beliefspeak2

Six times in the Gospel of John (and found in no other account), the terminology of “the beloved disciple” is presented: 13.23, 25, 19.26, 20.2, 21.7, 21.20. The Apostle John, writing toward the end of his life, identified himself as author of this gospel which we know by account comparison: This is the disciple who testifies about these things and has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true (John 21.24 NET). The end note of knowing the veracity of John’s testimony is probably a reflection by his team of followers and amanuenses about his exemplary life and testimony of The Spirit.

Proverbs 13:24: The one who spares his rod hates his child, but the one who loves him is prompt in disciplining him.

Here is a proverb which explains a concern over a child’s ultimate welfare. The parent who loves a child in the best possible way gives him or her the attention required for guidance. Even though this proverb  contrasts the love of discipline exhibited by a parent with the hate of sparing the rod, hate is probably not the direct opposite of love. Ignoring the child, rather, would probably be the antithesis of love.

This illustration of love from Proverbs helps to explain the act of discipleship. To mentor someone involves attentive effort instead of self concern and/or given attention to others. Hypothetically, any would-be mentor must isolate those of his pupils who are the most interested in his teaching and who would be adept at propagating it. This explains why Jesus loved one disciple especially: John, the son of Zebedee. This was James’ younger brother who along with him and Peter formed an inner circle of special disclosure. Even though John was prominent from the beginning of the church (Acts chapters 3-4), his enduring contribution is seen through the Revelation account, Gospel, and epistles. John’s unique understanding and writings reflect the purposes of Jesus in mentoring the young disciple.

This concept of an ‘inner circle’ is seen in the lists of disciples from the Synoptic Gospels and Acts: Mt. 10.2-4, Mk. 3.16-19, Lk. 6.14-16, Acts 1.13. This ‘inner circle’ are always listed first. They were the ones that Jesus called first to follow after John the Baptist was imprisoned (Mk. 1.16-20). Andrew, however, fades into the background from this inner circle for an undisclosed reason. The ‘inner circle’ is seen by who Jesus allows to accompany during extraordinary events: The raising of Jairus daughter from the dead (Mk. 5.37), The Transfiguration of Christ (Mk. 9.2), and the Garden of Gethsemane prayer (Mk. 14.32-35). Also, to these three disciples Jesus gave new names: “Peter” to Simon bar Jonah, and Sons of Boanerges (thunder) to James and John.

John was younger than James most probably since he is listed after his brother. He may not have been out of his teens  when called by Jesus since a Hebrew boy became a man at age 12. Being called to discipleship at a younger age had the advantage of not having to relearn faulty approaches to life which were common among the other disciples. Jesus could take John and disciple him before he could form erroneous spiritual ideas such as the then current thinking of the Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees.

It was the ‘inner three’ who received the bulk of the rebukes of Jesus. Often, the ‘inner three’ they put themselves forward in their misguided zeal: James and John wanting to call fire upon their adversaries (Luke 9.51-56), Peter hindering Jesus’ purpose (Mt. 16.21-23), John and James wanting to sit with Jesus in His kingdom (Mk. 10.35-45). As is the case in Proverbs, John recognized authorial instruction from a godly figure as loving.

John was very aged at the time of his recorded writings, and inevitably, the question arose: How would he refer to himself in his recounting the events in his gospel? After all, one of the purposes of his gospel was to correct a few (but important) misconceptions which were starting to form from the accounts in the Synoptic Gospels alone (John wrote an additional account and not a replacement). Any eyewitness publishing his historical account seeks to represent himself to his audience as a participant to achieve any credibility for his assertions. On the other hand, truly and ultimately (and also in the other scriptures) the author is God and John probably is sensitive to this fact (see John 14.26). After a lifetime of reflection upon the person of Jesus and all the events John experienced including the start of the Church Community, John could have happily concluded he was beloved by God, and so chose that moniker when composing The Gospel of John.

Please don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against gaiety and fireworks, in having a good time and letting loose (all with holding on to God). I believe in enjoying alcohol without going overboard. But to focus on celebrating a purely calendar event and infusing it with mystical notions is crazy.

New Years Day makes nothing new. The same problems are still here for most humans. People make resolutions but overwhelmingly fail to keep them. They were destined to fail since decisions of the human will are ultimately impotent to change us for the better. Of course folks should be disciplined and not lazy, that’s not what I’m talking about.

Ultimately, God’s Kingdom will come into fuller expression when The King returns and makes all things new.

Julius Wellhausen was a sensitive Protestant professor who developed The documentary hypothesis by use of source criticism. This is an Enlightenment effort, the scientific examination based upon human reasoning and standards. Joshua Berman is a Jew who seems to believe the Torah is from God as written. I hold with Joshua Berman the belief in the Old Testament pretty much as written.

Here is an exchange between Dr. Berman and a questioner:

Dear Dr. Berman,

Traditionally, Jews have read the Torah as a unified whole — essentially, as one book. Source criticism, which your book challenges, maintains that the Torah cannot be read as a unified whole, but only as documents woven together. What role, if any, did the traditional way of understanding the unity of the Torah have in your motivation for this project?

Thanks once again for participating in this exchange.

Shmuel

***

Dear Shmuel,

I studied in a yeshiva for eight years before I began academic Bible study, and the impact of the rabbinic tradition on my scholarly work has been enormous. Obviously, in the academic world you can’t say the text makes sense because Rashi said so, or because God gave the text and so it must make sense. But my extensive yeshiva background has allowed me to come to my academic work with a sense of intellectual humility: things that look obvious to us might be so only because of where we are standing. Let me give an example.

Think of the word religion. That word does not exist in either biblical or rabbinic Hebrew. In fact, no pre-modern culture has a word that parallels our word, religion. But how could that be? Judaism and Christianity have been around for thousands of years; what did people call these, if they didn’t have the word religion?

The answer is that the word religion reflects a very modern concept; it came about because of a secular worldview, one which wanted to limit the role that faith played in public affairs. Religion is what you do in the private sphere; it’s what you believe, the rituals you practice, the prayers you pray. It’s a small corner of your life, and, above all, it’s the realm of the private individual — it cannot be allowed to spill out into the public space. By contrast, classical Judaism, Christianity, Islam and all other ancient “religions” rejected that notion. They were complete systems for understanding all of life, the private and public spheres together. These were systems that encompassed everything, and so it would have been absurd to speak of any of them as belonging to a special category of one small part of life — religions. The greatest joy in my scholarship is when I discover something that is so clear and obvious to us — like the concept of religions — and then discover that those that lived before us often thought about things very differently.

And this brings me to my book. Modern Bible scholars see lots of contradictions in the text of the Torah. And the classic academic way of understanding these contradictions is that they are the result of multiple authors. Now, when I look at traditional views of the text of the Torah, I see that, in fact, the rabbis themselves were troubled by many of these tensions in the text and resolved them with recourse to Midrashsh. But what has always puzzled me is the degree to which traditional rabbinic approaches to the text didn’t seem bothered by many of these contradictions in the first place. And it seemed to me that this was a “religions” moment: just as the absence of the term religions in these texts demonstrates to us that people used to think about things very differently from how we do today, so, too, the fact that the rabbis weren’t bothered by many of the “contradictions” in the text of the Torah might also be because we don’t have a monopoly on understanding what is a unified text and what is a contradictory text.

In fact, scholars have been learning the hard way that their innate sense of contradiction might be failing them. A foundational staple of early Pentateuchal criticism maintained that the disparity of divine names found in the Torah was itself proof positive of composite authorship and a key to determining and delimiting its sources. This axiom had to be walked back in light of evidence showing that the ancients were quite comfortable referring to the same deity by multiple names, even within a single passage. In like fashion, in many texts, God addresses Israel but alternates between addressing Israel as “you” in the singular and “you” in the plural. This was thought to designate various sources or strata in the biblical text. However, the phenomenon is also found in ancient Aramaic treaties, where a king commands his subordinate to hand over fugitives, addressing him, seemingly in random fashion, sometimes in the singular, and sometimes in the plural.

As another example, consider historical inscriptions left to us by Ramesses the Great, who ruled Egypt in the 13th century BCE. To commemorate his greatest achievement, a victory over his arch-enemies the Hittite Empire at the battle of Kadesh in 1274 BCE, Ramesses inscribed three mutually exclusive and contradictory reports, one right next to the other, each serving a distinct rhetorical purpose, on monumental sites all across Egypt. Not only that, but the longest of these compositions is full of what we would deem internal contradictions as well. These practices are wholly foreign to modern writers, and far from intuitive. If Ramesses could do this, perhaps the Torah could as well. There are two accounts of creation in Genesis 1-2. And, just like the Ramesses inscriptions, they are contradictory, use different vocabulary, and different names for God. Perhaps these, too, are complementary ways in which the Torah introduces the complexity of the human condition.

These examples serve as a warning flag for scholars looking to parse the text on the basis of their own notions of literary unity. The ancient text is a minefield of literary phenomena that are culturally dependent. Of course, the fact that Ramesses composed multiple conflicting accounts of his conquest does not prove that the Hebrew Bible must be read this way as well. But it should, at the very least, place a check on the confidence that a modern scholar can have when approaching the biblical text and encountering literary phenomena that seem inconsistent.

https://jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain/224326/inconsistency-torah-exchange-part-3-torah-minefield-culturally-dependent-literary-phenomena/

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2008/05/tsunami-and-theodicy

Pete Williams notes the reality of formal contradictions in literature (and, if we think about it, formal contradiction features in everyday speech), yet some are put off studying the bible when they encounter such devices. Its almost if some folks want a tidier communication from God. However, God’s word is perfectly designed to communicate the things His people should know.

https://www.crossway.org/articles/do-the-gospels-contradict-themselves/

Here is an interesting essay by Kyle Harper, the senior vice president and provost of the University of Oklahoma:

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-emperor-and-the-empty-tomb-an-ancient-inscription-an-eccentric-scholar-and-the-human-need-to-touch-the-past/#!

Here is a ‘bone box’ (ossuary) displayed at The Allard Pierson Museum (Amsterdam). The burial practices during the time of Jesus seemed generally to place the deceased body on a ledge in a cave for a year until only the bones remained. These bones were then deposited in a box like the one pictured as the final resting place of the physical remains of the individual.

[Lately, renovation and repairs are taking much of my time, so, I cannot read and post as much as I want.]

Christians, I notice, are still divided on the meaning of monogenas (only begotten). Jesus was unique, absolutely, but, that does not mean monogenas means “one of a kind,” or “unique.” Just because it fits, doesn’t mean, “it fits together.”

The kicker, for me, remains: that the church of the first few centuries knew their language (Koine Greek) better than we do today and formulated ideas found in Scripture based on that understanding. The Nicean Creed did not see a temporal aspect of begetting; instead, it referred to an eternal state (“not made”). There was never a time when The Father didn’t have The Son (or The Spirit).

Here are some quotes from Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius, and Cyril of Jerusalem on this:

The eternal generation of the Son is “beyond the sphere of time, and above the grasp of reason” (Gregory Nazianzen, Third Theological Oration, NPNF² 7.302).

“Let every corporeal inference be banished on this subject” (Athanasius, De decretis 24, NPNF²4.166).

“Whereas it is proper to men to beget in time, from the imperfection of their nature, God’s offspring is eternal, for His nature is ever perfect” (Athanasius, Against the Arians I.14, NPNF² 4.315).

“Authors of blasphemy, verily, are these foes of God! who, sooner than confess that the Son is the Father’s Image, conceive material and earthly ideas concerning the Father Himself, ascribing to Him severings and effluences and influences. If God be not a man, as He is not, we must not impute to Him the attributes of a man” (Athanasius, Against the Arians I.21, NPNF² 4.319).

Here I paraphrase Athanasius: The Arians ask “silly women” if they had a son before bearing one. And since it is obvious that women do not have sons before they bear them, they apply the same to the Son and conclude that the Son did not exist before his generation. But they might as well ask an architect whether they build without materials, and then conclude that God could not make the universe without materials. Or ask every man if he can be without place, and then conclude that God is confined in place. “… till they end in groveling with Manichees” (Athanasius, Against the Arians I.22-23, NPNF² 4.320).

“God is not a man; for men beget passibly, having a transitive nature, which waits for periods by reason of its weakness. But with God this cannot be; for He is not composed of parts, but being impassible and simple, He is impassibly and indivisibly Father of the Son … That none may think of the Offspring humanly, while signifying His essence, [Scripture] also calls Him Word, Wisdom, and Radiance, to teach us that the generation was impassible, and eternal, and worthy of God” (Athanasius, Against the Arians I.28, NPNF² 4.322-3).

“On hearing of a Son, understand it not merely in an improper sense, but as a Son in truth, a Son by nature, without beginning … a Son eternally begotten by an inscrutable and incomprehensible generation … God is a Spirit; He who is a Spirit has spiritually begotten, as being incorporeal, an inscrutable and incomprehensible generation … And whenever you hear of God begetting, sink not down in thought to bodily things, nor think of a corruptible generation, lest you be guilty of impiety. God is a Spirit, His generation is spiritual: for bodies beget bodies, and for the generation of bodies time needs must intervene; but time intervenes not in the generation of the Son from the Father” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 11.4-7, NPNF² 7.64-6).

NPNF² = Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, edited by Schaff and Wace.

Here is a five part series by Lee Irons defending the original understanding of this crucial term: http://upper-register.typepad.com/blog/eternal-generation-of-son/

By

Lee Irons

http://upper-register.typepad.com/blog/2014/03/jesus-is-the-son-of-god.html

N.T. scholar Craig Evans, in a video making the rounds on some blogs, asserts that John’s Gospel is a summation of Jesus’s Synoptic Gospels sayings put into a paraphrase-like text. While I agree with him about the need for modern readers to be open to questions of genre and be sensitive against bringing preconceived expectations while studying the text, to try to fit G-John into the Synoptic Gospels is not warranted. For one thing, John’s Gospel has too many time stamps which belie Evan’s hypothesis.

Also, I wish to counter this position by noting John’s Gospel in 20.30 speaks of many other signs given specifically to His disciples which were not recorded. Also, in 21.25, John asserts that Jesus performed so many miracles (things), that the world could not contain all the books recording those events. This last statement is undoubtedly hyperbole but shows that John and the other Gospel writers were not attempting to produce comprehensive historical documents.

Lydia McGrew also counters:  http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2018/09/the_messianic_secret_argument.html

Here are some ancient keys, a door knob (center), and the remains of the mechanism (upper right) which would have probably be nailed to a large wooden door.

Courtesy of Allard Pierson Museum

These keys are typical of ones found during the period of the Roman Empire which is the Early Christian Era. However, keys were known even earlier in the Kingdom of Judah, as reflected in Isaiah 22.22 where Eliakim son of Hilkiah is prophesied to be given the key to the House of David. This key, Isaiah tells us, gives power so that “what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” Jesus is the One whom this prophecy ultimately refers, as seen in Rev. 3.7-8 where Jesus promises the church at Philadelphia to use this key, giving them the same benefit. So some keys, in the N.T., only Jesus carries. Another key that belongs exclusively to Jesus, is the key to death and Hades. In Rev. 1.18, Jesus describes Himself as the “Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever.” He then claims to possesses “the keys to death and Hades,” which, presumably, shows the ability to grant everlasting life to humans and control of the nether regions to carry away those belonging to Him. Also, the ability to keep imprisoned those who are not His seems implicit. Unquestionably, the The Eternal Son always possessed immortality, but the incarnated Son of Man, who took upon himself our humanness, needed to be given eternal life (“I was dead”) as the second Adam. At least this is how I understand the human aspect of the second Adam. Henceforth, he is able to grant this same eternal life to His followers whom He represents.

These keys, belonging to Jesus, seem to be different from the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” given to Peter and the other disciples in Mt. 16.19 (and probably Mt. 18.18). Only in Mt. 16 are they referred to as “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” without explanation of what exactly is being bound and loosed. In Mt. 18, the retention of sins to the unrepentant in the Christian community is the thing bound. This is instruction about church discipline from Jesus. Ultimate intransigence would lead to a break in fellowship (vs. 17). An intermediate step in the process would be denial of the table of bread and wine since this occurred every Lord’s Day. It would prevent further judgement upon the offender, since, the observance carries inherent risk of punishment when partaken improperly (see 1 Cor. 11.27-32). Loosing of sins is always available to those who ask for forgiveness (vss. 21-22). based upon my understanding, the keys in Mt. 16 and 18 are identical.

Jesus seems to reiterate this teaching when He appears to His disciples on the evening of  resurrection day saying they all possessed the power to either forgive or retain sins (Jn. 20.23). Here, this seems to be part of an evangelistic function when people truly accept the message of Christ. Perhaps this is part of the “all authority in heaven and on earth” spoken about in Mt. 28.18. No longer would worshippers need to formally bring a sacrifice to the priests in Jerusalem to have their sins forgiven. The High Priesthood of Jesus is inaugurated and the typological sacrifices at the central sanctuary have now been fulfilled.

This oil lamp is displayed in The Allard Pierson Museum of The University of Amsterdam. The Staurogram is similar to the Egyptian Ankh which is thought to signify life or eternity. The Staurogram offers a physical likeness of crucifixion and was used by the early church as a monogram on items, such as this oil lamp, indicating their faith.

Also, the Staurogram was used in early biblical texts as an abbreviation for the word stauros (cross). Early N.T. manuscripts such as the papyri P45, P66, and P75 use a staurogram to physically depict Jesus on the cross at relevant places where the word stauros is used. Other Nomina Sacra were also used as abbreviations in manuscripts, such as the word for Christ and God, but only the staurogram offers a likeness in form of what the word stauros means.

Larry Hurtado gives a great overview of the staurogram in this article: https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/the-staurogram/

Introduction and Elaboration of New Covenant Principles

For the growing and mature Christian, the Filioque Controversy is of tremendous importance. This theological question is the most important issue in the 2000-year history of the Christian community. Here are areas which the question affects:

First, the understanding about God. This is important because the point of redemption is to reconcile us with our Creator, Redeemer, and Friend. He is the One who is from the beginning (1Jn. 2.13,14). The Ever-Existing One of all eternity. Knowing God’s nature and love toward us is what redemption is all about. Jesus prayed in His last recorded formal intercession of Jn. 17.21-23 that the disciples would be one with the Father and Himself. Just as The Father was with Jesus, so, henceforth, the disciples would have God with them internally forever. This was an aspect of the promised New Covenant that all of God’s people would know Him personally, moment by moment (See Jer. 31.33 cf. 1Jn. 2.20). It is accomplished by the formal sending of The Spirit at Pentecost (Shavuot). This was the covenanting with the House of Israel and the House of Judah fulfilling the time of this typological feast. All original Christians were Jewish and God used the Feasts as “the times of the Lord” (Lev. 23.2,44).

Most bible translations of Lev. 23. 2,44 have “feasts” instead of “times.” However, The Hebrew has “times” and these two verses form an inclusio, a type of bracketing or an envelope. This envelope contains feasts at different “times,” which speak of a greater significance than apparent. The Sabbath and other feasts and observances project an outline of redemptive prophecy and fulfillment. The Sabbath Rest (Heb. 4.9-11), Christ our Passover (1Cor. 5.7), the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2.1-4), Trumpets (1 Th. 4.16), Yom Kippur (Day of the Lord), Tabernacles (Millenium).

Samaritans and Gentiles would be included after the Spirit teaches the disciples the larger efficacy of Christ’s atonement. The 11 Disciples could not learn everything while Jesus was with them, probably because they lacked the capacity, and Christ’s message was so different from the misconceptions prevalent in their society. The fact of the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Olive Tree (Rom. 11.17) had to wait until they were taught by the Spirit. This was probably part of “the many things” they could not bear referenced in Jn. 16.12-13.

Second, authority in the Christian community. Are there ultimate human authority figures whom the Christian should obey? This is the claim that a church official can authoritatively determine doctrine or speak infallibly. As before, The New Covenant gives the answer to the question, but, in this case, comprehensively. The Spirit guides us; therefore, in an ultimate sense, we need no other teachers (see 1 Jn. 2.27). God teaches and guides us, since, ultimately, He is our Judge. Further, The New Covenant specifically delineated that the human intervening authorities would be eclipsed when this new reality was in place. Jer. 31.34 states that the friends and neighbors would no longer function as teachers and mediators. These “friends and neighbors” were the Aaronic Priests and Levites who were living among all the other 11 tribes of Israel and who taught regulations and performed the various sacrifices for the people at the central sanctuary. Being “neighbors” they could teach the Israelites aspects of God’s Law to the communities where they dwelt. The central sanctuary, where these priests offered sacrifices for sins, would no longer be needed in the High Priesthood of Jesus. Since Jesus fulfilled the Passover (the angel of death has passed over them), fellowship offerings by His followers is through prayer and trust in Him (Heb. 6.19). Both individually and collectively believers are a temple where God dwells through the Spirit.

The Filioque Clause

For the bible student, the historical details of the Filioque Controversy, hardly need to be studied to understand the concept. This is only reception history and not what God has once for all given: the text of the bible. Yes, we may learn from previous Christians; however, both in an individual and group sense, disciples do not always grasp the full extent of every teaching the first few times they hear it. We should know better today than previous generations. The scriptures contain what is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Semper Reformata.

The “filioque” clause means: “and from the Son.” This was what some in the Western Church (Roman Catholic) wanted to add to The Nicean Creed where it speaks of the Spirit proceeding from the Father. They wanted to affirm that the Spirit proceeds both from the Father and the Son. The Western Pope spoke authoritatively that the Spirit proceeded from the Son and set the stage for controversy.  The Eastern Church (Orthodox) resisted this attempt and ultimately split from the Roman Church in 1054 CE.

The Procession of The Spirit

I believe the scriptures teach the Spirit only proceeds from the Father. This is the Eastern Church’s position. I do not subscribe to everything this church teaches, but, I believe, they are correct on this issue.

From a typological perspective, it was the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven and alighting on Jesus at His baptism. If the Spirit proceeds from Jesus the same as from the Father, why did the Spirit come from heaven to inaugurate Christ’s ministry? It seems best to view the Spirit’s origin as proceeding from the Father in heaven.

Of all the biblical statements, Jn. 15.26 is the most definitive in its scope: But when the Counselor arrives, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who goes forth from the Father, He will bear witness about Me. Even though Jesus sends the Spirit in His new ministry in the disciples, its crystal clear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Greek text shows the the Spirit’s procession from the Father even stronger than my English translation. Para (from) is used twice while the verb ekporeuetai (goes forth, proceeds) is definitive of the Spirit’s origin. The act of sending, in itself, is not indicative of origination. An agent may function temporarily without any reference to the agent’s original source.

All other texts such as Jn. 16.13-15 show sending and not origination. The Spirit is eternal but acts in time and completes different missions which none refer to its source. Philosophical arguments claiming procession from the Son do not overcome the clear statements of Jn. 15.26.

Of course, the Father sends the Spirit also, and, in an ultimate sense, God cannot be divided. However, Jesus almost seems at pains, in Jn. 15.26, to indicate the Spirit’s source is from the Father. The whole concept of “Father” almost demands it. Just as Jesus is eternally generated from the Father, so the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and neither concept, in scripture, is the other way around. The Father fathers the Son and Spirit eternally.

The New Covenant is poorly understood today. Part of the problem is terminology. A covenant in today’s parlance involves obligations from both parties of an agreement. The covenants spoken of in the bible are not a covenant like we think of today. It is a testament of benefits to those in Christ. Christ has died and left a will to the beneficiaries. A testament records the tangible things we have in Christ and are recorded in 27 books, which comprise Gospels, letters, and a historical narrative (Acts of the Apostles). Christians refer to these books as the New Testament. This is good terminology as long as it is understood properly. The actual New Testament is The New Covenant which was promised in Jer, 31.31 and many other places in the O.T. It is correct to say the 27 books list the benefits of Christ’s will to the beneficiaries and are The New Covenant. They are the sole authority for all matters of faith and practice for the beneficiary: the Christian. Church officers, creeds, confessions are all subject to the words of scripture finally contained in the 27 books of The New Testament.

The Old (Mosaic) Covenant was very similar to the New Covenant because the benefits were forgiveness and fellowship. When the bible speaks of The Law of Moses, for the most part, it speaks of the regulations concerning the Jewish Temple, Aaronic Priesthood, and of the sacrifices. Everyone broke the regulations of the Mosaic Law, such as the Ten Commandments and other performance rules, either internally or externally. This is why heart-circumcision was needed (see Gen. 17 where circumcision is inaugurated and described as a “sign”) and not only the external rite. The Law of Moses consisted of the prescribed means of restoring fellowship with God who would in turn bless them. It did not consist of keeping the ethical rules more perfectly as the way for acceptance. Instead, the Law of Moses presented shadows (Heb. 8.5) of Christ in the cultic aspects (Temple culture: the care in keeping the true representation) of the priesthood, the festivals and Sabbaths, and, most of all, the sacrifices.

The clearest description of a covenant is Heb. 9.16-18 where a will is discussed. The word “will” is the same as “covenant” elsewhere: diatheke. It speaks of a covenant being in force only after the death of the party who made it. Both the Old and New Covenants were represented by the substitutionary death of an innocent victim. The book of Hebrews, especially ch. 9, defines a covenant. Covenant sacrifice established a relationship with God and was inaugurated immediately after the Fall in Eden. Also, Christ’s priesthood resembled Melchizedek’s who may have embodied a sacrifice (apparent deadly wounds) since he had neither beginning or end of days; therefore, he could forecast atonement by means of an indestructible life. Hence, this theopany (Melchizedek) could bring out bread and wine (like the symbols of The New Covenant) because a relationship and fellowship with Abraham was already established. Likewise, only Christians are allowed to partake in the bread and wine of The Lord’s Supper.

Redemption Under the Mosaic Law

Jesus was born under the Law for the purpose of redeeming those under the Law (the Jews), and adopting them as children, since they were in slavery under rules of scripture. One reason that the Mosaic Law was given was so that folks would recognize the sin principle inside them. However, the Mosaic Law provided a remedy for sin, by sacrifice, which foreshadowed Christ’s death on the cross. Sin would be confessed with the hands placed on the head of a suitable living animal. The priest would then offer the victim on the bronze altar at the Israelite Tabernacle/Temple Complex. The worshiper would partake of some of that sacrifice which meant they were now at peace with God by sharing this meal. This is how God established a relationship with people in The Mosaic Law (Ps. 50.5). Of course, God chose and knew every person who truly trusted in Him. He gave saving faith and probably regenerated them by the Spirit (but not in the same sense as today). They may have also understood the significance of the sacrifice in their heart but this point is difficult to establish from today’s perspective.

Fulfilling the Law

The Law is good in that it sets God’s holy standard. But it exposes our need since we fail to live up to it. The scriptural commandments could not save us in themselves but instead were a prison of sorts (see Gal. 3.19,22). However, Jesus kept the Law perfectly, and, through faith in Him, Christians are justified. Gentiles were never under the Mosaic Law (see Rom. 3.19). Instead, Gentiles were enslaved to false gods whose worship entailed a similar bondage of performance (Gal. 4.8-9).

Christians are enabled by the Spirit to fulfill the Law’s requirements: Loving God and our fellow humans. This summary  was already delineated in the Mosaic Law and therefore is not a reductionist idea. A special love is also commanded for those in the New Covenant Community which involves helping poor and suffering Christians to some degree today. Some want to extend this care as God’s service to all the poor in the world since salvation is open to all. Of course, Christians should be kind to everyone but the special love as service is only for the family of faith. This idea corresponds to the principle of care of others in O.T. Israel and Jesus’s day. To some degree, this care showed evidence of regeneration. Jesus’s commandment to Christians is still that they love one another (see 1 John 4.19-5.1).

The Promised Seed

The original promise of this seed, who was to finally crush the serpent’s head, was cryptically given as a parable in the sentence upon the spiritual entity behind the serpent who deceived Eve. Gen. 3.15 tells us that this seed would also have his heel pierced which was a death blow from the viper. Rom. 9.5 gives the general reason why God chose Abraham: the physical conduit to bring the Messiah. Through the Messiah all humanity would be blessed.

Earlier in Galatians (3.15-17) Paul tells us that the Mosaic Law could not add a condition to the promise given to Abraham. It was a fixed blessing to Abraham and his seed (Christ). Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. Therefore, those of faith in Christ are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

The First and Second Adam

How this blessing came about is explicitly explained in Galatians along with the backdrop of divine revelation. Adam had failed one command and so plunged humanity into sin and death since death was the stated consequence. There were no recorded transgressions by Adam’s subsequent descendants, in a technical sense, before the Mosaic Law was given, yet, everyone died since they derived from, or were in Adam (see Rom. 5.13-14). This is what some refer to as original sin which is acceptable terminology if understood correctly. Jesus was the second Adam and so needed to prove His fitness in keeping a perfect standard. This was one of the functions of the Mosaic Law and provided a promise of (eternal) life, if kept flawlessly (see Gal. 3.12 and Lev. 18.5). Also, Jesus specifically answers the lawyer’s question of obtaining eternal life in Lk. 10.25 cf. v.28).

The Tree of Life

The presence of the Tree of Life in the Edenic Garden constituted the promise of eternal life for humanity but it was withdrawn after the Fall. Though Adam and Eve were redeemed, their descendants would be born separated from God, and, hence, spiritually dead. Each person needs individual redemption. The removal of the Tree of Life was an act of mercy so not to fix them in eternal conscious separation from God. Adam was created mortal; hence, the Tree of Life was in the garden to, presumably, give him immortality upon passing the obedience test. Now, through Christ, who obeyed Moses’s Law, the curse is lifted, since He became a curse for us (Gal. 3.13) and access granted to this Tree of Life along with removal of the curse (Rev. 22.2-3).

An official from Capernaum had a son who was near death. He had heard that Jesus had returned to Galilee from Judea since Jesus always attended each of the three annually required feasts of the Jews.

This official traveled 15 miles one-way to Cana from Capernaum since this seemed to be a regular place where Jesus met. Cana was near Nazareth, where Jesus grew up, and home of Nathaniel. He also was invited to a wedding feast in this town and performed the notable miracle of turning water to wine. Jesus may have had relatives in Cana since he had four brothers and at least two sisters. It is quite possible the celebration was for one of Jesus’s siblings since His mother directed the servant to ask Jesus about the lack of wine for the occasion.

Now, the official asks Jesus to heal his son, but Jesus addresses the crowd since the referent “you” is plural (twice). Perhaps Jesus wanted to test the sincerity of the request instead of going to heal the son. The official asked again, probably earnestly since he believed Jesus when He told him to return and that his son would recover, and when servants met him, they confirmed the time of healing as being the time of his interview with Jesus.

The general rebuke of “unless you see signs and miracles, you will never believe” characterized many insincere followers since they had seen the signs but had not taken them to heart to recognize the significance (see John 6.26). In fact, Jesus had been performing signs everywhere He went. His initial function was to witness to Jewish society the power of God authenticating both His person and mission. This is why he traveled to different towns so more would see His arrival as the time of God revisiting Israel fulfilling the promises. Even John the Baptist was puzzled by the first phase of Jesus’s ministry since, as part of the family of priests, John recognized the role of the Messiah as being a sin offering (probably also as supplanting the first priesthood with the superior Melchizedekian of Ps. 110). John’s first two descriptions of Jesus was: “the lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world” (see John 1.29, 36). So, when John the Baptist heard of signs such as Jesus raising the widow’s son from the dead in the town of Nain, he sent inquiring whether or not He was the Messiah. Though some have interpreted this incident differently, the evidence points to John’s unfulfilled expectation of Jesus’s self sacrifice. However, The Messiah’s Advent was not uni-dimensional but multifaceted since Jesus had to accomplish many things before returning to His Father.

The Pharisees wanted to test Jesus by have Him perform a sign on demand. This is what Jesus was decrying: a self referential type of proof by their own standards. This is what many atheists today want: a sort of testing by the senses of sight, hearing, or otherwise. This is self-referential, an acting like a god, such as if they cannot register the data by their own standards, they reject the presentation. However, would the Pharisees of Jesus’s day or the atheists today be satisfied by a sign on demand? Of course not! They would want more signs and testing ad infinitum. These individuals will pass away, of course, while Christ rules forever.

Finally, the message of Christ is a stumbling block to Jews in Paul’s day as during the time of Christ only a few years earlier. In 1Cor. 1.22, the unbelieving Jews are still demanding a sign, such as their wishful preconception of a Messiah who will conquer for them. In their minds, it’s all about themselves. However, historically, only a remnant of Jews were saved in each era as the O.T. accounts relate. So also today a remnant exists from the Jewish people, those who regard the so-called weakness of Christ in crucifixion as stronger than human strengths (1Cor. 1.25). The Gentiles too only have a remnant since most of them generally think it absurd for God to self sacrifice Himself for humans (notice how many people seek to do or be something as merit), and so too, only a few of them truly accept Christ.

Again, Steve Hays does a good job illustrating vicarious atonement. He also relates substitution to the principle of asymmetrical agency:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/08/is-penal-substitution-possible.html

Romans chapter 5 notes the similarities and contrasts regarding aspects of Headship. “Headship” is the theological concept of how humans are both condemned in Adam and justified in Christ. I once had the whole of Romans 5 memorized but now can only recite the first 8 verses. I am working slowly to regain the whole again or at least through verse 11 since its a good exhortation for daily life.

Romans 5 presents the big picture in Paul’s theological treatise to the Christians at Rome. I’ve written before about the Split Headship view which is self evident by merely reading this chapter. Humans have a natural connection to Adam but are represented by Christ in His substitutionary death for us. I want to touch on a connected topic of Headship found in Romans 5: Adam the “type.”

The second and last Adam (Jesus) is, of course, the antitype or fulfillment of the purpose of human creation. Heb. 2.7 tells us that humans were only temporarily created to be lower than the angels. So, how will humans to achieve this higher status? The answer is eternal union with Christ through redemption. Christ’s death was planned before the foundation of the world at probably the first day when, in a metaphorical sense, light was separated from darkness (but possibly before). It seems because the non-elect angels’ positions were forfeited, Christ is now filling those positions with replacements intimately connected with Him. Therefore, job openings are available, so run the race with endurance to claim the prize.

Steve Hays has written a good defense on absolute predestination. His dialogue partner is Leighton Flowers who is a freewill theist. I think its a good apology for what the bible teaches about the ultimate power and sovereignty of God. God’s greatness no one can fathom the bible tells us. Also, David tells us in the Psalms that all his days were determined before David came to be.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/08/les-fleurs-du-mal.html

Besides God’s greatness He is also absolutely good to His creatures even those who hate Him by their words and deeds. God still causes the sun to shine on the just and unjust alike and also sending the blessings of rain on both of their crops. God will however punish the unredeemed eternally by wiping them out forever. Eternal punishment does not necessarily mean eternal torment, it could just mean ultimate destruction. Jesus speaks to the conditions of Gehenna when saying: “their worm does not die or the fire quenched.” He doesn’t say that those whose end is punishment never cease to exist. In Josephus’ day most religious Jews believed in eternal torment of the wicked after death, he tells us, but this is hardly any proof for the doctrine since Jesus had to correct the generally erroneous teaching of that day. For Christians immediately after the era of the Apostles, several church fathers seemed to believe in the annihilation of the wicked including Irenaeus and Ignatius. Here is a post in which I deal with the final disposition of the wicked:

https://wordpress.com/page/beliefspeak2.net/6991

The concepts of meticulous providence and annihilation of the wicked align well together since if God is teaching His people and preparing them for glory, then it makes sense, in God’s goodness, to destroy the wicked after they are punished for their evil since their purpose has been fulfilled: What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— (Rom. 9.22-23)