Jump to content


Photo

For Whom Was God's Law Intended, Israel Only Or The World?


  • Please log in to reply
249 replies to this topic

#241 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,532 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 24 August 2011 - 11:10 AM

[quotename='Air-run' timestamp='1314167035' post='74548']
The Pharisees tried to play that game. They figured they were righteous if their outside looked righteous - but Jesus called them white-washed tombs. They were dead on the inside. Do you think the penalty should be less if the sin is only in the mind and not carried out in action? That is exactly what the Pharisees thought, and Jesus corrected that type of thinking. I'm not an expert on criminal justice, so I'm not focusing too much on it - I'm firstly concerned with how Jesus defined breaking the Law and what he prescribed as the punishment. If you want to base our criminal justice system on Biblical principles, you should focus on Jesus' interpretation of the Law. He said "thought crimes" were just as vile as physical crimes, and that they deserved death. Matt. 5:21-30.[/quote]

I understand your point, Jesus was exposing their hypocrisy; however, I think it's erroneous to merge the dichotomy between eternal (heavenly) and temporal (earthly) things, by suggesting that Jesus was also overturning God's established penal statue for murder. I think you are in a big conundrum with your argument here, because even if we assume the penal statues were only for the Jews, he is preaching to the Jews (Israel); that is, to be consistent you MUST make a case that in he was overturning the death penalty for murder to Israel as a nation! Jesus started off by making it crystal clear three verses earlier in Matt 5:18 that "assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all isfulfilled." Your logic only allows two options: either the Jews need to start executing for even anger against a brother, or somehow interpret Jesus as overturning the penalties (if this is the case then I might as well not be a believer since the Bible would have a glaring contradictoryerror in it.Posted Image) But there does exist a dichotomy between eternal and temporal consequences, its this third option that is the solution, if they are not merged together the verse makes perfect sense. Note that the passage goes on to recommend a temporal path of reconciliation between the angry parties, which is consistent with the Old Testament law.

[quote]Follow Jesus' example. When he taught thepeople, he did not reiterate the concept of penal punishment for crimes - he said it would be a lot worse for offenders - eternal hell. You still teach people God's moral laws and warn them of an even greater punishment for neglecting them. Should we really rely on the government to set the example for eternal truths?[/quote]

Again, I see you merging the dichotomy of eternal (heavenly) consequences, and temporal (earthly) consequences. There are many verses in the old and new testament that create this distinction, they should not be merged together. Otherwise, your logic would also demand that a person under either covenant, convicted of a capital offense and executed (temporal), had no chance of eternal redemption before the stones started flying. I point no farther than the famous thief on the cross, I can't count the number of theological questions this guy alone has helped answer. :)

[quote]Paul,like Jesus, revealed the greater spiritual reality behind the law. Paul said the "wages of sin is death." (Rom. 6:23) He fully supported a death penalty - but affirmed that the true death penalty was a spiritual death penalty. James states that if you break one law, you are guilty of breaking them all in God's eyes (James 2:10). If James was a staunch supporter of the law's system of punishments, he could have used this principle to put to death all the liars in the church. The message is the same, there is no difference between committing a small sin and committing a physical crime - at least as far as God and his Law are concerned.[/quote]

This is refuted in the Cliché #4 - All Sins Are Equal thread.

[quote]Right now, God is not counting the world's trespasses against them (2 Cor. 5:19) They are guilty, but he is not acting towards them as his justice permits him to. This is not unrighteous behavior on God's part. This is behavior that tends to defy our sense of immediate fairness. We think that if something doesn't happen immediately, then something is wrong. Atheists wonder why God stands by and lets the wicked roam free. They think the only way justice is served is if it is immediate - by their standards. In reality, God will not let the wicked roam free - but the judgement will happen in his timing, not ours.[/quote]

Again, I think the biggest problem here is your merging or blurring of the line between eternal and temporal consequences. If someone murders one of your loved ones, and the identity of the killer is certain, would you not want there to be immediate temporal justice? You sure would! As a Christian, I can tell you have the heart that you would also want them to repent and be saved (in an eternal sense) before the switch is thrown (hence the dichotomy between temporal and eternal consequences). Jesus never overturned swift justice in the temporal realm, in His sermon he not only pointed out their hypocrisy as you rightly stated (eternal realm), He also criticized the Jews for watering down the temporal aspect of the law (see Matt 15:3-5).

Fred

#242 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 25 August 2011 - 01:42 PM

Hello all,

A while back, ME posted that "what h*m*sexuals do in the privacy of the bedroom" is no concern of ours. But God is concerned in that they are headed for hell. And we Christians are not allowed to be neutral. Jesus said that if you are not for Me, you're against Me. And He said that if you do not gather, you scatter. If your brother is standing in the path of an on-coming truck, we should warn him to get out of the way. We should say to him: "I celebrate your lifestyle." "To each his own."

At the time ME posted this, I did not have the following figures at hand. I just ran across them:

According to the Center for Desease Control, 85 percent of all male s*xually transmitted AIDS are from H*mos*xual contact.

FDA reports that h*m*sexuals have an HIV infection rate 60 times higher than the general public.

Sixty percent of all syphilis cases is from H*mos*xual and bisexal men. And homosexal men have a higher incidence of rectal and colon cancer.

Now h*m*sexuals will always say that there were "born that way." But one must ask: Since H*mos*xual men reproduce by molesting young boys, how are their genes passed on to cause them to be "born that way"?

Presently, the homo community is pushing to be allowed to donate blood. Health and Human Services and Senator John Kerry are on the side of the h*m*sexuals and want to make it legal for them to donate blood. The h*m*sexuals are not fighting for this right because they care about their fellow man. They want to infect as many heterosexals as possible so that AIDS will no longer be the H*mos*xual desease and they will get more funding for AIDS research.

H*mos*xual behavior is destructive not only to those who partake of it but to innocent third parties.

TeeJay

#243 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 09 October 2011 - 06:13 AM

Now back on point. Most Christians I meet agree with God concerning S@xual immorality, and agree with God that h*m*s*xuality is an "abomination" and a "perversion." But when the death penalty is mentioned, most Christians go weak in the knees. God demands the death penalty for h*m*s*xuality (Lev. 18:22 & 29; 20:13).

Leviticus 11:

9These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

13And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

#244 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 09 October 2011 - 06:55 AM

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1318166023' post='75524']
Leviticus 11:

9These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

10And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

12Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

13And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
[/quote]

ME, I'm not sure why you posted this? This is symbolic law which concerned diets, clothing, etc. Symbolic law was for Israel only, was neither moral nor immoral, and pointed to Jesus Christ. There is no moral equivolency between moral law and symbolic law.

TeeJay

#245 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 14 November 2011 - 11:10 AM

Hello all,

I wrote and sent the following to all my students and to several church leaders. I would appreciate feedback.

Coach Sandusky is a H*mos*xual but you will never read in any news release that he is one. Rather they label him a “child molester.” But God calls him a sodomite.

In Luke 13, Jesus used the news of the day to teach moral principles. Just as it was tragic that “Pilate had mingled the blood of Galileans with their sacrifices,” so too, we have the tragedy of Penn. State. So we can use this news of the day to correct our moral compass.

Not one single boy, in the history of man, has ever been molested by a heterosexual man. No boys have ever been molested by a bi-S@xual man. All have been molested by h*m*sexuals. God says that when a man “lies with a male as with a woman,” he is a H*mos*xual. Further, God proclaims this to be a crime punishable by death.

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination” (Lev. 18:22). “For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off [put to death] from among their people” (Lev. 18:29).

By God’s definition, a “bi-S@xual” man or woman can’t exist. When you commit the crime, you are labeled by that crime. Even though someone only occasionally rapes, he is a rapist by definition and not a “bi-rapist.” If someone robs just one bank, he is a bank robber and not a “bi-bank robber.” If he lies with just one human of the same s@x, he has committed the crime of h*m*s*xuality, he is a H*mos*xual, and he should be put to death.

Some Christians (and H*mos*xual advocates) argue that Jesus did not mention h*m*s*xuality so it’s not really an issue today. But neither did Jesus mention kidnapping, deadly negligence, capital perjury, b*stiality, incest, rape, human sacrifice, manslaughter during a crime, or abortion—all death penalty crimes. Who would argue that any of these would not be an issue today? We must also reflect that Jesus warned that “till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled” (Mat. 5:18 & Luke 16:17). Jesus reminds us that He “rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed” the h*m*sexuals living there” (Luke 17:29). Peter used the phrase “filthy conduct” to describe those in Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Pet. 2:7). God uses “Sodom” spiritually in a very derogatory manner (Rev. 11: 8). Jude wrote that Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them are set forth as a warning to us (Jude 7). And, of course, Paul opens Romans in the first paragraph with, “Therefore God gave them [sodomites] up to uncleanness in the lust of their hearts to dishonor their bodies among themselves…” (Rom. 1:24). In light of the above, can we agree with God and move this issue to the front burner or at the very least put it back on the stove?

When we are “tolerant” of a crime, and do not follow God’s command to execute swift punishment, then we have to regulate crime. And this is not possible. By not obeying God, we then have to pass laws to regulate illegal, immoral activity. “Should h*m*sexuals be wrestling coaches?” “Should they be Boy Scout leaders?” “Should they be youth pastors?” And the list goes on. “Permit me a little folly,” as Paul wrot:. Imagine being tolerant of rape (which is not beyond the pale). “If you rape a woman, you have to provide a warm, dry hotel room.” “If she has the flu, you can’t rape her.” And, “all women have Sunday off. No rape is allowed on Sunday.”

Legalization and the unavoidable regulation of crime are not without unintended consequences. For the past 30 years, Coach Sandusky has been allowed to sodomize boys. While he is being charged with the “molesting” (which is really sodomizing) of eight boys, his young victims probably number in the thousands. Joe Paterno and others at this college are complicit and guilty in the crimes. There is no neutrality with God. Either you are “for Him or against Him” and if you “do not gather, you scatter” (Luke 11:23). Winning football games is more important than saving these poor young boys from this pervert.

Sadly, it is not just unbelievers, Hollywood, the news media, and politicians who have bought in to the idea that we must be “tolerant” towards h*m*sexuals; it is also our church leaders who have caved. Years ago, for example, James Dobson gave in to the H*mos*xual community in Colorado when he said, “h*m*sexuals should not have special rights. They should have equal rights. When he deemed his opinion had more authority than God’s law, he lost the war.

At first blush, God’s law may seem too harsh. But long term, His law is more merciful. Just look at the millions around the world and in America who have died from all manner of s*xually transmitted diseases. Even more tragic are the millions of souls who are in Hell awaiting judgment due to nicer-than-God Christians who fail to warn the H*mos*xual that he is a pervert who will spend an eternity in Hell apart from His Creator God. Instead, we tell him that we “celebrate his lifestyle” and teach “love the sinner and hate the sin.” This last phrase is not in the Bible. It’s a cliché’ and for some unknown reason, clichés take precedence over God’s word.

Tolerant Christians do not really love h*m*sexuals. If they did, they would tell them the truth. When unbelievers do not see God’s justice here on earth, it becomes increasingly difficult for them to believe in a just God in heaven who will punish the wicked and reward the just. And God’s moral law is our number one evangelical tool to get people saved. Paul wrote, that the law is “our tutor” to show us our wickedness and convince us that we are in need of a savior. Instead, the news media, Hollywood, politicians, and sadly our Christian leaders have convinced h*m*sexuals that they are most wonderful of creatures. Why should they repent and accept Jesus if we first convince them that they have no need of Jesus?

TeeJay

#246 Tubal

Tubal

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Massachusetts

Posted 26 April 2012 - 11:38 AM

The reason I think God's law was so harsh on the Israelite when they came hot out of Egypt is because he had to purge them of all the filth they collected. They were his chosen people and they had been influenced by the pagan after being in their land for so long. They were put to death because God needed to clean up. God judges every man according to what he knows. If you know you are supposed to keep the Sabbath and keep it not, then it is sin to you. We also have to understand that God would come down and talk to these people, they experienced him like no other people in the world and they still turned their backs to him. I think this is more than worthy of death. I think the judgements of God upon early Israel was perfectly fair in its context. Shall we stone to death people who do not keep the Sabbath today? No because they do not know they are supposed to keep it so it is not sin for them.

God isn't judging us as harshly as the Israelite because the purpose of that cleansing was fulfilled when Jesus came and we have not experienced what they have. It was to maintain the righteousness in the world from where Jesus could be born. If those people were left alive all the world would be dark and there wouldn't be anyone for which Jesus could come through. God had to cut off some cancers but he did it fairly and to allow his ultimate plan to execute and you have to understand that everyone was a cancer because they wanted to be. Does this mean we are free from the law? Well what law got abolished with the sacrifice of Jesus? The ceremonies of the Israelite was a shadow of what was going to happen when Jesus came. After Jesus came there was no need for the ceremonial law anymore. The law of God in the ten commandments is perpetual and universal. It was placed inside the ark of the covenant and the ceremonial law was place beside the ark.

Ask yourself this. If God's law was only for Israel then how did Adam and Eve sin if there was no law? The law is established before creation because God is forever so is his law. He does not change. If the law was only for the Israelite why was Sodom destroyed?
The law is universal. The law is like a mirror.

#247 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 05 May 2012 - 11:55 PM

[quote] name='Tubal' timestamp='1335465516' post='83431']
The reason I think God's law was so harsh on the Israelite when they came hot out of Egypt is because he had to purge them of all the filth they collected. They were his chosen people and they had been influenced by the pagan after being in their land for so long. They were put to death because God needed to clean up. God judges every man according to what he knows. If you know you are supposed to keep the Sabbath and keep it not, then it is sin to you. We also have to understand that God would come down and talk to these people, they experienced him like no other people in the world and they still turned their backs to him. I think this is more than worthy of death. I think the judgements of God upon early Israel was perfectly fair in its context. Shall we stone to death people who do not keep the Sabbath today? No because they do not know they are supposed to keep it so it is not sin for them.[/quote]

Tubal, the Sabbath law is for the nation of Israel. It is a perpetual covenant for Israel, forever, everlasting, as long as there is a nation of Israel. Please read my post on "The Fourth Commandment." And the rest of what you posted here is simply your personal opinion, lacking any scriptural basis.

God's law is not "harsh." Rather it's merciful. If God's law were enforced justly and swiftly, millions would not die needless deaths. The following death penalty laws are below for your admonition:




Murder Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:12-14; 20:13; Lev. 24:17, 21; Num. 35:16-21; Deut. 19:11-13. Note: In Deut. 19:16-20, God commands that an attempted crime should be punished as if successful. Don’t reward the shooter for being a bad shot.

Kidnapping Ex. 21:16; Deut. 24:7

Deadly negligence Ex. 21:28-30; Deut. 22:8

Capital perjury Deut. 19:16-21; Ex. 20:16

Adultery Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22; Ex. 20:14

Sodomy (h*m*s*xuality) Lev. 18:22 & 29; 20:13

b*stiality Ex. 22:19; Lev. 20:15-16

Incest Lev. 20:11-21

Rape of engaged woman Deut. 22:25

Rape of married woman Deut. 22:22-25 (Note: In Deut. 22:28-29, if a man lies with a single woman who is not engaged or married, and he is caught, then that man must pay a monetary restitution to her father, for she has been defiled. Additionally, he must marry her, and he can never divorce her on the days of his life.)

Human sacrifice Lev. 20:2

Manslaughter during a crime Ex. 21:22-23

Abortion Ex. 21:22-23 (This Biblical text is accurately translated, as in the New King James, premature birth, not miscarriage Thus, if an assault leads to a premature birth, and the baby is physically injured as a result, punish the perpetrator with an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But if the baby dies, then punish the guilty man life for life.)


[quote]God isn't judging us as harshly as the Israelite because the purpose of that cleansing was fulfilled when Jesus came and we have not experienced what they have. It was to maintain the righteousness in the world from where Jesus could be born. If those people were left alive all the world would be dark and there wouldn't be anyone for which Jesus could come through. God had to cut off some cancers but he did it fairly and to allow his ultimate plan to execute and you have to understand that everyone was a cancer because they wanted to be. Does this mean we are free from the law? Well what law got abolished with the sacrifice of Jesus? The ceremonies of the Israelite was a shadow of what was going to happen when Jesus came. After Jesus came there was no need for the ceremonial law anymore. The law of God in the ten commandments is perpetual and universal. It was placed inside the ark of the covenant and the ceremonial law was place beside the ark.

Ask yourself this. If God's law was only for Israel then how did Adam and Eve sin if there was no law? The law is established before creation because God is forever so is his law. He does not change. If the law was only for the Israelite why was Sodom destroyed?
The law is universal. The law is like a mirror.
[/quote]

All authority rests with God. But He has delegated some of His authority. He's delegated authority to governments to enforce His laws and punish criminals. He's delegated authority to earthly judges to judge the flesh. He's delegated authority to parents to spank their kids. But He has not delegated authority to any man (except Jesus Christ) to enact moral law nor nulify moral law. God's moral law, with punishment for enfractions, is still in effect. Man does not have authority to usurp God's authority.

TeeJay

#248 Tubal

Tubal

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Massachusetts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 12:33 AM

Tubal, the Sabbath law is for the nation of Israel. It is a perpetual covenant for Israel, forever, everlasting, as long as there is a nation of Israel. Please read my post on "The Fourth Commandment." And the rest of what you posted here is simply your personal opinion, lacking any scriptural basis.

God's law is not "harsh." Rather it's merciful. If God's law were enforced justly and swiftly, millions would not die needless deaths. The following death penalty laws are below for your admonition:




Murder Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:12-14; 20:13; Lev. 24:17, 21; Num. 35:16-21; Deut. 19:11-13. Note: In Deut. 19:16-20, God commands that an attempted crime should be punished as if successful. Don’t reward the shooter for being a bad shot.

Kidnapping Ex. 21:16; Deut. 24:7

Deadly negligence Ex. 21:28-30; Deut. 22:8

Capital perjury Deut. 19:16-21; Ex. 20:16

Adultery Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22; Ex. 20:14

Sodomy (h*m*s*xuality) Lev. 18:22 & 29; 20:13

b*stiality Ex. 22:19; Lev. 20:15-16

Incest Lev. 20:11-21

Rape of engaged woman Deut. 22:25

Rape of married woman Deut. 22:22-25 (Note: In Deut. 22:28-29, if a man lies with a single woman who is not engaged or married, and he is caught, then that man must pay a monetary restitution to her father, for she has been defiled. Additionally, he must marry her, and he can never divorce her on the days of his life.)

Human sacrifice Lev. 20:2

Manslaughter during a crime Ex. 21:22-23

Abortion Ex. 21:22-23 (This Biblical text is accurately translated, as in the New King James, premature birth, not miscarriage Thus, if an assault leads to a premature birth, and the baby is physically injured as a result, punish the perpetrator with an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But if the baby dies, then punish the guilty man life for life.)




All authority rests with God. But He has delegated some of His authority. He's delegated authority to governments to enforce His laws and punish criminals. He's delegated authority to earthly judges to judge the flesh. He's delegated authority to parents to spank their kids. But He has not delegated authority to any man (except Jesus Christ) to enact moral law nor nulify moral law. God's moral law, with punishment for enfractions, is still in effect. Man does not have authority to usurp God's authority.

TeeJay

Ah, go read my reply. :)

#249 Dig4gold

Dig4gold

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Raleigh, NC

Posted 28 December 2012 - 03:44 PM

I believe it is a misunderstanding to say that the Mosaic Covenant is contrary to the Abrahamic Covenant.

I The Abrahamic Covenant:
1) The promise of a special relationship: "to be God to you and your descendants" Gen 17:7
2) The gift of the land: Gen.15:18-19
3) The promise of an increase in number: Gen.17:6
4) Establishing the covenant to Abraham's descendants as an everlasting covenant: Gen.17:7,19
5) The promise of blessing: Gen.12:2; 26:24
6) The nations will be blessed: Gen.12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14

II The Mosaic Covenant:
1) The promise of a special relationship: A treasured people, Ex. 19:5 Be your God and you will be My people, Lev. 26:12
2) The gift of the land: Ex. 23:20-23; Lev. 26:42
3) The promise of an increase in number: Lev. 26:9
4) Confirming the covenant to subsequent generations: Lev. 26:9
5) The promise of blessing: Deut.11:26f
6) Israel will be a light, a blessing to the nations: Isa. 2:3; 51:4

As you can see the two Covenants are not separate and distinct but woven together in the flow of redemptive history.
It is not as though God has gone back on His word, at first promising unconditional blessing to Abraham, and then changing His Covenant to be conditional at Sinai. Far from it! God, in choosing Abraham and his offspring, had set Himself to form a people who would be characterized by His own holiness.
The Covenants of Abraham came not only with blessing, but also with provision to attain that blessing through obedience. Indeed, the Abrahamic Covenant anticipated the Mosaic Covenant as the means by which that promised blessing would be realized!

And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. Gen. 18:17-19


The blessings promised in the Abrahamic Covenant are secure because God intends to enable Abraham's offspring to do righteousness and justice. To put it in theological terms, the promise of the covenant assures the sanctification of those who will be blessed.

Thus, the Mosaic Covenant, the Torah through the Holy Spirit, is given to bring about that holiness which would, in turn, produce the promised Covenant blessings.

It was necessary then that those who would receive the unconditional blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant should be righteous, not only in a forensic or "positional" sense, but in "doing righteousness and justice." In this way, it is necessary for every Covenant member to have the Torah, because it is in the Torah that God's revelation and standards of righteousness and justice are revealed.

The Abrahamic Covenant is presented as unilateral (God initiating and promising) just as justification is God's sole work. Likewise, the Mosaic Covenant is presented as bilateral (God and Israel working together) just as sanctification is presented in the Bible as the cooperation between the redeemed soul and the Almighty.

But if the Abrahamic covenant included the Gentiles, then it is also necessary that the Gentiles have the Torah; for the Torah (Mosaic Covenant) is the God-given means to prepare His people to receive the blessings promised to Abraham. God's blessings come upon the righteous, not the wicked!

To say that the Gentiles are blessed in the Abrahamic covenant but have no part in the Mosaic covenant would be like saying a person could be justified without becoming sanctified. Such a scenario finds no place in the biblical record.



#250 Dig4gold

Dig4gold

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Raleigh, NC

Posted 28 December 2012 - 05:32 PM

I forgot to mention that this information was gleaned from FFOZ (First Fruits of Zion). I have had it so long I don't remember which resource I got it from. I understand that they have changed some of their views on this so they may no longer support this view.

http://ffoz.org/






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users