https://justifiedpreterist.blogspot.com/search?q=2+cor+2-7
Some Judaizers it might have been casting doubts on Paul's ministry [ 2 Cor 2; 10 etc.] stating he was weak in appearance, speech and was ministering for money. Paul alludes, echoes and quotes purposely and carefully 'Six Power Packed Passages"being [2 Sam 7:14; Isa 43, Isa 49; 52; Jer 31; Eze 36-37]. These are purposeful, forthright and a demonstration that the promises were being fulfilled under his ministry.[2 Sam 7:14] we have the Davidic Kingdom. [Isa 43:19] is quoted in [2 Cor 5:17] in speaking of the new creation and the second exodus. [Isa 49], the second exodus. [Isa 52] Zion restored. [Jer 31; Eze 36-37] the new covenant.
1. 2 Cor 3:1-5
First, in vs. 1-6 Paul in challenging the Corinthians as to who was honest and forthright with them. The false teachers or Paul. He states he doesn't need to go to Jerusalem for proper letter's as the false teachers may have been asserting, as the church is Paul's letter written on his heart (more on this theme). In vs. 3 we see a contrast between "ink" and "tablet's of stone" with "tablet's of the human heart"
2. Cor 3:6-11 cf. Eze 11; 36:26-27
Who also 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.7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. 10 For indeed what had glory, in this case, has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.
In case you missed it there is a strong contrast between the two glories / covenants.
3. OC / NC Chart Comparison Of 2 Cor 3:6-11
Old Covenant New Covenant
1) Decalogue / Letter (with glory vs. 7) 1) Ministry Of Spirit / NC (more glory vs. 9)
2) Ministry Of Condemnation (had glory vs. 10) 2) Spirit / NC (abounds in glory vs. 9)
3) Letter (has no more glory vs. 10) 3) Spirit / NC (surpasses in glory vs. 10)
4) Letter / Ten Commandments (fades away vs 11) 4) NC (remains in glory vs 11)
5) Minister's of the New Covenant (vs. 6) 5)Not of the letter, it kills (vs. 6)
6) Spirit gives life (vs. 6) 6) Letter kills (vs. 6)
More could be found but enough time has been spent here. The picture is clear in contrasting the Covenant Paul was a minister compared to the Judaizers! Paul mentions the "letter kills" is directly tied into [Rom 7:1-6] which wasn't even looked at. Paul stated the law "slew him" and what he found to brought life only death. This is the job of the law. To break the sinner into receiving the "free gift" of righteousness and Justification in Jesus Christ. Paul in [Rom 7] states he has been delivered from the law to bring fruit unto life and not unto death. Can't be married to two husbands unless one dies. Cannot have Sinai and the New Covenant. And the one who dies isn;t the husband but the wife who "died to the law" [Rom 7:4; Gal 2:19]
2 Cor 5:17-Isa 43:18 / 2 Cor 5:21 cf. 3:9 / 2 Cor 6:2 cf. Isa 49:8f
Next in [2 Cor 5:17] we have an allusion to the new creation and consummation of the second exodus by Paul citing [Isa 43:18 cf. Isa 65-66].In [2 Cor 5;21] we see double imputation. the righteousness of Christ, which may have been alluded to by Paul earlier in speaking of the glory of the spirit and new covenant [2 Cor 3:9]. Next, we have Paul quoting verbatim [Isa 49:8] in [2 Cor 6:2], then quotes [Isa 49:8] which is the day of Israel and the salvation of the nations! Isa 49 is explosive, with so many themes and motifs running through it, including the second exodus back to the land.
2 Cor 6:16 cf. Eze 37:26-27
A very fascinating passage to be sure. Paul states the church at Corinth were the "temple of the living God of Eze 37! Amazing to say the least. All the covenants are almost touched upon.
Isa 52:11 cf. 2 Cor 6:17
Isa 52 is the time of the marriage and Zion being restored. And now finally to our last of seven power-packed promise passages.
2 Cor 6:17 cf. Jer 31:9
"Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. “And do not touch what is unclean, And I will welcome you. And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty."(2 Cor 6:17-18)
"With weeping, they will come, And by supplication, I will lead them; I will make them walk by streams of waters, On a straight path in which they will not stumble; For I am a father to Israel, And Ephraim is My firstborn.” (Jer 31:9)
Jer 30-33 is Israel's restoration under the new covenant. And like Paul in 2 Cor 3:7 quotes from Jer 31:31 when speaking of the new covenant of Eze 36. Same with Jer 30:22 we have seen being echoed by Paul when speaking of the new covenant. Jer 30:22; 31:9, 31:33-34 are not speaking of two restorations.
Paul knowing the Tanakh better than any of us knew where he was drawing from. Needless to say, Jeremiah 31 is another chapter with great promises and implications. In vs. 31-34 we find the promise of the new covenant to made with both houses, Israel and Judah which the Hebrew writer in Heb 8; 10 cites verbatim as proof for his argument against the cultus and Judaism of his day. Paul, already we have shown in 2 Cor 3 says he is a minister of "the new covenant" and is clearly drawing from Ezek 36-37 as we demonstrated above. So it is not a stretch to say that Paul is alluding to Jer 31, had the new covenant verses in mind. The first century Jew in quoting a verse from the Tanakh (Old Testament), was drawing the whole chapter to mind.
In Jer 30:18-24 we see Israel's restoration. Fulfilled in part when the few exiles did come back as all agree, but would be fulfilled in a greater scale at the Parousia. In vs. 22 we read,
"You shall be My people, And I will be your God.’' (Jer 30:22)
The reason we are quoting this passage is for two reasons, first, its the context of Jer 31:9, speaking also of Israel's restoration, second, Paul in vs. 16, right before 2 Cor 6:17 Paul quotes this very verse,
"Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them, And I will be their God, and they shall be My people."
This (Jer 30:22) is identical with Eze 37:27,
''My dwelling place also will be with them, and I will be their God, and they will be My people."And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.''
When we compare Jer 30-31 and Ezek 36-37 we see they speak of the same themes, motifs, and in general, Israel's restoration.
1.Both speak of Israel restored to the land (Jer 30:3, 10, 18; 31:8-11, 16-17; Ezek 36:24, 28; 37:1-14, 21-22)
2. Both speak of David as King (Jer 30:9; Ezek 37:22, 24-25)
3. Both speak of Zion restored (Jer 30:18; 31:2-7, 12-15, 23-26; Ezek 36:33-36)
4. Both speak of the second exodus (Jer 31:2-4, 7-9, 21; Ezek 36:24)
5. Both speak of the New Covenant (Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 36:25-27; 37:24-27)
6. Both speak of New Covenant written on the heart (Jer 31:33; Ezek 36:26)
7. Both speak of God being their God, and them His people (Jer 30:22; 31:1, 9; Ezek 36:28; 37:23)
8. Both speak of Israel and Judah reunited (Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 37: 15ff)
9. Both speak of the Messianic Temple (Jer 30:18; Ezek 37:24-27)
2 Cor 6:18 cf. 2 Sam 7:14
This is the Davidic Covenant. Yahweh swore three component's to this covenant as the Dispensationalist insists (and are right for doing so) but to their own demise (David's seat, kingdom, & house). Why is the Davidic Covenant being fulfilled during the church age? What happened to the second main pillar of dispensationalism that Israel and the church are totally distinct people with the church having nothing to do with God's promises!
To sum up [2 Cor 2-7] with [2 Cor 7:1].
"Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God."
PROMISES:
1)Land Promise
2)Second Exodus
3)Zion-Kingdom restored
4)Messianic Temple
5)Messiah seated on David's throne
6)The New Covenant
7)New Creation
ABRAHAMIC: 2 Cor 3:1-6-Ezek 36:24-26; 2 Cor 5:17-Isa 43:19; 2 Cor 6:1-2-Isa 49:8; 2 Cor 6:16-17-Isa 52:11-12; Jer 31:9
DAVIDIC: 2 Cor 6:16-Ezek 37:24-27; 2 Sam 7:14
NEW: 2 Cor 3:1-11- Ezek 11:19; Ezek 36:26-27; 2 Cor 6:16-17; Ezek 37:26-37
E. The Covenant's/ Promises Are Not Giving Out In Piecemeal! Commenced & Consummated
Anyone familiar with the Prophets and the N.T. inspired exegesis should understand when one promise or one entire covenant is fulfilled, all are at the same time. This is true for their commencement (The Already) and consummation (The Not Yet).
I will use [Isa 2-4:6] as an example. In [Isa 2:2-4] as in [Mic 4] (it is debated who wrote first and borrowed from whom), we see Zion fully restored with the nations streaming up to the Mount (non-literal) This is to take place ''in the last days."
When we see Zion and the Davidic kingdom restored we have TOTAL fulfillment of all the promises. This cannot be refuted. And yet in [Isa 2:12-3:26], we see judgment with salvation again returning to us in [Isa 4:1-6]
But what is fascinating is the N.T. usage of [Isa 2:10-21]. Quickly. Jesus being led up to be crucified predicted the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by quoting [Isa 2] in [Lk 23:28-31]. Nobody will argue this. In 2 Thess 1:4-10 (vs 9-10) we see Paul quoting from [Isa 2:10-21, in vindication of the then Jewish persecution. [2 Thess 1:4f] also has the language of [Isa 29-30] in the defeat of the 185,000 Assyrians. And yet Yahweh never came with flaming fire and smokes coming out of His nostrils. 2 Thessalonians is considered an "Apocalypse" by liberal and conservative commentator's. This Jewish persecution would end at their destruction, cast out [Cf. Mt 21:33-44; 22:13] and God glorifies His saints, i,e, resurrection in A.D. 701 In Rev 6 as R.H. Charles in Vol. 1 of his commentary on Revelation stated, that The first four seals and maybe the entire chapter is taken from Mtt 24. What we are concerned with is the answer of the prayer's of the martyrs under the altar (of incense, so close to the second certain to be in the presence of God) having their prayer answered (cf. Lk 11:49-51; 18:8) with the coming on the wicked of the Day of the Lord of Isa 2! These persecutors were trying to hide in the rocks and caves from the glory of the Lord. Then In [Rev 6:12-17], we have Isa 13:10 cited (same as Mtt 24:29) from the wrath of the lamb. [Mtt 24; Rev 6] are the same Second Coming.
Back to Isaiah. If Isa 2 is fulfiled, then by necessity [Isa 11:9-11; 25:6-9; 27; 35; 40-55; Jer 30-34; Eze 36-37; Hos 1-2] etc. And if all of these covenantal promise passages are fulfilled then ALL PROMISES have been consummated. A quick example. We established that Zion of Isa 2 is A.D. 70. But the Zion of [Isa 25] is the resurrection!
In his commentary on Ezekiel dispensational theologian Dr, Ralph H. Alexander states when Eze 37:26-27 would be fulfilled (see above. cf. 2 Cor 6:16}, then all of Israel's promises and covenants would be fulfilled. So if it can be shown that Paul interprets Ezekiel etc. as being fulfilled under his ministry, then this is proof according to Alexander that all of Israel's covenants and promises were being fulfilled in the first-century church. Alexander states,
"The Lord would enact his peace covenant (cf. 34:25-29) with Israel at the time of her restoration to the land when all her other covenants with God would be fulfilled (v. 26). Under this peace covenant, Israel would be established in her land, her numbers would increase (cf. Gen 22:17-18), and the Lord would place his sanctuary- his dwelling place-amoung his people forever (vv. 26-27; cf. 40:5-43:9). Then all nations would see that is was the Lord who made Israel holy. She would be set apart from all nation's like God's special possession. No other nation would have the Lord dwelling in its sanctuary uniquely in its midst as would Israel (v. 28; cf. ch 40-48). When all Israel's covenants had been consummated, then the Lord will enact his peace covenant with Israel. She will dwell in peace forever under the rule of her king, the Messiah (34:25-29; 37:26; cf. 38:11" [1]
F. The Second Exodus [cf.Isa 43; 49; 52; Jer 30-31; Eze 36-37]
Is it not difficult to find the second exodus motif in any of the above passages. And yet, according to the book of Hebrews (which I demonstrated at length previously) especially focuses in on the exodus but with a "40 year" time period compared to the first, which would be consummated at the judgment of Judea for persecuting the Jewish Christians in Palestine [Heb 3:7-4:11 cf. 10:25-29]. Even F.F. Bruce states that the second exodus of Heb 3-4 is the 40 years between A.D. 30-70 and the "Day approaching" of [Heb 10:25f] as the day of the Lord in A.D. 70! If only the great Bruce would see the train coming.
In Heb 12:22 They have come from one Mount (Sinai) and have arrived at Zion! This statement cannot be taken any other way then the second exodus being on the verge and horizon for these struggling believers in Christ.
All of the above are the second exodus, the land promise, including Heb 8, we see the blood of the bulls sprinkled on the book of the covenant, and people, while Christ enters the heavenly Jerusalem with His own blood. Why?
"For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. 12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. 13 So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach. 14 For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come." [Heb 11:11-14]
Notes
[1] The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 6, pgs. 927-928, Ezekiel-Ralph H. Alexander, (Zondervan, 1986).
And Utter Silence On His Part To Interact With My Article
by Joel Sexton
“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, And I will write them on their hearts. And I will be their God, And they shall be My people.'' [Heb 8:10]
I originally posted a concise article pointing out my understanding of the relationship of Torah to the believer. Joel McDurmon asked for my opinion concerning [Heb 8:10] while not even attempting any type of interaction of my article. But going on 24 plus hrs no sleep and McDurmon ignoring my piece and says answer me, answer me! (If I miss anything just point it out. Half asleep. I won't be like McDurmon and purposely ignore everything stated)
Outline
A. Summary of [Heb 8:1-1:18]
B. Christ Not Of The Tribe Of Levi. There Was A Change In The Law [Heb 7-8]
C. [Jer 31:31] Doesn't Help McDurmon One Bit!
D. Paul's Apologetic Of Israel's Fulfilment [2 Cor 2-7]
1. 2 Cor 3:1-5
2. Cor 3:6-11 cf. Eze 11; 36:26-27
3. OC / NC Chart Comparison Of 2 Cor 3:6-11
4. 2 Cor 5:17-Isa 43:18 / 2 Cor 5:21 cf. 3:9 / 2 Cor 6:2 cf. Isa 49:8f
5. 2 Cor 6:16 cf. Eze 37:26-27
6. Isa 52:11 cf. 2 Cor 6:17
7. 2 Cor 6:17 cf. Jer 31:9
8. 2 Cor 6:18 cf. 2 Sam 7:14
E. The Covenant's & Promises Are Not Giving Out In Piecemeal! Commensed & Consummated
F. The Second Exodus [cf.Isa 43; 49; 52; Jer 30-31; Eze 36-37
A. Summary of [Heb 8:1-1:18]
[Heb 8-10:18] could be the meatiest part of the book of Hebrews. In [Heb 5-10] but especially here in [Heb 8-10:18] we have the Day of Atonement at the forefront. In [Heb 8] we see Christ as the true High Priest ministering a much better and new covenant sealed in His blood. We also see a remarkable fulfillment of [Ps 110:4; Zech 6:12-13] where Christ is enthroned on David's seat as King and Priest! Also here with [Heb 10], we see the covenant's contrasted. In [Heb 9:1-10] we see the "outer court" which represented the Holy Place and Old Covenant. While in [Heb 9:11f] we see a "But." A shift in the positive. Now because of the work of Christ we can enter the "inner court" the Most Holy Place which symbolized the New Covenant which Christ was a minister of [Heb 8:6]. In [Heb 10] we find of course the Day of Atonement along with more fulfilled prophecy on Christ's part as the seed of David and ratifying the New Covenant. And of course, we see the Gospel of grace beautifully propounded in [Heb 9:15; 10:10-14].
Now to our text. It first should be pointed out that in [Jer 7:21-24] we have the same language used in the warning by the prophet of the coming captivities and siege B.C. 605-586.
"Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, “Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat flesh. 22 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 and sacrifices. 23 But this is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.’ 24 Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward and not forward."
Like so many times in the prophets (especially northern & Christ) we see a contrast of what Yahweh really wants compared to the temple cult. An obedience of love in response to Yahweh's faithfulness in the first exodus.
Yahweh would put his Torah in their minds and hearts. The question is, is this the Torah given at Sinai? Or a refurbished Torah under the New Covenant?
B. Christ Not Of The Tribe Of Levi. There Was A Change In The Law [Heb 7-8]
In the same chapter [Heb 8:4-5] reads, "Now if He was on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.”
According to Torah Christ could not be a priest on earth as they "offer gifts according to the law.." vs 4b In [Heb 7] we see this more explicitly brought out.
"Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. 13 For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests." [Heb 7:11-14]
So according to [Heb 7-8] we see clearly by the letter of the law Jesus could not act as our High Priest, but this changes with Him having an ordained priesthood after Melchizedek. There "has been a change in the law" to accommodate the superior priesthood of Christ.
Jesus is Priest & King, enthroned on David's seat in the heavenly Zion. What once was physical has become spiritual. The "law'; (Torah) of [Jer 30-34; Eze 34; 36-37] interpreted by the N.T. writer's via the power of the Holy Spirit have the last say. (More on this below with Ezek 36-37 which Joel McDurmon ignored from my piece).
C. [Jer 31:31] Doesn't Help McDurmon One Bit!
Now [Jer 31:33] of [Heb 8:10] is found within [Jer 30-34]. In [Jer 30] we see BOTH "Jacob's trouble (tribulation) and her restoration to Zion / Land in the same chapter. As a matter of fact [Jer 30:22 is verbatim of Jer 31:33, but Jer 30 is Israel's salvation and judgment. Joel, is the "time of Jacob's trouble referring to A.D. 70? If not why not? And if so, does not this suggest that both houses restoration takes place at her judgment, which is not an uncommon prophetic theme (cf.Deut 28-34; Isa 2-4:6; 65-66; Joel 2:1-11, 11-21; Mal 3-4).
We also see this theme of salvation and judgment of Israel at the Parousia in the teaching of John [Mtt 3:3f], Christ [Mtt 13; 21:33-43; 22:1-14; 24:29-31; Lk 15-21] & Paul [2 Thess 1:4-10; Gal 4:21-31].
Back to Jeremiah. Let's compare to Paul's usage of [Jer 31:9; Eze 36-37] in [2 Cor 2-7]
I have written a 20-page article on Paul' apologetic in 2 Cor 2-7,
"Paul's Apologetic & Fulfillment of the Abrahamic, Davidic, & New Covenants: An Exposition of [2 Cor 2-7]"
https://justifiedpreterist.blogspot.com/search?q=2+cor+2-7
Some Judaizers it might have been casting doubts on Paul's ministry [ 2 Cor 2; 10 etc.] stating he was weak in appearance, speech and was ministering for money. Paul alludes, echoes and quotes purposely and carefully 'Six Power Packed Passages"being [2 Sam 7:14; Isa 43, Isa 49; 52; Jer 31; Eze 36-37]. These are purposeful, forthright and a demonstration that the promises were being fulfilled under his ministry.[2 Sam 7:14] we have the Davidic Kingdom. [Isa 43:19] is quoted in [2 Cor 5:17] in speaking of the new creation and the second exodus. [Isa 49], the second exodus. [Isa 52] Zion restored. [Jer 31; Eze 36-37] the new covenant.
1. 2 Cor 3:1-5
First, in vs. 1-6 Paul in challenging the Corinthians as to who was honest and forthright with them. The false teachers or Paul. He states he doesn't need to go to Jerusalem for proper letter's as the false teachers may have been asserting, as the church is Paul's letter written on his heart (more on this theme). In vs. 3 we see a contrast between "ink" and "tablet's of stone" with "tablet's of the human heart"
2. Cor 3:6-11 cf. Eze 11; 36:26-27
Who also 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.7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. 10 For indeed what had glory, in this case, has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.
In case you missed it there is a strong contrast between the two glories / covenants.
3. OC / NC Chart Comparison Of 2 Cor 3:6-11
Old Covenant New Covenant
1) Decalogue / Letter (with glory vs. 7) 1) Ministry Of Spirit / NC (more glory vs. 9)
2) Ministry Of Condemnation (had glory vs. 10) 2) Spirit / NC (abounds in glory vs. 9)
3) Letter (has no more glory vs. 10) 3) Spirit / NC (surpasses in glory vs. 10)
4) Letter / Ten Commandments (fades away vs 11) 4) NC (remains in glory vs 11)
5) Minister's of the New Covenant (vs. 6) 5)Not of the letter, it kills (vs. 6)
6) Spirit gives life (vs. 6) 6) Letter kills (vs. 6)
More could be found but enough time has been spent here. The picture is clear in contrasting the Covenant Paul was a minister compared to the Judaizers! Paul mentions the "letter kills" is directly tied into [Rom 7:1-6] which wasn't even looked at. Paul stated the law "slew him" and what he found to brought life only death. This is the job of the law. To break the sinner into receiving the "free gift" of righteousness and Justification in Jesus Christ. Paul in [Rom 7] states he has been delivered from the law to bring fruit unto life and not unto death. Can't be married to two husbands unless one dies. Cannot have Sinai and the New Covenant. And the one who dies isn;t the husband but the wife who "died to the law" [Rom 7:4; Gal 2:19]
2 Cor 5:17-Isa 43:18 / 2 Cor 5:21 cf. 3:9 / 2 Cor 6:2 cf. Isa 49:8f
Next in [2 Cor 5:17] we have an allusion to the new creation and consummation of the second exodus by Paul citing [Isa 43:18 cf. Isa 65-66].In [2 Cor 5;21] we see double imputation. the righteousness of Christ, which may have been alluded to by Paul earlier in speaking of the glory of the spirit and new covenant [2 Cor 3:9]. Next, we have Paul quoting verbatim [Isa 49:8] in [2 Cor 6:2], then quotes [Isa 49:8] which is the day of Israel and the salvation of the nations! Isa 49 is explosive, with so many themes and motifs running through it, including the second exodus back to the land.
2 Cor 6:16 cf. Eze 37:26-27
A very fascinating passage to be sure. Paul states the church at Corinth were the "temple of the living God of Eze 37! Amazing to say the least. All the covenants are almost touched upon.
Isa 52:11 cf. 2 Cor 6:17
Isa 52 is the time of the marriage and Zion being restored. And now finally to our last of seven power-packed promise passages.
2 Cor 6:17 cf. Jer 31:9
"Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. “And do not touch what is unclean, And I will welcome you. And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty."(2 Cor 6:17-18)
"With weeping, they will come, And by supplication, I will lead them; I will make them walk by streams of waters, On a straight path in which they will not stumble; For I am a father to Israel, And Ephraim is My firstborn.” (Jer 31:9)
Jer 30-33 is Israel's restoration under the new covenant. And like Paul in 2 Cor 3:7 quotes from Jer 31:31 when speaking of the new covenant of Eze 36. Same with Jer 30:22 we have seen being echoed by Paul when speaking of the new covenant. Jer 30:22; 31:9, 31:33-34 are not speaking of two restorations.
Paul knowing the Tanakh better than any of us knew where he was drawing from. Needless to say, Jeremiah 31 is another chapter with great promises and implications. In vs. 31-34 we find the promise of the new covenant to made with both houses, Israel and Judah which the Hebrew writer in Heb 8; 10 cites verbatim as proof for his argument against the cultus and Judaism of his day. Paul, already we have shown in 2 Cor 3 says he is a minister of "the new covenant" and is clearly drawing from Ezek 36-37 as we demonstrated above. So it is not a stretch to say that Paul is alluding to Jer 31, had the new covenant verses in mind. The first century Jew in quoting a verse from the Tanakh (Old Testament), was drawing the whole chapter to mind.
In Jer 30:18-24 we see Israel's restoration. Fulfilled in part when the few exiles did come back as all agree, but would be fulfilled in a greater scale at the Parousia. In vs. 22 we read,
"You shall be My people, And I will be your God.’' (Jer 30:22)
The reason we are quoting this passage is for two reasons, first, its the context of Jer 31:9, speaking also of Israel's restoration, second, Paul in vs. 16, right before 2 Cor 6:17 Paul quotes this very verse,
"Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them, And I will be their God, and they shall be My people."
This (Jer 30:22) is identical with Eze 37:27,
''My dwelling place also will be with them, and I will be their God, and they will be My people."And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.''
When we compare Jer 30-31 and Ezek 36-37 we see they speak of the same themes, motifs, and in general, Israel's restoration.
1.Both speak of Israel restored to the land (Jer 30:3, 10, 18; 31:8-11, 16-17; Ezek 36:24, 28; 37:1-14, 21-22)
2. Both speak of David as King (Jer 30:9; Ezek 37:22, 24-25)
3. Both speak of Zion restored (Jer 30:18; 31:2-7, 12-15, 23-26; Ezek 36:33-36)
4. Both speak of the second exodus (Jer 31:2-4, 7-9, 21; Ezek 36:24)
5. Both speak of the New Covenant (Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 36:25-27; 37:24-27)
6. Both speak of New Covenant written on the heart (Jer 31:33; Ezek 36:26)
7. Both speak of God being their God, and them His people (Jer 30:22; 31:1, 9; Ezek 36:28; 37:23)
8. Both speak of Israel and Judah reunited (Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 37: 15ff)
9. Both speak of the Messianic Temple (Jer 30:18; Ezek 37:24-27)
2 Cor 6:18 cf. 2 Sam 7:14
This is the Davidic Covenant. Yahweh swore three component's to this covenant as the Dispensationalist insists (and are right for doing so) but to their own demise (David's seat, kingdom, & house). Why is the Davidic Covenant being fulfilled during the church age? What happened to the second main pillar of dispensationalism that Israel and the church are totally distinct people with the church having nothing to do with God's promises!
To sum up [2 Cor 2-7] with [2 Cor 7:1].
"Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God."
PROMISES:
1)Land Promise
2)Second Exodus
3)Zion-Kingdom restored
4)Messianic Temple
5)Messiah seated on David's throne
6)The New Covenant
7)New Creation
ABRAHAMIC: 2 Cor 3:1-6-Ezek 36:24-26; 2 Cor 5:17-Isa 43:19; 2 Cor 6:1-2-Isa 49:8; 2 Cor 6:16-17-Isa 52:11-12; Jer 31:9
DAVIDIC: 2 Cor 6:16-Ezek 37:24-27; 2 Sam 7:14
NEW: 2 Cor 3:1-11- Ezek 11:19; Ezek 36:26-27; 2 Cor 6:16-17; Ezek 37:26-37
E. The Covenant's/ Promises Are Not Giving Out In Piecemeal! Commenced & Consummated
Anyone familiar with the Prophets and the N.T. inspired exegesis should understand when one promise or one entire covenant is fulfilled, all are at the same time. This is true for their commencement (The Already) and consummation (The Not Yet).
I will use [Isa 2-4:6] as an example. In [Isa 2:2-4] as in [Mic 4] (it is debated who wrote first and borrowed from whom), we see Zion fully restored with the nations streaming up to the Mount (non-literal) This is to take place ''in the last days."
When we see Zion and the Davidic kingdom restored we have TOTAL fulfillment of all the promises. This cannot be refuted. And yet in [Isa 2:12-3:26], we see judgment with salvation again returning to us in [Isa 4:1-6]
But what is fascinating is the N.T. usage of [Isa 2:10-21]. Quickly. Jesus being led up to be crucified predicted the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by quoting [Isa 2] in [Lk 23:28-31]. Nobody will argue this. In 2 Thess 1:4-10 (vs 9-10) we see Paul quoting from [Isa 2:10-21, in vindication of the then Jewish persecution. [2 Thess 1:4f] also has the language of [Isa 29-30] in the defeat of the 185,000 Assyrians. And yet Yahweh never came with flaming fire and smokes coming out of His nostrils. 2 Thessalonians is considered an "Apocalypse" by liberal and conservative commentator's. This Jewish persecution would end at their destruction, cast out [Cf. Mt 21:33-44; 22:13] and God glorifies His saints, i,e, resurrection in A.D. 701 In Rev 6 as R.H. Charles in Vol. 1 of his commentary on Revelation stated, that The first four seals and maybe the entire chapter is taken from Mtt 24. What we are concerned with is the answer of the prayer's of the martyrs under the altar (of incense, so close to the second certain to be in the presence of God) having their prayer answered (cf. Lk 11:49-51; 18:8) with the coming on the wicked of the Day of the Lord of Isa 2! These persecutors were trying to hide in the rocks and caves from the glory of the Lord. Then In [Rev 6:12-17], we have Isa 13:10 cited (same as Mtt 24:29) from the wrath of the lamb. [Mtt 24; Rev 6] are the same Second Coming.
Back to Isaiah. If Isa 2 is fulfiled, then by necessity [Isa 11:9-11; 25:6-9; 27; 35; 40-55; Jer 30-34; Eze 36-37; Hos 1-2] etc. And if all of these covenantal promise passages are fulfilled then ALL PROMISES have been consummated. A quick example. We established that Zion of Isa 2 is A.D. 70. But the Zion of [Isa 25] is the resurrection!
In his commentary on Ezekiel dispensational theologian Dr, Ralph H. Alexander states when Eze 37:26-27 would be fulfilled (see above. cf. 2 Cor 6:16}, then all of Israel's promises and covenants would be fulfilled. So if it can be shown that Paul interprets Ezekiel etc. as being fulfilled under his ministry, then this is proof according to Alexander that all of Israel's covenants and promises were being fulfilled in the first-century church. Alexander states,
"The Lord would enact his peace covenant (cf. 34:25-29) with Israel at the time of her restoration to the land when all her other covenants with God would be fulfilled (v. 26). Under this peace covenant, Israel would be established in her land, her numbers would increase (cf. Gen 22:17-18), and the Lord would place his sanctuary- his dwelling place-amoung his people forever (vv. 26-27; cf. 40:5-43:9). Then all nations would see that is was the Lord who made Israel holy. She would be set apart from all nation's like God's special possession. No other nation would have the Lord dwelling in its sanctuary uniquely in its midst as would Israel (v. 28; cf. ch 40-48). When all Israel's covenants had been consummated, then the Lord will enact his peace covenant with Israel. She will dwell in peace forever under the rule of her king, the Messiah (34:25-29; 37:26; cf. 38:11" [1]
F. The Second Exodus [cf.Isa 43; 49; 52; Jer 30-31; Eze 36-37]
Is it not difficult to find the second exodus motif in any of the above passages. And yet, according to the book of Hebrews (which I demonstrated at length previously) especially focuses in on the exodus but with a "40 year" time period compared to the first, which would be consummated at the judgment of Judea for persecuting the Jewish Christians in Palestine [Heb 3:7-4:11 cf. 10:25-29]. Even F.F. Bruce states that the second exodus of Heb 3-4 is the 40 years between A.D. 30-70 and the "Day approaching" of [Heb 10:25f] as the day of the Lord in A.D. 70! If only the great Bruce would see the train coming.
In Heb 12:22 They have come from one Mount (Sinai) and have arrived at Zion! This statement cannot be taken any other way then the second exodus being on the verge and horizon for these struggling believers in Christ.
All of the above are the second exodus, the land promise, including Heb 8, we see the blood of the bulls sprinkled on the book of the covenant, and people, while Christ enters the heavenly Jerusalem with His own blood. Why?
"For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. 12 Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. 13 So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach. 14 For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come." [Heb 11:11-14]
Notes
[1] The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 6, pgs. 927-928, Ezekiel-Ralph H. Alexander, (Zondervan, 1986).
Sunday, December 2, 2018
A Survey Of My Position On The Believer & "The Law
A Survey Of My Position On The Believer & "The Law
by Joel Sexton
My position as a former SDA on the whole law debate. First to define "the law" In the N.T. law (nomos) with the definite article mean the Torah. The entire law of Moses. This is how it is used most of the time as "the law."
Although exceptions are there, they don't break this established fact. Second. To the use of the law. Its use is a great big baseball bat to hit us over the head with, to break us, convict us as depraved sinner's. After all, Paul stated that "the law slew me.''[Rom 7:5 ] The law is used this way in[ Rom 3:19-26; Gal 3] but especially [Rom 3]
The Reformation set out "three uses of the law". First, curb the world of sin. Second, to convict the sinner for justification Third, for the believer under the New Covenant.
The third use of the law is where the debate really comes in. Although the First Reformation Churches of the magisterial Protestant Reformation accepted the third use of the law in their Confession's The Lutheran & Reformed churches. (One reason I rejected becoming a Confession Lutheran here in Canada)
What about the believer? Jew or not the believer has "died to the law'' [Rom 7:5; Gal 2:19]. In justification. But Paul so shows after being justified, adopted, United with Christ that one can deny the "law of Christ" [1 Cor 9:21-22; Gal 6:2], and the wonders of the Spirit wrought among them [Gal 3:1f] This is post-justification, post-conversion / regeneration, and adoption.
My position if I had to choose on this matter is called "New Covenant Theology" (NCT) which is the adopted position of most or all the scholar's who contributed to the great historical-exegetical-theological work, From Sabbath To Lord's Day" edited by top N.T. scholar D.A. Carson. Will I have problems with the position? Sure. But it is the closest Biblical position when actual exegetical work is at work.
In three Pauline passages, we see the war between the spirit which represents the New Covenant and the Law represents the Old Covenant & bondage, in exile from the presence of God. In [Rom 7:1-6; 2 Cor 3:6-11; Gal 4:21-31 we find this sharp contrast even having the Dialogue being mentioned or one of its commands. And yet all three passages tell us that "we have been delivered from the law" [Rom 7:6], and in [2 Cor 3:6-11] we have the spirit, New Covenant, the new heart and a better "glory." In [Heb 4:21-31] we have the New Jerusalem. Zion restored. The marriage, & land promises all which come from a "heavenly Jerusalem" [Gal 4:22] which represents the New Covenant while Issac the people of the Covenant. On the other end of the spectrum, we have an earthly Jerusalem, represented by Hagar and Mt. Arabia, Ishmael the unbelieving Jews. The ten commandments are said to represent the earthly Jerusalem [Gal 4:24] and was to be cast out [Gal 4:28-31] as the "sons of the kingdom were to be also for the persecution of the Body of Christ.
Back to [2 Cor 3:6-11] for a moment. These two covenants also represent two glories" One covenant (with the Decalogue 2 Cor 3:7) HAD glory, The glory of the New Covenant, of the spirit Has glory. One had it. The other it "remains" (the spirit).
by Joel Sexton
My position as a former SDA on the whole law debate. First to define "the law" In the N.T. law (nomos) with the definite article mean the Torah. The entire law of Moses. This is how it is used most of the time as "the law."
Although exceptions are there, they don't break this established fact. Second. To the use of the law. Its use is a great big baseball bat to hit us over the head with, to break us, convict us as depraved sinner's. After all, Paul stated that "the law slew me.''[Rom 7:5 ] The law is used this way in[ Rom 3:19-26; Gal 3] but especially [Rom 3]
The Reformation set out "three uses of the law". First, curb the world of sin. Second, to convict the sinner for justification Third, for the believer under the New Covenant.
The third use of the law is where the debate really comes in. Although the First Reformation Churches of the magisterial Protestant Reformation accepted the third use of the law in their Confession's The Lutheran & Reformed churches. (One reason I rejected becoming a Confession Lutheran here in Canada)
What about the believer? Jew or not the believer has "died to the law'' [Rom 7:5; Gal 2:19]. In justification. But Paul so shows after being justified, adopted, United with Christ that one can deny the "law of Christ" [1 Cor 9:21-22; Gal 6:2], and the wonders of the Spirit wrought among them [Gal 3:1f] This is post-justification, post-conversion / regeneration, and adoption.
My position if I had to choose on this matter is called "New Covenant Theology" (NCT) which is the adopted position of most or all the scholar's who contributed to the great historical-exegetical-theological work, From Sabbath To Lord's Day" edited by top N.T. scholar D.A. Carson. Will I have problems with the position? Sure. But it is the closest Biblical position when actual exegetical work is at work.
In three Pauline passages, we see the war between the spirit which represents the New Covenant and the Law represents the Old Covenant & bondage, in exile from the presence of God. In [Rom 7:1-6; 2 Cor 3:6-11; Gal 4:21-31 we find this sharp contrast even having the Dialogue being mentioned or one of its commands. And yet all three passages tell us that "we have been delivered from the law" [Rom 7:6], and in [2 Cor 3:6-11] we have the spirit, New Covenant, the new heart and a better "glory." In [Heb 4:21-31] we have the New Jerusalem. Zion restored. The marriage, & land promises all which come from a "heavenly Jerusalem" [Gal 4:22] which represents the New Covenant while Issac the people of the Covenant. On the other end of the spectrum, we have an earthly Jerusalem, represented by Hagar and Mt. Arabia, Ishmael the unbelieving Jews. The ten commandments are said to represent the earthly Jerusalem [Gal 4:24] and was to be cast out [Gal 4:28-31] as the "sons of the kingdom were to be also for the persecution of the Body of Christ.
Back to [2 Cor 3:6-11] for a moment. These two covenants also represent two glories" One covenant (with the Decalogue 2 Cor 3:7) HAD glory, The glory of the New Covenant, of the spirit Has glory. One had it. The other it "remains" (the spirit).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)