"Moses used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away" (II Corinthians 3:13).
The other day Rachelle and I were eating at our favorite Italian breakfast eatery when the owner of the restaurant pulled up a chair and chatted with us. He loves the people of Emmanuel and all we do for the community and missions worldwide. He attends a small church that "celebrates the Old Covenant feasts" and worships "on the Sabbath (Saturday)." He explained that it would be impossible for his family to worship at Emmanuel until we offered a worship service consistent "with the law of God" (i.e. "Sabbath keeping"). We really enjoyed the fellowship with this local Christian businessman, and we respected his convictions, but his words got me to thinking about the common place legalism in churches that emphasize differing aspects of of the Old Covenant (i.e. "Sabbath keeping," "tithing," "patriarchy," "quiverfull theology," "kosher eating," etc...). It seems to me that the emphasis on "law keeping" by many Christians is akin to Moses hiding God's glory by the imposition of a veil. The Apostle Paul tells us that Moses "didn't wish the people to see that the glory was fading."
Initially, Moses placed the veil on his face to "help" the people. Exodus 34:30 tells us that the people "were afraid" of Moses' shining face because he had been with the Lord. The presence of God in our midst often brings discomfort, not comfort. To comfort the people, Moses put a "veil" (garment) over his face to "hide the glory." But Paul tells us that the veil ended up hiding the fact that "the glory was fading."
So it is with religious laws, traditions and rituals. They may have been instituted for benevolent, good reasons. But that which initially comforts God's people winds up hiding the fact that God's glory is gone. The only way to be sensitive to the presence of God is to resist the temptation to build a mechanism (tradition, ritual or law) intended to hide the fact that God is not present. In other words, we Christian leaders ought to do everything in our power to facilitate freedom and liberty among God's people. When people are free--truly free (i.e. the veil or the law is removed)--it's easy to see the evidence of the Spirit's power and presence.
But many of us--instead of celebrating, facilitating and enjoying this freedom that Christ brings--try to hide the absence of the glory of Christ's presence in our midst by imposing religious laws. II Corinthians 3:14 directly compares the veil of Moses to religious people attempting to impose Old Testament "laws" on Christ's people. Christian people, like Israel, often seem afraid of the power and liberty that comes from experiencing the presence of God. It scares us. We need to keep control of God's people by imposing religious laws. We need to maintain authority over our religious environment by spiritualizing our comfortable traditions, exaliting our static rituals, and demanding conformity to our personal picadillys rather than depending on God's people to simply spend time with Jesus to hear God themselves. We want all our people to give the same, dress the same, talk the same, look the same, act the same, be the same. We feel more comfortable with the law than we do the Spirit. The veil diminishes the glory of God in the individual's life.
"But where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty" (II Cor. 3:17). II Corinthians 3 forms the foundation for Christians never needing to fear what it means for all God's people to experience the real, meaningful and full freedom that comes through abiding in Christ's presence. New Covenant believers will resist any imposition of religious laws on God's people. We will view all religious "laws" as a veil used to hide the brilliance of Christ's glory in our lives.
When a person, a family, a Christian group or a church begins to experience the surpassing glory of Christ, things begin to happen that can only be explained by the power of His presence. I hope to share a few narratives in the month of January that illustrate the glory of New Covenant living as compared to Old Covenant Christianity.
In His Grace,
Wade
94 comments:
"New Covenant believers will resist any imposition of religious laws on God's people. We will view all religious "laws" as a veil used to hide the brilliance of Christ's glory."
Ya, and while you would be the polar opposite of your breakfast business friend, you would still be wrong.
Freedom in Christ (this 'new covenant') is the glorious reality that our faith does not rest in our ability to keep the law, but rather Christ's ability to purchase our pardon.
The "New Covenant" verses "Old Covenant" wording is NOT to say that the cross negates "the law."
God is the same God today as He was in the OT. He demands the same worship, the same obedience, and HIS law is to be obeyed even today as we are His new Israel. Since however we are in an age of what I call "Third Temple Judaism," the laws of God and the practice of worship now apply to our hearts, our lives, our bodies--The Third Temple--the place where the Shekinah Glory of the Lord is pleased to dwell.
Only a fool pulls OT laws out of the OT and applies them carte blanche without filtering them through the cross--through this freedom of which Wade (Paul) speaks.
Finally, only a fool cuts the thread of redemptive history at the cross. We are today, the Israel of God, wondering in the wilderness of life, being lead by the pillar of fire, and being fed manna from above. Our soles will not wear out nor will we hunger and thirst if we are faithful to the Spirit's call to worship and obey.
The Covenants with the Patriarchs are forever Covenants. The "Old Covenant/Testament/Administration is obviously new---duh. But not to the extent the "New Covenanters" would have you think.
Shalom,
Rabbi Kevin
Wade, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
We mess with the definition of love, joy, peace, and a lot of the other promises of God simply because we don't see much of it in the churches, and want to excuse our shortcomings by "dumbing down" what the Bible promises.
Well, we do that with that God commands, too, so I guess it makes sense.
KMC:
To be clear are you calling Wade a fool?
Hi KEVIN,
I don't share the identical theology as described in the post as you know,
however, I don't think Wade is slicing the tie between the OT and the NT 'at the Cross'.
The symbolism of 'the veil' is all through the OT. The symbolism shows itself in the Gospels as the veil symbolically separates heaven and earth in the Temple, as it closes off the 'Holy of Holies'.
But at the moment of Christ's death on the Cross, the heavy veil in the Temple was torn completely apart. At that moment, Christ was now 'the healer of the breach' and the veil was needed no more.
No more need for the 'veil' to protect from death, lest we 'look upon the face of the Holy One' and perish:
In Christ the Lord,
we may look upon
the Face of Our God . . . and live.
Pax Christi,
L's
P.S.
There are many other meaningful connections, but, if you had seen Wade speak, at the end of his Church's Christmas Pageant, you would know that he, like St. Augustine of old, sees Christ all through the Old Testament.
(See the archived pageant on Emmanuel Baptist Church (Enid OK) and watch the ending. It is so beautifully done.
L's
L's and Tom,
I am not taking issue with Wade's typology of the veil. I never even mentioned that for that purpose. I am taing issue with a new form of theology (or reinvented) called New Covenant Theology and attempting to point our some of its fundamental flaws. NCT is hardly dispensationalism (thankfully) nor is it classical "Covenant Theology" (where my views would most closely lay).
NTC is more recently being adopted by moderate and liberal evangelicals under the guise of a faulty understanding of "freedom in Christ."
We are free in Christ to mess up (so to speak), we are not free in Christ to give up.
Wade's mentioning of tithing and QFT allows me to see a glimpse of where his mind is taking him on this front. But we are to teach the full counsel of God--which includes OT laws and principles, as well as what we will aptly call "crucial exceptions," being apostolic guides and principles which add new layers, meanings, and understandings to the laws--in light of the cross.
We are free from the bondage of the law. Not the law itself. Yet Christ now, through the cross, fulfills portions of the law. Funny however that He did not pay all our tithes on the cross. :)
You are not free in Christ to alter the tithe. You are however free in Christ to obey the Spirit without me jumping down your neck. But if I should see that your disobedience to the law is due to neglect of the Spirit evident in your life, then it is my duty to preach to your the principles of the law of the tithe--bringing to light your sin, there by bringing about repentance.
K
K,
"The 'Old Covenant/Testament/Administration is obviously new---duh."
I don't think I am completely buying what Wade is saying myself.
However, as long as one holds to the "Westminster/2nd London" standards, one will not be able to say what they mean and mean what they say concerning the new covenant.
In other words, while one might speak the "language" of the Bible [i.e., new covenant], one will not mean by that language an "actual" new covenant.
One will mean new administration when one says new covenant. sad. Of course, the other alternative is to use that *generic* covenant language like talking about "covenant families" and "covenant children" and maybe even "Covenant Theological Seminary" :).
"The 'New Covenant' verses 'Old Covenant' wording is NOT to say that the cross negates "the law."
There is not only NC/OC wording. There is law of Moses/law of Christ wording. And the law of Moses is treated as a "package deal" [Gal. 3:10] instead of divided into civil/moral/ceremonial categories.
Plus, "The law" of Moses equates the Sabbath with the seventh day, not "one day in seven". The definite article [the] is in both the Hebrew and the Septuagint. The pattern in relation to the Sabbath is work, then rest--not rest, then work. Our future eternal rest is even cast in "seventh day" imagery [Heb. 4:4].
Also, if chapter 19:3 of the Second London confession says that Jesus is the "only law-giver", then why does it also advocate obeying the 10 commandments given before the coming of Christ?
"God is the same God today as He was in the OT. He demands the same worship, the same obedience..."
Please show me where God commanded folks to love one another based on the love example of Jesus Christ [Jn 13:34-35] in the Old Testament.
The Puritans did not get everything right! It's OK! You won't fall apart at the seams!
Love ya K-man :)
Wade,
Great words!
I'm puzzled how some seem to believe that Antinomianism and New Covenant are synonymous. I suppose it must be ignorance.
Kevin seems to think it is some new fangled thing. He must be very young. I'm seventy and taught it for around fifty years. Hmmmn!
K,
"I am taing issue with a new form of theology (or reinvented) called New Covenant Theology..."
Please explain how the NCT today is inconsistent with the 1646 London Confession. Or explain to me how that confession does not support the NCT of today.
Also, notice these quotes from historic Particular Baptists [aside from the Thomas Patient source I already gave you]
"And it is a very great mistake in foolish profesors, to think that they may buy, that is, bargain with God for Christ and grace upon the terms of the old covenant of works..." [Hanserd Knollys in "The Parable of the Kingdom of Heaven"]
"By the first Testament is not here meant any covenant made with Adam, or any testament given to Adam before his fall, but the legal and typical covenant and testament made with Israel, and given to Israel, in the days of Moses:" [John Spilsbury in "The Peculiar Interest of the Elect in the Death of Christ, and His Saving Grace"]
--Old Covenant "of works"
--"legal"...covenant
"You won't fall apart at the seams!"
No, but the OT in Wade's Bible is...
:))
PS to Tom Parker: Don't try saying it is due to over reading it. :)
"Please explain how the NCT today is inconsistent with the 1646 London Confession."
Quite a daunting tasking for which I would care not undertake. Some have called the London confessions the "Westminster for Baptists." A big difference is their understanding of classical Covenant Theology. I expect neither London nor NCT get it completely right. I am not a Presbyterian and therefore do not affirm Westminister in its entirety either. Nor am I bound by the parameters of any of the afore mentioned theological systems or confessions. I am bound by Scripture and my conscience, enlightened by the plentiful grace of John 1:16 as my guide.
K
Btw, I love the Puritans, read the Puritans, and thank God for the Putitans. But I am not a Puritan, do not think like a Puritan, and thank God I am not a Puritan. They give us great insight to our God, the attributes of God, and salvation, and pure and holy living.
K,
"Quite a daunting tasking for which I would care not undertake. Some have called the London confessions the "Westminster for Baptists."
I don't think that can justifiably be said about the 1st London.
Wade,
"...his words got me to thinking about the common place legalism in churches that emphasize differing aspects of of the Old Covenant (i.e. "Sabbath keeping," "tithing," "patriarchy," "quiverfull theology," "kosher eating," etc...)."
If I may assume that what you mean by patriarchy is complementarianism, then that is the one that I disagree with in your list.
I don't see Paul teaching the Sabbath, tithing, etc., but I do see him teaching different functions based on the imagery of Christ and the church IMO.
Wade.
It’s not recorded where Paul learned God’s glory had faded and the mask was worn to hide the truth.
My guess it was one of those ‘under the table’ stories told from generation to generation but never written until Paul.
The fastest ‘fried pastor for Sunday lunch’ was probably ‘The glow is gone. He’s faking it!”
The question that is fitting today is why did Moses continue to use the mask?
Did Moses only wear it for ego, or did he think he had more control over the people in getting them to obey God?
Kevin,
I agree with you saying:
“Only a fool pulls OT laws out of the OT and applies them carte blanche without filtering them through the cross…”
That can be said another way; ‘only a fool pulls OT laws out…without seeing them through the eyes if Jesus.’
In my opinion, that’s what the BFM 1963 meant in saying:
“The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ” which was deleted by the BFM 2000.
The deletion was a mask to hide truth that the torn veil at Calvary made every Christian a priest, with aid of the Holy Spirit, to learn directly from God without the aid of any man but by the High Priest of Christ and his Word.
Kevin: Think about this. The alternative is to have the attitude you and others have. Thanks but no Thanks. The point of the new convenant is that the Holy Spirit does the changing from the inside out, not the outside in. We are better than the law demands because it is no longer the law that drives us but who we are inside.
As Paul says, we are now new creations. The old is gone the new is come. If you can't trust that then you can't trust Christ as the Bible says we should. That is the bottom line.
The OT never gets worn out because the purpose of the Old Testament is to point people to Christ. Not to extol the law.
PS to Tom Parker: Don't try saying it is due to over reading it. :)
I'll say it. The OT is worn out at the seams due to over reading it, although nothing in the Bible can ever be read enough. I myself have so many notes written in the OT that I need to get a new Bible but hesitate due to all the notes I would loose.
It is nice of you to have a meal with a legalistic Christian who would not worship with you on a Sunday.
I do wonder though after reading the little you shared if this man is legalistic or maybe just had strong convictions concerning the Sabbath?
You met with him so I guess you know best and he is a legalist.
"Only a fool pulls OT laws out of the OT and applies them carte blanche without filtering them through the cross--through this freedom of which Wade (Paul) speaks."
Therein lies the problem for you, Kev. Right now, your filters are your professors.
Somehow you have to make a theocratic tithe system to support the Temple, the priests, etc, transfer to the New Covenant where there the temple is now 'believers'.
So, what Levite priest do I give my tithe? Where is the storehouse for my first fruits of labor. If I am the temple, what do the tithes do?
I realize that many pastors do teach a tithe because that is how they live. They are afraid not to because they do not think folks will give. So, they teach this figure of 10% (only part of the tithe system) that folks must give in order to be Holy.
But the Holy Spirit may guide me to give to brothers and sisters in need as the early church did. And not to maintain a building or pay for a spiritual gift (pastor).
Debbie is right about the New Covenant and being changed from the inside. Our hearts of stone are replaced by a heart of flesh. (Ez 36)
The law does not get credit for saving anyone in the OC. Faith does.
To me, this problem between Old Covenant and New Covenant has more to do with understanding sin and how heinous it is to God. If our hearts are transformed and have the indwelling Holy Spirit, we hate the sin we once loved. The 'law' is written on our hearts and we cannot stay in continual willful sin because if we do, we are saying there was no sacrifice.
Think of that in contrast to the law
Jesus Christ fulfilled the law. The temple veil was torn in two on the Cross. Why? To signify what?
Jon,
Good point. I define "legalism" not as the personal extra-biblical strong convictions of God's people, but rather ...
"Legalism" - demanding that all other believers conform to your personal convictions and believe them to be sinning against God if they don't.
Blessings,
Wade
Lydia,
Well stated.
Kevin,
You wrote "God demands the same worship, the same obedience, and HIS law(s) are to be obeyed today"
Then in the next paragraph you wrote: "Only a fool pulls OT laws out of the OT and applies them carte blanche."
As our Native American friends say, "You speak with forked tongue."
:)
God has not changed, but His covenants with people change. All other covenants in the Old Testament were types or shadows of the New Covenant signed and sealed by Christ's blood.
Rex Ray,
You wrote: "It’s not recorded where Paul learned God’s glory had faded and the mask was worn to hide the truth."
Excellent point and I wondered who would be the first to point that out.
Nowhere in the Old Testament does the Bible say the glory on Moses' face faded.
Only Paul tells us this.
Amazing, is it not, that the apostles of the New Covenant would have the authority and power to teach something the Old Testament prophets never even spoke about.
Reminds me a little of the Sabbath day law of the 10 Commandments. The apostles eventually taught there was "no Sabbath day" in the way the Old Covenant prophets taught it. Remember, Israel was taken into CAPTIVITY (Babylon) for breaking the Sabbath law of the 10 Commandments.
That law is no longer in effect.
Every day is a day of "rest" Christ, and all the "new moons, Sabbath celebrations" etc... only pointed to the fulfillment of rest in the person and work of Christ.
wade
PEOPLE WHO SAT IN THE DARKNESS HAVE SEEN A GREAT LIGHT . . .
St. Augustine taught that
‘ the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New’.
UNVEILED . . .
". . . . the people who sat in darkness have seen a
great light" (Mt 4:14-16, Lk 1:78-79).
Nearly all the people who lived under the Old Testament were incapable of reading Scripture with the necessary understanding. Their minds needed to be enlightened to understand the parable they and their ancestors daily lived out.
As Mt 13:10 records, Jesus gave the apostles a gift which none but the prophets who lived under the Old Testament had ever received - He gave them the ability to understand what the Old Testament "parables" pointed to.
Indeed, Jesus promises exactly that in John 16:25 - there would come a time when He would speak to them plainly and not in any figure. However, He makes this promise just scant hours before the Twelve break and run like water.
When is the promise fulfilled? Only after the Resurrection:
"Then, HE OPENED THEIR MINDS TO UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES ..."
(Luke 24:45). “
Benji,
You write: If I may assume that what you mean by patriarchy is complementarianism, then that is the one that I disagree with in your list.
By patriarchy I mean what the word itself means: A structure of society on the basis of family units, where the father or man has the primary authority and responsibility and decision making powers over the rest of the family members.
I do not, for a moment, believe the New Covenant teaches patriarchy. I believe the Old Covenant with Israel not only taught patriarchy, any disobedience to patriarchal laws brought stoning. The Father or Head in the New Covenant is Jesus Christ. He is the authority over every believer.
Patriarchy in the Old Covenant was a shadow or type of Christ in the New Covenant.
In His Grace,
Wade
biblical theology (n) -What Wade Burleson believes about theology.
Why, thank you Joe! That's the nicest thing you have ever said about me.
:)
The most amazing thing about any organized religion seems to be the way we slowly take an original blessing and, by man's additions and substitutions, transform it into a curse.
CR is a prime example. It has now cursed us with plateaued growth, not enough money to keep missionaries in the field, 3 main offices vacant, recriminations flying, more churches taking "Baptist" off the street sign!
I believe the primary function of the Holy Spirit, if we will listen humbly, is to keep the initial spirit of spiritual leaders like Moses, the Prophets, Jesus, the disciples / apostles in our present day activities, we might just NOT LOSE the spirit of the beginning.
We can't be satisfied with a servant Messiah walking among lost and outcast people not good enough to go to the Temple. Instead we much portray him on giant screens in a Mega-church while the Christmas pagent figures walk down the aisle with spotlights making the Wise Men's costumes glitter.
Or we spend thousands of hours building the stage and practicing for the "Singing Christmas Tree." Or we take up canned goods or cook meals for "the committee" to get to the Welfare Office so indigent people have things for Christmas.
Whatever became of opening your door to a struggling neighbor who, this year, can't afford that Honey Baked Ham? Would you roll down your Mercades window and take that family at the bus station to a meal at your house before they go somewhere looking for a job--they lost their car / have no home anymore / they will starve somewhere else so we don't have to see them---
GET THE BUMS OFF THE STREETS!!!
Usually those reflecting God's Glory are accused of drinking too much and having an alcohol shine to their face---we don't just veil them over---we criticize and deride them over!!!
Rex,
Thank you for your comment. I understand and appreciate your point. When I say "filter it through the cross" I mean precisely "the finished work of Christ."
Allow me speak with my forked tongue again if you will. (it is a result of my ignorance in explanation not my desire to be biblical). Israel had no context for the cross nor for Jesus. But they did wait in eager expectation for the coming of the Messiah. All their (proper) thoughts and hopes were on this one event. (which they generally misunderstood, in light of what we know today).
Finally, let it be said that I understand the tithe, preached incorrectly, is simply legalism. I have never preached a sermon on tithing. Nor will I ever, in the way you think I might. The tithe is not a NT principle, I get that. Give as you are blessed, as the Spirit directs...
Ok, but you are a new Christian, you don't feel all that financially blessed. But you see the revelation of God to His people of old--"test me on this" and so you begin a process to build up to 10%. That is not wrong. That is as Holy Spirit led as the lady who drops her last pennies in the plate, or Rick Warren giving 90%.
I find legalism in the new open theistic approach to biblical stewardship. God did not simply leave this up to the whim and fancy of a fallen people--even "in Christ."
Thus the tithe is a good baseline.
I have to recommend a book by Dr. Richard Pratt called "He Gave Us Stories." It is undoubtedly the best book on OT interpretation.
Merry Christmas....I am off to kill some skeet for lunch!
I find legalism in the new open theistic approach to biblical stewardship. God did not simply leave this up to the whim and fancy of a fallen people--even "in Christ."
Thus the tithe is a good baseline.
Nice trying to link this to open theism. What is it with you CT boys that so many thing are linked to this?
God does not have to leave it up to the whim and fancy of a fallen people because HE replaces their hearts of stone with hearts of flesh IF they are really saved.
You are leaving out the supernatural spiritual transformation of salvation and inserting abbreviated laws to make sure they behave right. Won't work except to make them 'look' like Christians for a time.
Wade,
Please tell me that you pointed out to your friend that by traveling to church on Saturday and engaging in acts of worship there, they were in fact breaking the Sabbath commandment rather than keeping it. That, in fact, most Jews did not go to Synagogue on Sabbath days because the walk was longer than was permitted to maintain one's Sabbath rest. That if they wrote the check for their "tithe" on Saturday morning (or Friday night) then the Rabbi's would say this man had broken sabbath by writing more than two characters that could be read simultaneously.
That is what I just cannot understand about 7th Day Baptists or 7th Day Adventists. Sabbath was the day you rested because it was the day God rested. That was not the day went to worship.
Pastor Wade,
Thank you for these words.
Kevin and others,
I think many of our theological presuppositions cloud how we read New Covenant versus Old Covenant in scripture.
The New Covenant was part of the eschatological fulfillment to which the Jewish faith pointed. Paul understood this fulfilled in Christ.
No longer would external law be needed for human beings to keep God's law and demonstrate the kind of character that God desires. The gift of the Spirit was one of those fulfillments of the new Covenant in which those who received it would fulfill God's law without applying its external regulations.
This is the thrust of the argument in 2 Corinthians and Galatians.
And, if it crosses our theological presuppositions, then so be it. The New Covenant is not that Christ kept the law for us. It is that we are free to live by the Spirit of God and at the same time will naturally demonstrate the evidence and end result of God's plan for his people still in the midst of a fallen world.
Chris,
This gentlemen said he was not a 7th Day Adventist. He was just interested in keeping the Old Testament laws.
Paul's 'analogy':
Moses in Exodus appeared before God without the veil and gazed on His face unprotected.
Paul applies that passage to converts to Christianity:
when Christians turn their faces towards Christ the Lord,
fully and authentically,
the impediment to their understanding is removed.
I would compare what is happening with NCT to a person who pulls out his wrongly organized belongings in a room.
NCT is pulling out that organized Dispy and CT with a view to reorganizing so that things start becoming messy in the room IMO. And as long as it is messy, it can be frustrating to look at.
However, I think pulling those wrongly organized dogmas out is worth it.
Order is *not* equivalent to orthodoxy. Not necessarily. In other words, just because something looks like it has its "Ducks in a row" in this disorderly world does not necessarily mean it is biblical. And in my opinion that is one of the great attractions of CT. It's orderly in a world of disorder.
I think there is an established agreement amongst NCTers that there really is a new covenant. Now there are issues in relation to law.
My thoughts:
1. Paul is clear that he is *not* without law. He is not antinomian, but he is also clear that he is *not* under the law of Moses.
2. Paul is clear that there is something called "the law of Christ". How does one define what this law is?
3. Paul does not say he is under the law of Christ, but in-lawed to this law of Christ. Check the Greek [1 Cor. 9:21]. What does it mean to be not under, but in-lawed?
4. Somehow the Christian is not under the law of Moses, but is supposed to be equipped from the O.T. for good works according to 2 Tim. 3:16-17. How do you work that out?
John Reisinger's article "Continuity and Discontinuity" does a good job concerning #4 IMO. However, he seems to jettison the language of law concerning the law of Christ since it does not fit his definition [IMO] and so I believe I disagree with him there.
http://www.soundofgrace.com/pdf/issue162.pdf
Benji--
Greek is hard enough to understand / all the abbreviations are impossible!
How about using plain English so anyone on the blog understands. Those who use code words are just trying to have a secret society these days.
Article on "The Covenant of Grace" by Jon Zens with a chart showing the differences between the OC/NC
http://www.searchingtogether.org/articles/covenant.htm
Gene S,
Dispy - Dispensationalism. Articulated in the Scofield Bible.
CT - Covenant Theology. Articulated in the Westminster Confession of Faith.
NCT - New Covenant Theology. For articulations of this theology go to this website, scroll down to "New Covenant Statements of Faith":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant_Theology
"The Covenant of Grace" need not scare so many of you as it does. Sit back with me and make a list of revealed redemptive essentials and non-essentials. Do this in light of what we know about the triune God, about the order of creation, the nature of the rebellion, and in light of the biblical story line. Then systematize your findings and there you have it--a rough draft of the 3 basic eternal covenants: the covenants of redemption, works, and grace.
K
Thanks, joker, it just sounds like more stuff to argue about to me, but it would be good for us "I just want to get along with other Christians" folks to know what you are talking about.
Frankly, most of it is a creation of man trying to put handcuffs on God to suit his purposes.
I would rather for God to put handcuffs on me using the Holy Spirit rather than some .25 words to confuse and anger.
That's just my opinion after starting my ministerial career in 1970 trying to impress people who weren't impressed with .25 words---I quickly learned it is more important to communicate and manister than to impress.
Don't forget what the real meaning of acadimic degrees is:
BS = Bull S***
MS = More S***
PhD = Piled higher and Deeper
Frankly, I have the SCHK degree =
School of Hard Knocks
It's colors are black and blue and it is earned only by those who maintain their integrity in plain words easily understandable.
Benji,
You made the mistake of answering Gene as though he was actually interested in what you were stating. Rather, yet again, he was just interested in proving how arrogant and intolerant you were for disagreeing with him.
"Frankly, I have the SCHK degree =
School of Hard Knocks... It's colors are black and blue and it is earned only by those who maintain their integrity in plain words easily understandable."
Obviously the "SCHK" degree is given by oneself to oneself. That's convenient. As far as the whole integrity and plain, easily understood words, I'll let others decide.
Naw, Darby!!!!!
You have to watch you daddy get fired by arrogant members of the Baptist "Glorfied Country Club" and you have to endure 2 such firing as well.
So much for maintaining integrity and maintaining the pastorate of a corrupt church.
On the other hand, many have been blessed with a congregation with just as much integrity as the pastor possesses! Those relationships are blessed and give a blessing to every community which has one.
How about cutting out the attempted degradation of people who have other views equally as thought out as yours!
Gene,
I have enjoyed reading the comments and the interaction. This is a topic that I find very important for God's glory and Christian living, namely how do we interpret the relationship between covenants. That's Wade's whole point in this post.
But I don't see you advancing the argument either way. You just seemed to pick on Benji because he's bringing up things that many may have never thought about before. If this wasn't what you were doing, then I apologize, but you can no longer take credit for plain, easily understood language. :)
As to your troubled past, we all have one, Gene. You seem to hold onto yours like a trophy and bring it up frequently. Maybe you should forget what lies behind and press on to the prize of the upward call of Christ Jesus. Just a thought.
Hi BENJI,
It's me, L's.
I was intrigued by your comment:
"Paul is clear that there is something called "the law of Christ". How does one define what this law is?"
Well, Benji, I couldn't answer for Baptists, but at least there is this verse in the Bible to think about:
"Carry each other's burdens, and in this way, you will fulfill the Law of Christ."
Galatians 6:2
There is so much, much more to think about concerning the Law of Christ.
Caritas Christi,
L's
I'm not going to get into a discussion about "covenant theology" and the OT law, as I missed my chance to stone my mother for cooking milk & meat in the same pot, plus goodness-knows-how-many other infractions from which I may or may not have the right to pick and choose. But I will say that, in addition to telling folks to bring in the tithe in the OT, God said the tithe was holy unto Him. I'm not up to deciding whether Jesus' death & resurrection changed that or not, so I still subscribe to the thought that one ought to give it to God.
"I quickly learned it is more important to communicate and manister than to impress."
I like that word "manister" Gene.
Kind of a combination between "man" and "minister." That's gotta art least be a 50 cent word. And of course we know its biblical. :)
K
YEAH---sometimes my typos make sense after all.
Would you like to define "manister" vs. "minister?"
At age 63, even though in HS I did 60 wpm with 0 errors / I now do 50 wpm with 50 errors!!!!
At least my mind still works faster than my fingers---and makes some sense----sometimes!
Darby--
I don't know how old you are, but you sound like you still live in a Ivory Tower where "proper" words and "proper" thoughts are more important than anything else.
Frankly, those who seek a theological perfection without the courage to look people in the eye and deliver prophetic sermons, have no clue as to what the real call of God is.
Now, if you can show me more experience and integrety by your ministry story, I am open to it. Remember, the first Bible we ever got was Jewish stories around the campfire to tell youngsters "who we are and why we got here along with mistakes we made along the way."
I think you might be wise to look again at what Wade said initially and my first comment relative to to it: God's Spirit gets it honest and right---and we manage to mess it up as we try to "make it better."
That is the real story of most religious / political / theoretical / philosophical movements.
Do you know the great story of the Donkey told by an ancient Greek philosopher?
"Do you know the great story of the Donkey told by an ancient Greek philosopher?"
No. Maybe my Dad will teach me that one after he shows me how to ride a bike, oh venerable wise one.
How old are you, my son???
You sound like a young whiper snapper refusing to have much respect for any "elder churchman."
The more you pontificate, the more the donkey story might be about you!
Amen. (for the post)
I would have to believe that people in Paul's day would have known about thermal radiation, though not in scientific formulas but in common sense terms and observations. So Moses's face radiance decaying over time would have been a good conjecture. But reading II Corithians 3, Paul states that the source of radiance in Moses time, was outside of Moses, but for us is inside us.
Where's the ministry story, Darby???
O DAWN OF THE EAST
"O" Antiphon for December 21
O Dawn of the East,
Brightness of the Light Eternal And Sun of Justice,
COME . . .
And enlighten them
That sit in darkness
And in the shadow of death.
THE SECRET OF THE 'O' ANTIPHONS
OF ADVENT
In the "O" Antiphons, some Christians pray to Lord Christ on the days just prior to Christmas Eve, using the Names Christ was called in the First Testament.
If you take the first letter of each name in Latin;
Emmanuel, Rex, Oriens, Clavis, Radix, Adonai and Sapienta;
you get the Latin phrase
"ERO CRAS" which translates as
"TOMORROW, I COME"
Amen.
Come, Lord Jesus.
From the ages to the ages,
Amen.
L's, you almost make me want to be Catholic. :)
A Compline prayer in your honor, and to the glory of our Lord.
O rising Dawn, radiance of the light eternal and Sun of Justice; Come, enlighten those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death. O Oriens, o rising dawn. In You we are sealed through your blood. Amen.
Hi KEVIN,
Actually, the Antiphons belong also to the Orthodox, the Lutherans, the Episcopalians (Anglicans), and to any other Christian who finds them meaningful to their faith. (The Antiphons are also deeply rooted in the Story of Salvation as they reflect the First Testament's deep longings for the Messiah.)
If a prayer connects with your heart, and with your spirit, you may, of course, join the larger Christian community in praying it in the Name of Christ with us. The Holy Spirit will let you know if it is something of meaning to you. :)
Stay focused on Christ the Lord.
He is our Deep Anchor who goes below the man-made turbulence of theological differences.
Christ the Lord is transcendent.
But. you know this already, Kevin.
Love, L's
Kevin,
You said, “The tithe is not a NT principle, I get that. Give as you are blessed, as the Spirit directs...”
I’ve said many times, “The 10% is the poor man’s burden and the rich man’s cop-out.”
I’ll admit I didn’t think you had it in you but I believe you bestowed the greatest compliment I’ve seen on Wade’s blog when you said, “L’s, you almost make me want to be Catholic. :)”
L’s,
Your saying “…join the larger Christian community in praying it in the Name of Christ…” agrees with:
“…you can go directly to the Father and ask him, and he will give you what you ask for because you use my name. You shall ask in my name, and I won’t need to ask the Father to grant these request, for the Father loves you dearly because you love me…” (John 16:23, 26-27 Living Bible.”
Darby Livingston,
Not to highjack Wade’s good post, :) but I looked at your blog and your “What is a Woman’s High Calling?” was interesting in your reference to (1 Corinthians 7:7-8) where you said:
“Paul says that as a concession, he wishes that all people would be like Paul – single.
Are women included in this text? Of course. Then how could a woman's high calling be motherhood if it's not even a woman's responsibility to get married?”
I noticed the Baptist Standard blog there is an article from Atlanta Baptist Press about ‘Baptist Women in Ministry’.
They have set aside February for churches to invite a woman to preach. I like their T-shirts logo that says, “This is What a Preacher Looks Like”.
This has been a fascinating discussion, but so far it seems everyone has missed the most significant point in Wade's post. Enid, OK has an Italian breakfast eatery??
Tom,
One may be quite suprised at the culinary delights of Enid, Oklahoma. Contrary to some's understanding of our fair city, there are a number of billion dollar businesses bringing in some pretty high paying jobs, including Continental Resources, Advance Foods, Atwoods, Vance Air Force Base, etc...
We have FOUR Italian restuarants, a dozen chinese restaurants and the numbers go up from there!
:)
I just heard tonight that Oral B was from Enid.
"Do this in light of what we know about the triune God, about the order of creation, the nature of the rebellion, and in light of the biblical story line. "
Crowder, this could be a problem. Many do not agree about the 'Triune God' being a chain of command structure for all eternity past and future. (Who does the Holy Spirit report to?)
What on earth does creation order have to do with anything except an interpretation that reads INTO the text that you can claim makes you a big cheese simply for having the a certain physiology?
Patriarchy WAS part of the rebellion. Sinful man elevating himself and women turning to men and AWAY from God.
So tell us, what laws specifically are transferred to the NC besides the ones mentioned again in the NT?
Kevin,
Yep. Fascinating story.
Wade
Lady of Purple:
"So tell us, what laws specifically are transferred to the NC besides the ones mentioned again in the NT?"
Tell me please which ones were specifically done away with? (As if to say that God's righteous requirements have somehow changed.)
"Who does the Holy Spirit report to?"
Now now Lydia, you obviously have forgotten the filogue clause in the Nicene Creed. The HS proceeds FROM the Father and the Son. :)
Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum, et vivificantem: qui ex Patre Filioque procedit.
See? :))
KMC,
"Tell me please which ones were specifically done away with? (As if to say that God's righteous requirements have somehow changed.)"
Most all of them. Israel couldn't ever obey it. You won't either. No matter how hard you try.
Act 15:10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting a yoke on the necks of the disciples, such as neither our forefathers nor we [ourselves] were able to endure?
Act 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to lay upon you any greater burden than these indispensable requirements:
Act 15:29 That you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from [tasting] blood and from [eating the meat of animals] that have been strangled and from sexual impurity. If you keep yourselves from these things, you will do well. Farewell [be strong]!
If you will study it enough, you will come to the same conclusion that they did. Christ is our righteousness and He is all the righteousness we will ever have, or for that matter ever need. Jer 23:6, 33:16, 1Co 1:30
Spurgeon says it better here than I can.
I think you are missing imputed righteousness and looking to make your own. See Spurgeon's comment here for a bit of clarification.
As to our freedom, I think the amplified says it best.
Gal 5:7 You were running the race nobly. Who has interfered in (hindered and stopped you from) your heeding and following the Truth?
Gal 5:8 This [evil] persuasion is not from Him Who called you [Who invited you to freedom in Christ].
Gal 5:9 A little leaven (a slight inclination to error, or a few false teachers) leavens the whole lump [it perverts the whole conception of faith or misleads the whole church].
Gal 5:10 [For my part] I have confidence [toward you] in the Lord that you will take no contrary view of the matter but will come to think with me. But he who is unsettling you, whoever he is, will have to bear the penalty.
Gal 5:11 But, brethren, if I still preach circumcision [as some accuse me of doing, as necessary to salvation], why am I still suffering persecution? In that case the cross has ceased to be a stumbling block and is made meaningless (done away).
Gal 5:12 I wish those who unsettle and confuse you would [go all the way and] cut themselves off!
Gal 5:13 For you, brethren, were [indeed] called to freedom; only [do not let your] freedom be an incentive to your flesh and an opportunity or excuse [for selfishness], but through love you should serve one another.
Gal 5:14 For the whole Law [concerning human relationships] is complied with in the one precept, You shall love your neighbor as [you do] yourself. [Lev. 19:18.]
Please do stay away from sharp instruments until you get this figured out. :)
Merry Christmas!
KMC,
" (As if to say that God's righteous requirements have somehow changed.)"
His requirements haven't changed but they were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Completed for you and me and all the rest of us.
If you really want to get into covenant theology then you need to take a real good look at Romans 9. Israel didn't receive reconciliation to God because they tried to get it through works of the law rather than faith.
It is His covenant with Abraham and David that you need to be focused on. They are everlasting covenants.
Gen 17:7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting, solemn pledge, to be a God to you and to your posterity after you. [Gal. 3:16.]
2Sa 23:5 Truly does not my house stand so with God? For He has made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure. For will He not cause to prosper all my help and my desire?
Jer 32:40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will not turn away from following them to do them good, and I will put My [reverential] fear in their hearts, so that they will not depart from Me. [Jer. 31:31-34.]
The Mosaic covenant was not an everlasting covenant. It was made void and done away.
2Co 3:6 [It is He] Who has qualified us [making us to be fit and worthy and sufficient] as ministers and dispensers of a new covenant [of salvation through Christ], not [ministers] of the letter (of legally written code) but of the Spirit; for the code [of the Law] kills, but the [Holy] Spirit makes alive. [Jer. 31:31.]
2Co 3:7 Now if the dispensation of death engraved in letters on stone [the ministration of the Law], was inaugurated with such glory and splendor that the Israelites were not able to look steadily at the face of Moses because of its brilliance, [a glory] that was to fade and pass away, [Exod. 34:29-35.]
2Co 3:8 Why should not the dispensation of the Spirit [this spiritual ministry whose task it is to cause men to obtain and be governed by the Holy Spirit] be attended with much greater and more splendid glory?
2Co 3:9 For if the service that condemns [the ministration of doom] had glory, how infinitely more abounding in splendor and glory must be the service that makes righteous [the ministry that produces and fosters righteous living and right standing with God]!
2Co 3:10 Indeed, in view of this fact, what once had splendor [the glory of the Law in the face of Moses] has come to have no splendor at all, because of the overwhelming glory that exceeds and excels it [the glory of the Gospel in the face of Jesus Christ].
2Co 3:11 For if that which was but passing and fading away came with splendor, how much more must that which remains and is permanent abide in glory and splendor!
2Co 3:12 Since we have such [glorious] hope (such joyful and confident expectation), we speak very freely and openly and fearlessly.
2Co 3:13 Nor [do we act] like Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze upon the finish of the vanishing [splendor which had been upon it].
2Co 3:14 In fact, their minds were grown hard and calloused [they had become dull and had lost the power of understanding]; for until this present day, when the Old Testament (the old covenant) is being read, that same veil still lies [on their hearts], not being lifted [to reveal] that in Christ it is made void and done away.
KMC,
You are either going to minister works of the law or the righteousness of Christ. A ministry of a letter of law or a ministry of reconciliation to God.
2Co 5:17-2Co 5:21
You are either reconciled by the free gift, the unearned favor, grace, the righteousness of Christ or you are working for it, trying to earn it. Romans 4.
In the end, you seem to be making the same mistakes Israel did. See that you don't stumble on the STONE like they did.
OUR NATIVITY
'I knew
that Christ had given me birth
To brother all the souls of Earth'
John Masefield, poet
OPUS MAGNUM
Weary, worn, welts on hand
Work has whittled down the man
To the bare necessities
Of what he is, and what he’ll be
Was this then his destiny?
Defined, refined by what we do,
The toilsome tasks are never through
Thorn and thistle, dirt and dust
Sweeping clean, removing rust
All to earn his upper crust?
Sweat of brow, and carried weight
Rose too early, slept too late
Slaving, striving dawn to dusk
‘Til the shell is barely husk
Staunch the stench with smell of musk?
But work is not the curse or cure
By which we’re healed, or will endure
It will not save us in the end,
It is no foe, but rather friend
But while it molds us will we mend?
Task Master making all things new
Who makes the most of what we do,
Let our work an offering be
A timely gift from those set free
From earning our eternity.
When work is mission on the move
By those whose efforts serve to prove
That nothing’s wasted in God’s hands
When we respond to his commands
Then we shall hear him say “well done”
To those who worked under the Son.
- Ben Witherington
What an excellent post. I look forward to your series regarding Old vs. New Covenants in January.
One thing I've noticed: many who endorse OT prescriptions (feasts, etc) tend to forget that most of us are Gentiles ~ Gentile believers who fall under the application of the apostles' letter in Acts 15.
"Lady of Purple:
"So tell us, what laws specifically are transferred to the NC besides the ones mentioned again in the NT?"
Tell me please which ones were specifically done away with? (As if to say that God's righteous requirements have somehow changed.)"
Jesus did not come to abolish the law....He fulfilled the law.
""Who does the Holy Spirit report to?"
Now now Lydia, you obviously have forgotten the filogue clause in the Nicene Creed. The HS proceeds FROM the Father and the Son. :)"
I don't do Creeds. I do not have the same trust that they are "Inspired" as others do.
But the chain of command for the Trinity presents a problem outside of the Incarnation. the Lord of Hosts, Jesus Christ...He is called "Everlasting Father" in Isaiah 9.
"But the chain of command for the Trinity presents a problem outside of the Incarnation. the Lord of Hosts, Jesus Christ...He is called "Everlasting Father" in Isaiah 9."
Lydia, your quoting of Isaiah doesn't really pose a problem with the idea of a "chain of command" within the Godhead. If anything, it raises a question concerning the Trinity itself, which I doubt you're trying to do.
I've gone back and reread some of the Reisinger article because I don't want to misrepresent him in comment Mon Dec 21, 04:43:00 PM 2009. Here is a part of what he said in that article:
"Some theologians want to make the
phrase, the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2),
do the work in the new covenant that
the 'Ten Words' did in the old. To do
so, however, is to misunderstand andhence misuse the term. The phrase, the law of Christ, as Paul uses it in
Galatians, probably means that the law
that governs the new covenant people
of God is love (see also James 2:8).
It does not refer to an exhaustive and
detailed list of laws. The new covenant has clear and specifi c commands, but it does not have any laws in the sense of true law. Law without a penalty is not law per se, but only good advice. A law that sets a speed limit of sixtyfive miles an hour but has no penalties for violation, no law-officers to
enforce it, and no judges to punish
infractions of it is not true law. It is the penalty, enforcement, and punishment aspect of law as law that makes it impossible for a new covenant child of God ever to be under the law. We can argue about whether or not the new covenant establishes severe consequencesfor violating its commands, but the Scripture is clear about punishment:
it is impossible for a Christian
ever to come under condemnation
(Romans 8:1). Thus, one essential element of law is missing."
So, Darby, why call the coming Messiah "Everlasting Father" in Isaiah?
Jesus is God
Holy Spirit is God
God is God
I am not the one presenting a chain of command structure in the Trinity for eternity past and future. You guys need it in order to draw parallels to a chain of command for men and women.
BTW: Jesus said that HE will send the Holy Spirit and it is also quoted that God the Father will send the Holy Spirit. So, my question remains: Who does the Holy Spirit report to if there is a chain of command structure within the Trinity for all time?
BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE . . .
""Thy years are one day, and Thy day is not daily,
but today; because Thy today yields not to tomorrow,
for neither does it follow yesterday.
Thy today is eternity;
therefore Thou begat the Co-eternal,
to whom Thou saidst, 'This day have I begotten Thee."
St. Augustine
Benji,
I think I see what he is saying there but it goes further than that. The reason there is no condemnation is because we have been crucified with Christ and today are free from the law and its demands. (Gal 2:19)Jesus Christ perfectly fulfilled the Law and bore the penalty for us. After the trial, after the sentence of death, Jesus died the death for us. In our place. Everything was fulfilled and as a result, we now are reconciled to God.
So the Law and our relationship to it is forever changed. The Law has already done all it can do to us.
Here is the way Spurgeon puts it.
"The Lord Jesus Christ acted in what he did as a great public representative person, and his dying upon the cross was the virtual dying of all his people. Then all his saints rendered unto justice what was due, and made an expiation to divine vengeance for all their sins. The apostle of the Gentiles delighted to think that as one of Christ’s chosen people, he died upon the cross in Christ. He did more than believe this doctrinally, he accepted it confidently, resting his hope upon it. He believed that by virtue of Christ’s death, he had satisfied divine justice, and found reconciliation with God. Beloved, what a blessed thing it is when the soul can, as it were, stretch itself upon the cross of Christ, and feel, “I am dead; the law has slain me, and I am therefore free from its power, because in my Surety I have borne the curse, and in the person of my Substitute the whole that the law could do, by way of condemnation, has been executed upon me, for I am crucified with Christ.”
If we continue to insist that we must obey the Law then just what did Jesus die for?
Gal 2:21 [Therefore, I do not treat God's gracious gift as something of minor importance and defeat its very purpose]; I do not set aside and invalidate and frustrate and nullify the grace (unmerited favor) of God. For if justification (righteousness, acquittal from guilt) comes through [observing the ritual of] the Law, then Christ (the Messiah) died groundlessly and to no purpose and in vain. [His death was then wholly superfluous.]
Lydia wrote: "I am not the one presenting a chain of command structure in the Trinity for eternity past and future."
A couple examples, not that it will matter:
Concerning the Son: "The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him... For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man."
"When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do."
Before you say these texts refer to Jesus on earth, I will remind you that 1) Jesus is God the Son, whether on earth or in Heaven, and 2) The Son didn't send the Father to die on a cross, but the Son was sent by the Father. Sent is passive for Jesus. It was done to him by One in authority over him.
Concerning the Spirit: "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."
The Spirit was never the God-Man, so this text is even more clear than the Son texts above.
Lydia wrote: "You guys need it in order to draw parallels to a chain of command for men and women."
You're absolutely wrong about this. All we need are texts like Eph. 5 that are clear enough for a third grader to comprehend. The parallel is Christ and the church, but you won't even let that say what it says.
In fact, the opposite is true. In order for egals to say that authority is bad, they have to tinker with the Trinity in order to do it.
Lydia, egals start with a presupposition that women are suppressed by any structure based on roles, then bend the texts to fit it.
Darby, we could exchange passages all day. I could give you John 5:18 and many more that show Jesus Christ, Lord of Hosts as equal to the Father. And you would have to explain to me how the Lord of Hosts is shown to be in a chain of command in the OT. He was AT creation. He is the Word.
Show me the chain of command in the OT.
What you are proposing is an eternal Trinity that has different wills even after the resurrection. They would have to based upon your interpretation. That is how submission works. The Trinity is Unified. You can track all through the Word each person of the Trinity doing many of the same works!
Egal is based on reading the whole scope of the Word starting with Genesis 3 when God warned that Eve would turn toward Adam and away from Him. And she did. And because of that, Adam ruled her. Look past your seminary professors and the celebrity comp teachers of today to study Teshuqa.
Non egal teaches sin as virtue. It teaches patriarchy as God's design when it was really a result of sin. Like Lamech in Genesis. Perfect example of Patriarchy. God worked through Patriarchy for His own purposes as He did all through the OT. With David, Abraham, Solomon, all horrible sinners.
Would you tell your son to be like David in every way? How about Solomon? If you answer yes, I will be scared of you! :o)
"You're absolutely wrong about this. All we need are texts like Eph. 5 that are clear enough for a third grader to comprehend. The parallel is Christ and the church, but you won't even let that say what it says.
"
Darby, that would mean that only men are to be Christlike.
Women are to act like a "church" but NOT be Christlike?
How far are you willing to take a metaphor about unity?
Darby, Did Jesus come as a Baby of His own Will? If He was 'sent' as you define it, then He was not acting on His own Will and that would mean HE is a lesser God of some sort. According to your definition.
But Phil 2 tells me HE GAVE UP His Glory and HUMBLED Himself to become part human. HE did not consider being equal with God DURING THE INCARNATION something to be grasped. He made HIMSELF of no reputation.
How could HE do that if He did not have the power to do that?
What concerns me about ESS is that Jesus Christ must be Glorified and ESS does the opposite. His Name must be above every Name.
As God in the Flesh. Not some lesser God in a chain of command structure. It is a mockery of Him and what He did. I take it as a personal affront to my Savior.
Would you have daughters be taught to be Eve? Jezebel? What does that prove?
You wrote: "What you are proposing is an eternal Trinity that has different wills even after the resurrection. They would have to based upon your interpretation. That is how submission works."
You are very reasonable and intelligent, Lydia. One can see that when you write. In fact, the only time I've seen flaws in your logic is when you're defending egalitarianism. It makes me wonder why you let emotion drive your arguments in that area.
The Trinity doesn't have to have different wills based on my interpretation. I think you have a screwed up vision of how submission works. That's the problem. For you, if anyone places himself or herself under another in service, it is a great evil. But when Jesus took on the towel and washed his disciples' feet, did anyone in the room forget who had authority? Placing oneself under another is not a sign of degradation.
And yet, Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, said, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground. And when he rose from prayer, he came to the disciples and found them sleeping for sorrow, and he said to them, “Why are you sleeping? Rise and pray that you may not enter into temptation.”
NOT MY WILL, BUT YOURS BE DONE. And an angel came to strengthen him. What for? Bringing his will in line with the Father's. And after the blood-sweating agony of prayer, his will lined up with the Father's and he went to the cross for the joy set before him.
"Darby, that would mean that only men are to be Christlike.
Women are to act like a "church" but NOT be Christlike?
How far are you willing to take a metaphor about unity?"
You're playing parlor games with the text. That's not at all what that means. You're adding that to take away the force of the text. For goodness' sake, THE TEXT MEANS SOMETHING. If Paul didn't have a point, he wouldn't have written it.
Yes Darby, what it means is about unity and love.
My point is if I take your interpretation I end up with what I wrote: Men are to be like Christ and women, like the church and NOT like Christ. It is simple logic if I take your interpretation. You are the one that maps women to the church and men to Christ. You are the one making it a legalistic set of roles.
" It makes me wonder why you let emotion drive your arguments in that area."
Good one, Darby. You guys always have to fall back on that one. The problem is that EVERYONE argues from emotion whether it is stoic or passionate.
Give up your preeminance. Tell us you are a servant NOT a leader.
You are not a 'type of Christ' to your wife. You are a depraved sinner just like me who was saved by Grace alone. You don't get an extra helping of wisdom and grace because of your male parts.
Darby, you continue to use Incarnation passages when Jesus Christ was in the Flesh to prove eternal subordination, a chain of command in the Trinity from the past to the future.
Go back to the OT and prove to me a chain of command within the Trinity from the beginning.
If it is the case, it should be there from the very start. And very clear. It is too important an issue.
BTW: Merry Christmas!
How many different ways can I say I'm rotten? That's what you want? I'm a depraved loser who isn't worthy of my wife. I've said that publicly since I met her. It's not my desire for "preeminence" that causes me to be comp. It's the texts. Merry Christmas to you as well. I have a feeling we agree on far more than disagree.
"you continue to use Incarnation passages..."
Jesus Himself [the God-man] spoke about "following the lead" of the Father as "the Son":
John 5:19. Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, THE SON can do NOTHING of himself, but what he seeth THE FATHER do: for what things soever HE DOETH, these also DOETH THE SON likewise. (caps mine)
To take the idea tha "only" the human nature of Jesus submitted to the father [not the Divine] to its logical conclusion would mean that all four gospels present only the human nature of Jesus submitting to the Father since everything Jesus did was in submission to the Father.
Also, how could the Son submit to being sent by the father since the sending would be logically prior to the incarnation [which is a result of the sending]?
Admittedly, the issue of whether the Son has been in an eternally subordinate relationship to the Father is more vague to me than some other things [Frame's "The Doctrine of God--suggested reading].
However, it seems to me that you pretty much have to slice Jesus in two to hold onto the idea that god the son never submitted to the Father.
"...God the Son.."
My mistake
A little more detail.
[Frame's "The Doctrine of God--suggested reading]. He has a short section on the issue of "eternal subordination" and that is what I am suggesting to read.
I have a feeling we agree on far more than disagree.
We do! Iron sharpens iron, though.
Benji, How could Jesus Christ "HUMBLE" Himself and give up His Glory to come to earth if He was subordinate according to your interpretation? How could He give up something He did not have?
Of course He was sent. This is more about His origin...coming from the Father. Full inheritance. The Jews believed He was making Himself EQUAL with God by saying He was His Son. (See John 5) That is why they wanted to kill Him.
Now, show me in the OT, the obvious chain of command in the Trinity outside the Incarnation.
[Frame's "The Doctrine of God--suggested reading]. He has a short section on the issue of "eternal subordination" and that is what I am suggesting to read.
Thu Dec 24, 05:08:00 PM 2009
Benj, This is going to sound arrogant but when it comes to this issue, I have to rely on the Holy Spirit to teach me. I do not trust humans on this one. In fact, had I not trusted the Holy Spirit, I would probably never discerned the false teaching on this lessening of Jesus Christ from Ware and others.
The fading glory of the OT covenant that is described by this passage reminds me of a similar divide between the natural law and the the positive law. The natural law is unwritten and eternal, and comes from God. The positive law is made by man to keep proper order in society. The positive law is good if it serves its purpose, but if it conflicts with the natural law, it is no longer law.
There is a philosophical school called "positivism", which asserts that only those things which can be proven empirically are real. In legal philosophy, positivists deny that there is a natural law. They assert that the law "is" only what is written. The natural law theorists say that the law is what "ought" to be just, and that is "oughtness" can be discerned through the universal goods of mankind and our sense of reason.
This same conflict is played out between Jesus and the pharisees: they cling to their own man-made rules, and prize this over the Love and Wisdom of God. They don't recognize God when He is standing before them. The pharisees have a veil over their hearts.
Taking this Bible Wisdom into the world today, we can see that not all rules are bad, and that not all traditions are bad. Some are very good. But we should never confuse the one for the other. The Law was holy and good, but it has been completely abrogated by the New Covenant. Certainly we are no longer under the curse of the old law. It's purpose was to point to the New Covenant in Jesus, and to show the power of sin. It is this power of sin that causes men to take good laws and twist them into their own selfish ends. God made this very clear by allowing Jesus to die on the Cross. The teachers of the law did this knowing that everyone who dies on a tree is under a curse. Thus, if the law were in effect, Jesus would be under a curse. How sinful these men were, to think that they could triumph over God's own Son by the law! But Jesus could never be separated from God, and therefore the Cross separated us from the power of the law. Now we live under the New Covenant, in the Grace that flows from Christ.
As St Paul says, "Their minds, indeed, were closed; and to this very day their minds are covered with the same veil as they read the books of the old covenant. The veil is removed only when a person is joined to Christ. But it can be removed, as the scripture says about Moses: "His veil was removed when he turned to the Lord.""
The other philosophical pitfall that describes this situation is that of relativism or indeterminism, or legal realism. They are essentially positivists, asserting that all authority is in the written word, but they recognize that there is always vagueness inherent in natural language. These people assert that there is no underlying meaning to the law, that it is always fluid, and that judges are only enforcing their own political or sociological opinions rather than seeking justice. This opinion is the other extreme view that results when we lose the natural law. I hear this type of thinking when people assert that Jesus did away with "tradition" generally. That is not true. As I have said, some traditions are good: "Honor thy Father and thy mother..."
But the pharisees, the positivists of His time, used their own laws to overcome this tradition: "But you say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee. And he shall not honour his father or his mother: and you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition."
Clearly there is a substantive value to the tradition of caring from one's parents, and this is not overcome by the competing value of giving to the temple, or by some other legalistic wordplay. There is a meaning to the tradition that is represented by the words, but it still exists apart from the words.
It is just as clear that Jesus did not intend to do away with this very good tradition.
Another sacred tradition is that marriage is between a man and a woman. But Jesus did not intend to do away with this tradition either. Rather Jesus said that this understanding of male/female marriage was central to Jesus' teaching, and part of our very being: "Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh."
This is just a brief sketch of a much broader topic, but I have shown how positivistic thought is an expression of man's sinful nature and of his selfish will to control. Jesus calls to humbly follow His Word, which has meaning that extends beyond mere words. We cannot change God's Will by manipulating words, or by ending sacred traditions. Rather we need to conform our lives to His; We must allow His Grace to work in us and bring an end to our own sinful desires; We must remove the veil and turn to Jesus so that we can live out our calling as Christians: the chosen people of God, a light unto the nations, shining with radiance of God's love, which will not fade if we stay in communion with Christ.
Post a Comment