You are not logged in.
Bob,
Time and time again divine wrath was suspended only because it was put to the account of Jesus Christ, who in due time would pay all covenant debts at the bar of eternal justice.
That is an interesting way to put it. Some have described the effect of the everlasting covenant at Sinai was for God to act "in prolepsis," (as if Jesus had already made the sacrifice on Calvary) to "buy back" the human race and to "put enmity between thee and the woman," which is an act on the initiative of God, similar to the New Covenant.
After Adam had sinned, Satan had won the battle fair and square -- except not quite. Adam had dominion over creation under the authority of God. Satan had no such authority. Satan at best was a usurper. Jesus had every right to take back the human race and to contest Satan's claim.
A covenant must be between two parties, I think you are right. Only the Calvinists would argue that point.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb, I don't think we should worry too much about Calvinism. It teachew man has no free will and the elect are known before creation. I believe in pre knowledge but not at the expense of man's free will. The texts on this subject must be studied in the bigger picture you talked about.
God and Jesus are 2 of the 3 entities of the God head. We don't have to go to EGW to make up scenarios where they talked before the foundation of the earth, if this
I don't think that Salvation is that complicated as you said in you last post with "prolepsises" at every turn, though that could be what happen with Moses as he was revealed the Creation story and wrote the Ten Commandments and conversed directly with God.
Each covenant has a shelf life or expiration date, some are eternal which I believe the Abrahamic Promise is, with circumcision becoming the circumcision of the heart in the New Covenant with Spiritual Isreal , as with the Sabbath and Ten Commandments in the Old Testament be fulfilled in Jesus Christ as our True Rest and heaven as the REST we are to strive for.
There is a command to assembly our selves to gather regularly, that can be Saturday, Sunday, Tuesday night or Wednesday night. I Sabbath keeping is not salvific, then why the name that essentially says different, and the fundamentals that state otherwise?
Last edited by bob_2 (02-07-11 3:33 am)
Offline
Bob,
I made a mistake in my last post:
Some have described the effect of the everlasting covenant at Sinai
The efficacy of Jesus' sacrifice began in Eden -- not Sinai. It was not necessary to re-establish this at every turn. That efficacy was for all humanity and for all time.
Salvation is not "that complicated." The everlasting covenant of God becomes the new covenant when applied. When the everlasting covenant was announced to Adam and Eve the effects of that covenant extended to the whole human race to the end of time. In my opinion, not complicated at all. The covenant given to Abraham was more detailed and specific and extended to all his descendants and eventually to the Christian church. The repetitions of the covenant were not repetitions of the covenant of God, which never changes, but were renewals of the commitment of men to the covenant of God.
This is how I see it now. This simplified approach to the covenant is a new thought that I have come to in just the last few days, but it answers a lot of questions and seems reasonable to me.
Questions remain: What is the place of the ceremonial law? I believe it is an illustration of the covenant, NOT the covenant. What is the "old covenant" of Hebrews 7-10? I believe it is a corruption of the ceremonial law, which had become a means of salvation to the Jews at that time. - - - - - Just some thoughts.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Bob,
Just an added thought: The everlasting covenant of God is said to be between the Father and the Son. the Holy Spirit is definitely involved in making this covenant effective in the lives of men.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Said by whom? There are 2 parts of the Godhead knowing each other intimately. I think once we get away from the Bible you get name calling like "sectarian" which I find unnecessary to risk . The New Covenant is between God and man with Christ as the mediator.
Check out these texts that talk of a Covenant between God and man and Jesus as mediator:
Gal 3:19-20
1 Tim 2:5
Heb 8:6
Heb 9:15
Heb 12:29
Surely if Jesus renigged on what He and His Father had planned, man would be lost, but the Bible does not get into this accept when Jesus says He is doing His Father's work or will.
The quote I gave, Present Truth, is Bill Diehl's thinking, but he himself admits it is not Biblical but assumed the "Covenant" between God and Jesus.
Last edited by bob_2 (02-07-11 2:00 pm)
Offline
There are far too many "assumptions" made by those who twist scripture to their own pre-conceived ideas.
Last edited by elaine (02-07-11 3:45 pm)
Offline
Bob,
The Covenants mentioned in the Bible are between God and with mediators with man. (Moses for the Old and Jesus for the New)
Moses was not involved in the application of any covenant. Jesus WAS the focus of the new covenant. It was only through the blood of the cross that sin could be forgiven (Hebrews 9:22). In Heaven Jesus is our High Priest, who mediates His blood before the Father to forgive and to cleanse the record for our sins. He does NOT mediate with man. The Holy Spirit mediates His teaching and His grace directly to every man.
Common sense would have that Jesus was the willing sacrifice, so the agreement between God and His Son while important, the New Covenant is of extreme importance to those wanting salvation.
Of course, the New Covenant is of extreme importance. The New Covenant is built upon Jesus Christ, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (the everlasting covenant).
19 “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator (Moses).
20 “Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one (and the people are the other)” (Galatians 3:19-20, KJV).5 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5, KJV). (Who as our high priest, mediates His blood for us before the Father.)
6 “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator (Jesus is the focus of the covenant, and as our heavenly High Priest mediates His blood before the Father to forgive sins and cleanse the record of our sins) of a better covenant (New or Everlasting Covenant), which was established upon better promises” (Hebrews 8:6, KJV).
15 “And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament (as our High Priest in Heaven), that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance” (Hebrews 9:15, KJV).
29 “For our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29, KJV). ----- Please explain.
..................................................................
These following verses indicate that the Father and the Son were in heavenly council to establish the everlasting covenant, where by Jesus would become our substitute and pay our debt for sin.
16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16, KJV).
17 “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18 “No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father” (John 10:17-18, KJV).
Bob, I responded to the verses you listed in your last post. It would be helpful if you would give your understanding when you post verses, quotes, or website. It leaves me guessing otherwise. And I would like your response to the last two posts I made. This is very important to me.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Most scholars agree that while the KJV was best at one time,but there are many more accurate translations now.
This is Gal. 3:19-20 (NASB)
"Why the Law then? It wa added because of transgrssions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator UNTIL the seed should come to whome the promise had been made. Now a mediator is not for one party only, whereas God is one one."
Heb: 8:6-7: "But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a BETTER covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second."
Heb. 9:15-18: "And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions, that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where a covenant is there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the the one who made it lives. Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood."
From those verses I do not understand this statement:
These following verses indicate that the Father and the Son were in heavenly council to establish the everlasting covenant, where by Jesus would become our substitute and pay our debt for sin.
Offline
Elaine,
I quoted a series of four verses and included my comments in parentheses and italics. These had to do with the "mediator" that Bob was talking about.
The following verses you mentioned were NOT the preceding verses, but the FOLLOWING verses: John 3:16 and John 10:17,18. It is these two verses that tell us something about the council between Father and Son. Those are not the only verses, I have several rather long lists of verses, but that can get tedious. You mention the scholars in your post. To refer to "the scholars" does not cut any ice with me. If you want to refer to "a scholar" and give a short bio so that we know that he is a reliable authority for what you want to say, that would be better
However, best of all is to make your points from what the Bible says. That is what would be of first interest to me. If we followed the scholars, we would all be standing around the streets of Athens talking to the philosophers.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
The well-known text in Gen. 3:15 was never mentioned throughout Jewish history as The Fall, or as a promise of a future Messiah. This was the interpretation by the apostles in the NT. And just as the NT writers very liberally re-interpreted the OT to fit their thesis, this was one they used for their new message.
Offline
Hubb, though the name of the mediator is not given in Gal 3: 19-20, it could only be referring to Moses as the Mediator or the one that brings the two parties together:
Gal 3:19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.
Jesus was not named as the Mediator of the Old Covenant. I think if you study this point most that study it find Moses as the Mediator of the Old Covenant.
Offline
Hubb,
1. Mediator of the Old Covenant - Gal 3: 19, 20 show that Moses brought the two parties God and man so he was the Mediator of the Old Covenant and Jesus Mediator of the New Covenant. Moses smashed the first tablets in rage over the Jews disobedience. But Moses is the one that pled with God to give the people another opportunity. 1Tim 2: 5 is obviously talking about the New Covenant which Christ is the mediator of. The Old Covenant was mediated by Moses with God for the Jews.
2. There is no need for a formal covenant between God and Jesus, since they are both God, about Him coming to die for our sins. It is assumed on your part, but it looks like a plan or agreement between them, but never called a covenant, unless you and Bill Diehl wish to get together. Paul must have recognized the possibility of confusion when he refers to the Abrahamic covenant, as The Promise. Notice:
Romans 4:16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.
If this above does not answer your concerns, clarify what point I should address.
Offline
Hubb while we are talking about everlasting, eternal and perpetual covenants, what happened to this everlasting covenant?
Numbers 18:19 Whatever is set aside from the holy offerings the Israelites present to the LORD I give to you and your sons and daughters as your perpetual share. It is an everlasting covenant of salt before the LORD for both you and your offspring.”
Offline
Hubb, about Moses being the mediator of the Old Covenant, notice:
Hebrews 1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.
Offline
Bob,
Look again at this verse:
19 “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator (Moses).
20 “Now a mediator (Moses) is not a mediator of one, but God is one (and the people are the other)” (Galatians 3:19-20, KJV).
I mistook your intent with this verse. Of course, Moses mediated for Israel because the people refused direct interaction with God. I thought you were calling into question who the two parties were in verse 20.
2. There is no need for a formal covenant between God and Jesus, since they are both God,
This is a human assumption. We may not know all the ways of God, so it is best to accept what the Bible says. A small proposal is that God does things a certain way, not because He needs it, but because WE need it for our understanding; and unfallen beings in the universe looking on will get a clear picture of the Plan of Salvation. eventually God must be shown merciful and just.
The word "covenant" is not always used. There are so many verses referring to this plan between the Father and the Son, it seems plain to me that it is a covenant. In fact it is the basic everlasting covenant underlying all other covenants made between God and man. Bill Diehl is not the only one who holds this view. In fact you may be the only one who denies that there is a covenant between Father and Son.
To compare the mediation of Moses to the mediation of Christ is no comparison at all. Jesus as our heavenly High Priest mediates His blood before the Father forgiving our sins, cleansing the record, and effecting our salvation. Moses does none of that. Moses carries messages which is important and is a mediation but that is much different than what Jesus does in the sanctuary above.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb, let me turn one of your comments to me back on yourself. You are well invested with this concept of a covenant between God and His Son, to name your forum after it. Also, you can't keep the Sabbath if you agree with me, can you?? Can you not see that even the Covenant the OT calls a Abrahamic Covenant, in the NT calls it The Promise so as not to confuse the audience with too many covenants. That's what I think you are doing with two parts of the Godhead which I personally don't think God and Jesus have a covenant, but they certainly are referred to as a command from His Father. Until further study or proof, I will keep the position I have. I still maintain there is no Sabbath day mandated in the New Covenant. But lets stay in touch on these two issues.
Last edited by bob_2 (02-08-11 2:27 am)
Offline
Also, you claim that my saying Jesus and His Father are both God and no need for a covenant between them as a human assumption.
Notice what the issue was when Paul shook his clothes and said:
Acts 18:5 When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. 6 But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”
The issue is the one we are touching on, Jesus being God, equal to His Father, and the Messiah. He left the synagogue and the best Sabbathkeepers in history. Sabbath wasn't the issue, being God was.
Last edited by bob_2 (02-08-11 2:52 am)
Offline
Bob,
It is true that I am convinced on the seventh-day Sabbath. An occasional obscure text will not change that. If you look back over my posts, however, you will find that I have said very little or nothing about the Sabbath.
I am convinced on the everlasting covenant of God from before the foundation of the world. I have a list of texts to support that and information from websites and books that support that concept.
About Acts 18:5: this says that Jesus was the Messiah. I think there are a number of other texts that support this too. However. the contention of the Jews was that Messiah would NOT be God. In their minds to believe in the Messiah as God would be to believe in two Gods, which an orthodox Jew would never do. So, while this text says that Jesus was the Messiah, it does not go so far as to say that He was God -- which is what we both believe and what Paul taught.
..................................................
I accept the fact of what you believe and that we will probably never agree about. My discussion of the covenant goes into other aspects of the covenant. I guess it is hard to respond to that without talking about the origin of the covenant. It is of interest to me to get your opinion on what I find about the covenant. Even it is a criticism -- so long as it is a direct response to what I post. But that may be impossible.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Where in Scripture does Jesus say he is God.In a prayer recorded in the gospel of Johm he calls the Father the one true God.
Elsewhere he refused to be called good saying that was a aspect of God.
Jesus was the son of God not God the son there is a vast difference between the two descriptions.
Offline
One cannot find the Trinity, or Godhead, in the Bible alone. Had it been so clearly defined, it would not have taken more than 300 years after Christ to settle this dispute, and it was by Constantine, not the bishops who made this decision. A decision that wavered back and forth for a number of years before finally being adopted by the catholic church which made this decision, now accepted by all Christian denominations.
BTW, the catholic church also selected the texts for the NT, so inspiration of the texts was also decided by that same church. Interesting that the SDA church condemns catholicism, but has accepted many of its tenets and especially, the choices making up the NT.
Offline
Old Abe,
The classic verses are John 1:1-3. Hebrews 1:1-3 speaks also of His being the Son and the Creator. John 8:58 Jesus said to the Jews, "Before Abraham was, I Am." Here Jesus declared His pre-existence. On several occasions Jesus forgave sins -- which only God can do. Jesus raised the dead at least three times, which only God can do.
Jesus was careful as to the claim to be the Messiah, to be God, or to be "good" an attribute of God. He knew when "Mine hour is not yet come" and was careful not to inflame those around Him. In Gethsemane He could finally say, "Mine hour is come."
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Note these texts of Jesus being equal to God:
Philippians 2:6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
John 5:18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
John 10:33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
Offline
Jesus did not have to make a Covenant with the Father.
God didn’t have to say, “Hey Jesus, come here, I’ve got a plan to save man, (neither before “the fall”, nor after at any time) let’s talk about it”. Jesus didn’t have to mull it over and then decide to surrender all and be encompassed with loving embraces of gratitude for His choice to become a risk of sacrifice as a father would as his son goes off to war.
Jesus came out from the bosom of the Father. Came forth from the Father. John 1:18 John 8:42 John 16:28
He was the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. Rev 13:8
He is “The image of the invisible God, The FIRSTBORN OF EVERY CREATURE. For by Him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things and by him all things consist” Colossians 1: 15-17.
He didn’t have to make some kind of agreement or covenant with the Father; He and His Father are One. John 10:30
He didn’t have to be asked or informed, He always knew from eternity. He is the Alpha and the Omega: Rev 1:8- 1:11 -21:6- 22:13
He always knew all, and still does.
Cadge
Offline
Hubb
If my memory serves me correctly I believe some of the OT prophets raised the dead,without being God.
The Bible speaks of Jesus as being "the beginning of the creation of God"
Jesus came from the bosom of God meaning that God the Father preexisted the Son in time and space.
As Christians we have Father Son and Holy Spirit. We do not have triplets three personages equal in power time and space.
There is some evidence that the first verses of the Gospel of John are not found in the oldest available manuscripts. Given that the Trinity doctrine was established by force of arms it would not be unthinkable that some of the material used in the NT was edited.
I have always found the Gospel of John to have a definite anti semitic flavour for a book alledgedly written by a Jew.
The argument over covenants is foolishness .
Offline
Old Abe, you say anti-semitic. Others might say self-critical. Just as there are things family members can say to each other that outsiders cannot, many of the Jewish poeple I know feel comfortable saying negative things about Jews as a group that they would object to coming from someone else. Just as is the case with some Black people I know, some gay people I know, etc.
But I agree that the gospel has often been used in a very antisemitic way, all the way from the holy roman empire down to at least the so-called German Christian church that provided the theological justification for many German Christians to support the Nazis.
Offline