Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Hebrews 1:3


  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#61 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:31 AM

The Angel of the LORD is called YHWH because the Father's name is in him.

"if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak"

obey his voice (the Angel of the LORD) and do all that I speak (YHWH, the Father).

Obeying the voice of the Angel was obeying the voice of GOD. That is why the Angel is called LORD, and God. "The LORD God of Israel"

If the Angel of the LORD is called YHWH and God, and of Jesus Christ it is said: That (to him) every knee shall bow in heaven and earth. That includes the Angels in heaven. So Christ is above the Angels, why then should he not receive the name YHWH and God?

I have no problem referring to Jesus as LORD or GOD just as Thomas had not. But to say that he pre-existed and is a member of a trinity God is just plain ignorance of Scripture or truth.

Edited by Chrlsp, 16 February 2012 - 12:50 AM.


#62 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:17 AM

The Angel of the LORD is called YHWH because the Father's name is in him.

"if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak"

obey his voice (the Angel of the LORD) and do all that I speak (YHWH, the Father).

Obeying the voice of the Angel was obeying the voice of GOD. That is why the Angel is called LORD, and God. "The LORD God of Israel"

If the Angel of the LORD is called YHWH and God, and of Jesus Christ it is said: That (to him) every knee shall bow in heaven and earth. That includes the Angels in heaven. So Christ is above the Angels, why then should he not receive the name YHWH and God?

I have no problem referring to Jesus as LORD or GOD just as Thomas had not. But to say that he pre-existed and is a member of a trinity God is just plain ignorance of Scripture or truth.

I was wondering where the Bible actually calls Jesus YHWH. Where in the New Testament does the term "lord" mean YHWH when talking about Jesus? Is it in Philippians 2:11? 1 John 4:2?

#63 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 01:51 AM

In the N.T. Jesus is called Lord (kurios) and God (theos)

In the O.T. it was said that he SHALL BE CALLED:

"his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isa 9:6)

But Jesus has a God...The Father...the only true GOD..."Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen"
.

Edited by Chrlsp, 16 February 2012 - 01:57 AM.


#64 Jesse2W

Jesse2W

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 245 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 04:28 AM

Yea... so in what way(s) is/are my lord and my God equal?
I meant 1 Corinthians 12:3 not 1 John 4:2 btw.
I don't think God is ever called the everlasting Father. Jesus is the everlasting Father because we are born through him, right?

Edited by Jesse2W, 16 February 2012 - 04:34 AM.


#65 Jon D

Jon D

    Pi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPip
  • 807 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 09:38 AM

Kay, can you split out the various discussions please:

- Mediator
- Hebrews 1 query
- Unity/Trinity of God discussion

Thanks :)

Even so, come, Lord Jesus


#66 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:06 AM

Hello John D,


The whole point of Galatians chapter 3 is to demonstrate the inferiority of the Law with regards to the Promise (I suggest you read the various Galatians articles in the eJournal that I have posted on this thread).

The ‘meistes’ of Gal.3:19 is most probably Moses (although he is not mentioned by name) but verse 20 then continues by saying that “a mediator is not of one”. Paul is accepting a well known premise (that Moses functioned as a mediator) in order to logically disprove it. Paul employs here an enthymeme as rhetorical device and 3:19c-20a best fits a contrarium (This is “reasoning by contraries”).

In other words Paul is saying that although the Law also had a ‘meistes’ ……the ‘meistes’ was only for one (i.e., for God) and therefore could not be a true mediator. Moses acted as an intermediary not as a true mediator. This fits the context of Paul’s previous arguments, namely that the Law was inferior because it came after the promise (3:17), the Law was conditional (3:10), the Law could not justify (3:11)………and the Law had no true mediator (3:19-20).

Once again I repeat that two passages in Hebrews and the Timothy passage are connected with Christ’s sacrifice. So the Covenant that he mediated had to do with his sacrifice.

Let me be more specific for you:

The function of mediator is related to covenant sacrifice. Note that I have added the word covenant as you seem to imply that I am suggesting that the function of mediator has nothing to do with the covenant when I have been quite clear that it is all about the new covenant and the bread and wine that represents the sacrifice of the Lord. He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant (Heb.9:15). Jesus mediated the transgressions of the Law…….ipso facto……..Moses did not mediate the transgressions under the first covenant.

The sacrifice of Christ also did away with the law, took away our sins, brought in the new covenant, sanctified his brethren, and a number of other things! Are these also the role of the mediator?


Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes…….now you understand! These are all the outcomes of the mediation wrought by the Lord!!!

You may wish to believe that a mediator is simply someone who “brings a covenant” but I do not. You may also choose to believe that Moses’ and Jesus’ roles as mediators were functionally equivalent…but I do not. Moses delivered a covenant written on tables of stone and spoke only for God. Jesus delivered a covenant written in his flesh…..he died to establish it….and he speaks both for God and for us. The first covenant had no mediator…..I repeat again… He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant (Heb.9:15).

Jesus abolished the Law through his death……..Moses is saved because of Christ…..Jesus acts as Mediator for Moses! (and for everyone else who had faith in the promises).

For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.

There is not one mediator for the OT and one for the NT….there has only ever been ONE MEDIATOR…Jesus Christ……. ever since the first promise was made to Eve the faithful (including Moses) looked forward to true mediation.


This is the whole argument of the book of Hebrews the Law was inferior.....another priesthood was necessary and a better sacrifice....the Law could not mediate peace between God and man....it could only deliver death.


So, Jesus was a mediator and Moses was an intermediary and coincidentally (sic) the word meistes in the extra-biblical sources supports both readings..........

P

#67 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:36 AM

Hello John D,

The RSV gets the translation of meistes in Gal.3:19 right...

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained by angels through an intermediary.

The RSV has chosen intermediary instead of mediator and this reflects the semantic range of meistes which can be translated as either word.

P

#68 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 12:15 PM

Moses was the mediator of the covenant made at Mount Sinai.

Jesus is the mediator of the covenant that was made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This covenant was made 430 years before the covenant made at Mount Sinai.

So, why is it that the covenant made to Moses at Mount Sinai is called the old covenant and the covenant made with the patriarchs which was 430 years earlier is called the new covenant?

It's called the new covenant because it is newly brought into force by the death of the testator of that covenant, Christ.

Moses was the mediator of the covenant made at Mount Sinai and Jesus is the mediator of the covenant made and confirmed with the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the covenant of promise.

"For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise." (Gal 3:18)

Edited by Chrlsp, 16 February 2012 - 12:22 PM.


#69 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 08:07 PM

Paul,

You can say "Moses was not a Mediator" all you want...it means nothing. Because the Bible says he was.(Gal 3:19) The definition is "go between". He was a "go between" God and the people. The covenant was...the giving of the law by God through Moses, which if they obeyed would give them life...and the people said "all that the LORD has spoken we will do".(Ex 19:8).

"For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them." (Rom 10:5, Lev. 18:5)

There was a righeousness which came by the law, that if a man do those things he would live by them. In other words eternal life came by keeping the law. And the people said "all that the LORD has spoken we will do".(Ex 19:8)

Moses was the Mediator of that covenant. He was the "go between". Now we know that no one could keep the law, but that does not change the fact that there was a covenant made of which Moses was the mediator.

Exodus 18 explains exactly how Moses was a mediator.

Edited by Chrlsp, 16 February 2012 - 08:27 PM.


#70 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 10:52 PM

Hello Chrisp,

It does not matter how many times you repeat the same arguments.......it still does not make them true.

The word mediator is not used for Moses in the OT (fact).......the only text which uses "meistes" in relation to Moses is Gal.3:19.......and this text has suffered from misinterpretation for centuries....and is disputed (I have offered a reasonable explanation of it....so does A.D. Norris and other Christo's). You cannot base your understanding of mediator on one text.The RSV translates it as intermediary. You are not addressing the Biblical evidence and have obviously not read my previous posts......they indicate that mediator is related to covenant sacrifice.

If you want to believe that Moses and Jesus acted in exactly the same way as "mediators" then that is fine.....but you will find it difficult to read much of the NT.......especially Hebrews.

P

#71 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 16 February 2012 - 11:31 PM

Hello Chrisp,

It does not matter how many times you repeat the same arguments.......it still does not make them true.

The word mediator is not used for Moses in the OT (fact).......the only text which uses "meistes" in relation to Moses is Gal.3:19.......and this text has suffered from misinterpretation for centuries....and is disputed (I have offered a reasonable explanation of it....so does A.D. Norris and other Christo's). You cannot base your understanding of mediator on one text.The RSV translates it as intermediary. You are not addressing the Biblical evidence and have obviously not read my previous posts......they indicate that mediator is related to covenant sacrifice.

If you want to believe that Moses and Jesus acted in exactly the same way as "mediators" then that is fine.....but you will find it difficult to read much of the NT.......especially Hebrews.

P


It matters not to me how eloquent you or A.D. Norris or any other Christo puts anything. I'm not impressed! What matters to me is what God says. And it's not just "one text", it's many text. It's obvious that Gal 3:19 speaks of Moses, that's the one text. Then we have the other text, of which I quoted a few, that witness to the fact of Gal 3:19 of Moses as a mediator. Maybe you could explain how the text I quoted do not support Moses as being mediator.

#72 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 03:38 AM

Hello Chrisp,

Gal 3:19 has been explained.........read previous posts. Where are the other texts that you refer to? Please quote texts in the OT that use the word mediator (in Hebrew) to describe Moses or for that matter texts in the NT that use the word "meistes" to describe Moses? Apart from Gal.3:19 there are none......and Gal.3:19 has already been explained (see previous posts).

Please explain how Moses and Christ share the same role as mediators? Did Moses mediate for transgressions? Did Moses mediate for the people? (when he attempted to he was refused) Did Moses sacrifice himself? Did Moses abolish the Law? Was Moses the son of God and the son of Man?

You obviously do not understand the difference between a mediator and an intermediary.

I'm not impressed! What matters to me is what God says.


Here then is what God says through Paul in 1 Tim 2:5 (I hope this impresses you);


For there is one God and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus


P

#73 Kay

Kay

    Phi

  • Admin
  • 5,934 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 04:00 AM

Kay, can you split out the various discussions please:

- Mediator
- Hebrews 1 query
- Unity/Trinity of God discussion

Thanks :)


Jon D

Could you give me the post numbers you want split ... into the various topic headings ... I know you know what I mean, but as example:

- Mediator - posts #5, 7, 9, 15 etcetera - I have been following but sometimes only a brief.

As mentioned, if you let me know how you would like it split I can then attend to the task.

Thanks :)
"seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" Matthew 6:33

#74 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 04:19 AM

Pual,

I am not concerned with the difference between a mediator and an intermediary. Intermediary is just a word you added in order to make some distinction. The word "meistes" is the inspired word and it doesn't matter to me what english word you choose to use (I am not impressed). I'm interested in what the inspired word as written by the apostle is meant. My Scriptural study of the word "meistes" as it refers to Christ, and given the english translation of "go between" I understand. I also understand the Apostle to be speaking of Moses as mediator when he speaks of the law as being "ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator (meistes).

It seems we disagree on what the Apostle is saying in Gal. 3:19,20

Edited by Chrlsp, 17 February 2012 - 04:22 AM.


#75 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 04:33 AM

Hello Chrisp,

Yes, but a mediator is not of one (Gal.3:20) What does that mean? Please follow the debate and read the previous posts.


I asked for all the texts (that you refer to) in both the OT and NT that call Moses a "mediator". I am still waiting.

You asked for what God says...........ONE MEDIATOR.........JESUS CHRIST

No answer to that either.

I asked how Moses and Jesus can both function as mediators when their roles are so obviously different.

No answer on that either

The Greek word might be inspired but that does not hold for the translation. Who decides which English word to use? The translators look at the semantic range of the word and context and syntax.......they do not always get it right. The context denotes that mediator is related to covenant sacrifice the semantic range that it has to do with peace making. Jesus did both these things......Moses did not...

Nuff said,

P

#76 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 04:38 AM

Hello Chrisp,

Intermediary is just a word you added in order to make some distinction.


I did not "add" the word intermediary.........the RSV translators have chosen this word.

The NetBible adds the following footnote:

44tn Many modern translations (NASB, NIV, NRSV) render this word (μεσίτης, mesith"; here and in v. 20) as “mediator,” but this conveys a wrong impression in contemporary English. If this is referring to Moses, he certainly did not “mediate” between God and Israel but was an intermediary on God’s behalf. Moses was not a mediator, for example, who worked for compromise between opposing parties. He instead was God’s representative to his people who enabled them to have a relationship, but entirely on God’s terms.

#77 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 05:07 AM

Hello Chrisp,

Intermediary is just a word you added in order to make some distinction.


I did not "add" the word intermediary.........the RSV translators have chosen this word.

The NetBible adds the following footnote:

44tn Many modern translations (NASB, NIV, NRSV) render this word (μεσίτης, mesith"; here and in v. 20) as “mediator,” but this conveys a wrong impression in contemporary English. If this is referring to Moses, he certainly did not “mediate” between God and Israel but was an intermediary on God’s behalf. Moses was not a mediator, for example, who worked for compromise between opposing parties. He instead was God’s representative to his people who enabled them to have a relationship, but entirely on God’s terms.


Maybe you didn't undertand what I said...I DO NOT CARE WHAT ENGLISH WORD YOU OR ANYONE ELSE CHOOSES. It doesn't matter! What matters is the inspired word. If the word "mediator" conveys the wrong impression then use another. The important thing is the meaning. The translators used the word "mediator" and give a definition "go between". So, how is Christ a "go between" God and man? Consider all that is said of Christ and what he himself says and there you have it. If "meistes" means "go between" and I understand, in english, all that is said of Christ that makes him the "go between" God and men well then I can say that I understand "meistes"

#78 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 05:43 AM

Moses was not specifically called a mediator in the O.T.

As I said in an earlier post there are different covenants.

The covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the covenant made and confirmed with the patriarchs.


Christ has always been the mediator of the covenant made and confirmed with the patriarchs. He was not the mediator of the covenant made with Moses at the Mount. The covenant made with the patriarchs laid dormant from the time it was confirmed to Jacob until Christ, whose death brought the covenant into force. 430 years after the covenant was confirmed with Jacob the covenant was made with Moses at the Mount.

The covenant made with the patriachs was a covenant of promise by which is of faith. The inheritence is obtained by faith.
The covenant made to Moses was of promise thorough works. The inheritence was obtained by works.

Moses was a "go between" as it related to the law. We can read that in much of the O.T.. I pointed to Ex 18 as a good example of Moses as a mediator or go between.

There are many similarities between Moses and Christ. But i think we need to understand the difference in the two covenants. Faith and works.

if you think Moses was not a "go between" God and the Israelites then that's fine you are intitled to have your understanding.

The important thing is that we understand how we are to be included in the covenant of promise by which the inheritence is truly obtained.

Edited by Chrlsp, 17 February 2012 - 05:44 AM.


#79 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 01:22 PM

Hello Chrisp,

Yes, there are different covenants. However, the OLD COVENANT had NO MEDIATOR. Why do I say this? Because Hebrews tells us:

And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. (Heb. 9:15)

So the first covenant , where Moses functioned as a "go between" (intermediary) had no mediator. Christ brought redemption of transgression under the first covenant (not Moses)..........for this reason he is mediator of the Old Covenant which he transformed into the New Covenant by means of his death.

The covenant made to Moses was of promise thorough works. The inheritence was obtained by works.


No one except Christ "obtained the inheritance by works"........they all failed.....even Moses was refused entry into the land........so Christ acts as mediator even for Moses! (that those who are called [i.e., Moses] may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance (Heb.9:15).

So your "mediator" (Moses) of the Old Covenant.......required a MEDIATOR (Christ) in order to recieve the "eternal inheritance".


How much of a mediator was Moses then? Nuff said!

So Christ was the mediator of the Old Covenant (for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant) this is the whole argument of Paul.

Christ abolished the Law through his death......that is the work of a true mediator!

You are right, Moses was a "go between" but he was not a mediator in the true sense of the word! There is ONLY ONE MEDIATOR- CHRIST (2 Tim 2:5).

Paul wrote Gal 3:19-20 to bolster his argument about the inferiority of the Law. As far as Paul was concerned Moses did not function as a mediator (a mediator is not of one).....only Christ could do this. Of course the Jews were shocked to learn that Moses was not a mediator (you are also shocked)....but the truth is that the Law could not bring righteousness (only in the case of Christ could the Law deliver righteousness).

Hebrews was written to demonstrate the inferiority of the Law (Old Covenant) and the necessity of a true mediator (Christ) who would transform the Old Covenant into the New Covenant. Moses could not transform the Old into the New........therefore Moses was not a mediator.....

The Jews take the position that Moses was a mediator.......but the apostle Paul did not.....the Law brought death......Jesus brings life.......there is only one mediator and it is not Moses.

P

#80 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 01:48 PM

Christ did not "transform" the old covenant into the new. The "new" is older than the old. The new is new because Christ brought it into force by his death. The "new" is 430 yrs older than the "old". Christ does not transform the old into the "new", he does away with the old.

Moses descibed a righteousness which was of the law by which if a man kept he would live...the inheritence would be his forever. (Rom. 10)

That was the covenant made between God and the Israelites of which Moses was the "go between".

The Israelites were to be instructed in the law and to keep the law. The promise was the inheritence of the land and all those things the Lord said that were included with it. The people said: "All that the LORD has said we will do". that's the covenant.

It seems you are a bit confused about the covenants. Think again. It's okay.

Edited by Chrlsp, 17 February 2012 - 01:52 PM.


#81 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 03:19 PM

"For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you." (Heb. 9:16-20)

The first or former testament (covenant) was dedicated with blood because without the shedding of blood there was/is no remission of sins. Moses did not sacrifice himself for the sins of the people he sacrificed animals. As Moses instructed the people in the law they therefore could receive remission for sins by the sacrifice of animals.

Now even Moses knew that this practice could never attain the inheritence because Moses was a prophet and spoke of Christ. But that does not mean that the covenant was never made. It most certainly was. It was added because of transgressions until the covenant that was made before (430 yrs before) should come into effect by the sacrifice and blood of Christ.

Edited by Chrlsp, 17 February 2012 - 03:20 PM.


#82 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 03:06 AM

Hello Chrisp,

Christ did not "transform" the old covenant into the new.


“You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment….” (Matt.5:21-22)

The Beatitudes transform the ‘old” from a set of commandments and regulations into moral and ethical standards. The Beatitudes present a new set of ideals that focus on love and humility rather than proscription and punishment of prohibitive law. It is no longer…thou shalt not…..but rather…blessed are…(…the peacemakers….etc). The Law itself was fulfilled by Christ. Therefore, although the Law was fulfilled and abolished by the sacrifice of Christ it has been effectively transformed by Christ from a vehicle of condemnation by “works” into a way of living by faith (the new covenant).


But that does not mean that the covenant was never made.


Where have I ever said that God did not make a covenant with Israel at Sinai? You are deliberately setting up a straw-man argument so that you can knock it down. I have never said that. What I have said is that Moses did not act as a mediator in the same way as Christ did. Their roles are not equivalent not even remotely so. Moses and the Law foreshadowed Christ.

If you had read the eJournal attachment that I posted you would know that the Promise is both before and after the Law. The Promise was given 430 years before the Law but was only “confirmed” by the resurrection. So the Law was an “interlude” between the giving of the Promise and the ratification of the Promise (i.e., the resurrection).

You partially quoted from Romans 10:5 and then added your own bit about “inheritance”:

Moses described a righteousness which was of the law by which if a man kept he would live...the inheritance would be his forever.



The actual quote is:

Romans 10:5 For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, "The man who does those things shall live by them."


Yes, if you kept the Law you would “live” (not be put to death because of infringement of the commands)……but that is not the same as….“the inheritance would be his forever”. Once again you have quoted out of context….read the whole chapter and the whole book of Romans…it actually says the opposite of what you want it to say! Paul’s point is that the righteous will live by faith (not by the Law): "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."(10:11) The Bible is quite specific that the inheritance cannot be “earned” by our own righteousness (you are thinking here like the Jews)

Romans 9:31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness
.
Romans 9:32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.



Moses did not sacrifice himself for the sins of the people he sacrificed animals. As Moses instructed the people in the law they therefore could receive remission for sins by the sacrifice of animals.




Yes, you are beginning to understand. Moses did not sacrifice himself. Therefore he did not mediate for transgression under the Old Covenant.

"Yet now, if You will forgive their sin -- but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written." And the LORD said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book.” (Ex.32-32-33)

The pardon that the Law offered was only temporary and related to each specific sin, sacrifice had to be constantly repeated…..it impressed upon the people that righteousness could not be obtained through works. Hebrews (10:1-3) says:


For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year.


So sacrifice was constantly repeated year in year out….because it could not permanently do away with sin. The most that the Law could offer is that practitioners of the Law would “live” if they were obedient. Therefore, as no one except Christ was fully obedient….all would die. Even Christ was cursed by the Law but because he was obedient in all things the Law was demonstrated (on this one occasion) to be an inadequate vehicle for salvation. The Law was good at condemning people but not at saving them. Jesus triumphed over the Law and was therefore resurrected he is the only one who obeyed the Law and therefore the only one who “lives” (and that forever).


Moses delivered a covenant written on tablets of stone…..he spoke only for God….he did not make atonement for the people. Therefore Moses was not the same kind of “mediator” as Christ. The Law had no true mediator until Christ.

If the Law had a true mediator the coming of Christ would not have been necessary.

P

#83 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 04:52 AM

Lev 18:5 of which the Apostle quotes in Rom 10:5 meant that he who kept the law would be raised from the dead. It means eternal life!

You said it means: "(not be put to death because of infringement of the commands)"

Here is what is said by the Lord in Lev 18:

" Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments; which if a man do, he shall live in them : I am the Lord."

Now are you telling me that if anyone kept this covenant he would still die? That would be a breaking of the covenant by the LORD. Nonsense!
That covenant had nothing to do with faith, it was of works. That covenant mentions nothing about being in combination with the covenant of promise by faith. Show me where the covenant of works, the covenant made at Mount Sinai, included having faith in the promises made to the patriachs in order to obtain the inheritence?

#84 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 05:22 AM

Being aware that there is only one covenant by which the inheritence and all that it includes can be attained does not change the other covenant by which the inheritence cannot be attained.

Both covenants offered the same promises and both are conditional: They both offered inheritance and recompense of reward, the same life and immortality by resurrection from the dead, and the same dominion and power over the nations.

They are covenants that offer the same reward but they are based on different terms and conditions. One by works the other by faith and by only one can the inheritence of promise be attained.

Edited by Chrlsp, 18 February 2012 - 05:23 AM.


#85 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 01:28 PM

The Israelites entered into the covenant at Mount Sinai when they agreed by saying : "All that the LORD has spoken we will do".

Now these people where dying long before they entered into the covenant. So, what would be the advantage of entering into that covenant if it meant that they would be put to death as soon as they transgressed instead of continuing to live until they died because of the sin of Adam? There is no advantage for them to enter that covenant if it means what you say. But that was not what it meant and anyone with any sense at all can see that. It meant being raised (eternal life) from the dead and enjoying all that the covenant promised. The people understood that and that is why and the only way it makes any sense, and so they entered into it.

Edited by Chrlsp, 18 February 2012 - 01:30 PM.


#86 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 19 February 2012 - 01:58 AM

Hello Chrisp,

Our discussion began on the topic of mediator in Scriptures and investigated whether Moses mediated the Old Covenant in the same way as Christ mediated the New Covenant. My conclusion is that the role that Moses played is not functionally equivalent with that of Christ and I have provided ample evidence from Scripture to back up this conclusion.

You have digressed from the discussion from the topic of mediator to a discussion about the Old Covenant. Of course the two subjects are closely related for in order to understand the role of mediation you need to understand the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

It is obvious from your posts that you do not understand the difference between the Old and New Covenants and this is what prevents you understanding the different roles that Moses and Jesus played in the respective covenants.

You make a number of contradictory claims in your posts.

Being aware that there is only one covenant by which the inheritance and all that it includes can be attained does not change the other covenant by which the inheritance cannot be attained


Both covenants offered….. immortality by resurrection…..



The fact is that both Covenants did not offer immortality and resurrection

Now are you telling me that if anyone kept this covenant he would still die?


Yes, Jesus kept the whole of the Old Covenant…..he did not break one command……he kept the whole Law……he was perfect……….yet the Law (the Old Covenant….the Law of Moses)…..cursed Christ (Gal.3:10-13). Christ the righteous one…..the law keeper…..was cursed by the law and he died.

The Old Covenant brought death not life….the most it promised was that “which if a man do, he shall live in (by NKJ) them” (Lev18:5)………if you kept the Law you had the promise of a long life “that you may prolong your days in the land” (Deut 4:40), you did not have the promise of eternal life.

Paul makes it clear that the Law brought death:

For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death.(Rom.7:5)

The commandment (Law – Old Covenant) did not bring “life” it brought “death”:

And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.(Rom.7:10)

So your theory about both covenants promising eternal life is not supported by Scripture.

That covenant had nothing to do with faith, it was of works. That covenant mentions nothing about being in combination with the covenant of promise by faith


You are right, the Old Covenant (Law) was a covenant of “works” but that does not mean that it had “nothing to do with promises”. Everything in the Law foreshadowed Christ from the typology of the Tabernacle, to the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb, to the constant offerings, the Day of Atonement (with the scapegoat and goat for YHWH), the red heifer, the offerings…. etc etc etc…….all pointed to Christ…the son of the Promise.


Paul says that the Law was a school teacher……..

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ…(Gal.3:24)


Therefore, any Jew who thought that the Law had nothing to do with Christ or with the promises to Abraham, David, etc…….had not been paying attention in class!

So, although the Law was based on “works” if it was kept in a spirit of faithful anticipation for the coming Messiah (that the whole Law pointed towards) then the Law breaker could be forgiven (even the worst infringements). King David committed murder and adultery. Under the Law there was no pardon for these crimes. Yet David was forgiven…because he knew that there was nothing he could sacrifice (Psalm 51:16 For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it)……David realised that only God could provide the sacrifice……..his Son (and David’s Son)…..the Son promised to Abraham and to David (2 Sam7). So it was faith in the Promise that saved David not the Law…….the law can only condemn and bring death. However, the Law did point forward to Christ and the Law was just and Holy…….but made ineffectual by the weakness of man.

Conclusion: The Law brought death….the Law pointed to Christ…the Law of works could only be properly kept with a faithful eye on the lessons that it taught, namely, that men deserved to die and that God would provide a sacrifice for sin….the descendant promised to Abraham and David. So the Law and the Promise are linked.


There is no advantage for them to enter that covenant if it means what you say.


The best answer to this is to read and try to understand Paul’s argument in Romans 3 (I have done an exposition of this chapter for the eJournal but I will not post it here....I have simply pasted the chapter for you to read....see if you can understand as Paul answers the very question that you posed):

1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.
3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written:
“So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge.”[a]
5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!
No One Is Righteous

9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”[b]
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”[c]
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”[d]
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”[e]
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”[f]
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”[g]
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
Righteousness Through Faith

21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
Footnotes:

#87 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 19 February 2012 - 05:15 AM

You still fail to see what the covenant of works was. You keep attempting to transform that covenant into the covenant made with the patriarchs. By doing so you completely miss what the covenant of works states. You need to briefly step out of the foreshadow and simply read what the covenant states along with the terms and conditions of it. Then maybe you will see that the covenant, when it was given, meant exactly what it stated at the time it was made.

I am aware that the law foreshadowed Christ but the convenant was not made according to that. It was not a part of that covenant it only forshadowed it.

I did not say "it had nothing to do with promises." I said it had nothing to do with faith. Meaning that faith was not a part of the terms or conditions. It would have taken faith but it was not made a part of the covenant. The promises in both covenants are the same, only the terms and conditions are different.

Again you falsely claim that it had nothing to do with eternal life even after I showed that it would be senseless if it did not. But you have failed to answer me and instead quote Rom 3. But Romans 3 speaks to the results of the failure of the Jews to keep the covenant and not to the terms of it.

You are still sticking to a senseless arguement.

If the Jews had already been condemned to death by the sin of Adam why would they enter into a covenant that could kill them immediately? It's senseless! and you cannot answer it but instead attempt to do so with Rom 3 which does not even address the terms of the covenant but just the results of it.

Edited by Chrlsp, 19 February 2012 - 05:20 AM.


#88 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 19 February 2012 - 06:41 AM

If you say that the law could not give eternal life then you are saying that the law is unrighteous, imperfect and not good. If by the law man could not attain eternal life then the law is imperfect.

The law, if it could be obeyed completely, must give eternal life to the one who obeys it fully.

"The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward." (Psa 19:7-11)

"the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me." (Rom 7:10)

The problem is not with the law but the failure of man to fully keep it.

#89 Chrlsp

Chrlsp

    Mu

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 324 posts

Posted 19 February 2012 - 05:49 PM

Paul,

"The just shall live by faith"

What do you suppose that means?

It means is that the just will attain eternal life by faith.

And the same thing was true of Lev 18:5:

"Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD."

Your interpretaion claims that the man who kept the law would not be stoned to death because he keeps the law.
But again, what it actually means is that the man who keeps the law shall have life eternal.

Why? because the law of the Lord is perfect, righteous, and Just. It lacks nothing.

What is lacking is man's ability to fully keep the law. And also your ability to realize the perfection in the law.

Paul says:

"Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."

The law is not against or opposes ANY of the promises of God including eternal life!

If there had been a law given which could have given life then righteousness should truely be by the law. Because the law is perfect, righteous, just and good. But the law was not given to give righteuosness but to put all under sin. That's why Paul says "if there had been given a law which could have given life". Not that there was not a law that gives life, but with the law comes the knowledge of sin so that the man must look elsewhere if he is to live (eternally).

Again, the law does not oppose any of the promises of God...including life eternal by resurrection of the dead.

Your argument claims that the law is imperfect and unjust and that it can not give life. You do that by saying that it was not given to give life eternal but only some of the promises. Now, can't you see that that makes the law impefect? It would be unjust not to grant eternal life to the man who kept the law. Right? Right!

Edited by Chrlsp, 19 February 2012 - 05:59 PM.


#90 Biblaridion

Biblaridion

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 12:48 AM

Hello,

The law, if it could be obeyed completely, must give eternal life to the one who obeys it fully.



I have already given the example of Christ who obeyed the Law fully and yet was cursed under the Law and died. Christ “triumphed” over the Law yet it could only be removed by his death and in the process he was cursed by the Law.



The law did not promise eternal life but a “long life” in the land. This is not my opinion or even a belief unique to Christadelphians. Here is what it says in the Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch (ed. T. Desmond Alexander & David W. Barker, IVP, 2003) page 510:

“Obedience would allow them (Israel) to possess the land and live permanently in it (Deut 8:1; 11:8-15). Persistent disobedience would lead to the loss of all covenant privileges and would involve Israel’s expulsion from the promised land, the loss of their status as Yahweh’s special people and the laying waste of the land itself”.


The Christian Research Institute comments:

“It is perhaps most significant that the Mosaic covenant never offered the promise of eternal life”.
http://www.equip.org...enant-of-christ

Another (non-Christadelphian) website says:
The Abrahamic Covenant has an eternal life clause. (i.e, in opposition to the Mosaic which does not) http://www.versebyve...ine/abcov2.html

The Biblical Guide to Wealth, Health, and Happiness by Ralph Stephenson (page 13):
There was no promise of eternal life (under Moses). There were, however, abundant physical blessings of peace, land, prosperity and health, and all good things.

Baptist Confessional:

The Mosaic Covenant was "never to offer eternal life" (Kansas, paragraph 21).
http://www.everlasti...enant-theology2


You have quoted Paul...... if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law......but then you ignore what he says!

In other words the Law cannot give life and righteousness cannot come through the Law.........you go to all the right texts and draw the wrong conclusions.

Your argument claims that the law is imperfect and unjust



My argument does not claim that the Law is unjust.....the same charge was made to the apostle Paul by the Jews......Paul answered that the Law was not at fault......the weakness of human nature was at fault.....the Law was just and Holy


Paul




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users