The Covenants: A Follow-up to Andy’s Post on Protective Custody; How Were Old Covenant Believers Saved?
In my first part, I added covenants to Andy’s post on how the law is a guardian until faith comes. In this post, I will further articulate exactly what the New Covenant accomplished in context of salvation.
First, it is very important to note that there is no difference between Old Covenant sanctification and New Covenant sanctification. In both cases, God’s law is the standard for love that sanctifies:
Deuteronomy 6:4 – “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
Deuteronomy 30:15 – “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. 16 If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you today, by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. 17 But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess. 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, 20 loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.”
Matthew 22:34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
This is because love fulfills the law and had the same twofold use by the Spirit in the Old Testament.
Ephesians 6:1 – Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3 “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” 4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
A Christian life of love has always been rewarded with a good life. Christians, via ignorance about biblical anthropology in general can suffer the consequences of sin and allow sinful desires to get a “beachhead” in our lives. Loving Christians are also a blessing and even a protection for those who are unbelievers:
Genesis 18:22 – So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord. 23 Then Abraham drew near and said, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” 26 And the Lord said, “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”
27 Abraham answered and said, “Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes. 28 Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking. Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?” And he said, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.” 29 Again he spoke to him and said, “Suppose forty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of forty I will not do it.” 30 Then he said, “Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak. Suppose thirty are found there.” He answered, “I will not do it, if I find thirty there.” 31 He said, “Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it.” 32 Then he said, “Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak again but this once. Suppose ten are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.” 33 And the Lord went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place.
1Corinthians 7:10 – To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
Notice also that Old Covenant believers were “righteous.”
2Peter 2:7 – and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked
Before Jesus went to the cross and established the Spirit baptism, Old Covenant believers were born again. Christ shamed Nicodemus because he was deemed a great teacher in Israel and was unaware of the new birth. The Pharisees and Sadducees of that day were of Gnostic ideology and would have rejected a new birth concept out of hand. However, the Old Covenant new birth is not dubbed such. We know the new birth is there, but no good study has ever been done to identify it in Old Covenant terms.
More than likely, it is framed around the idea of Abraham being the father of our faith and the new birth being Abraham’s “offspring.” That is a dominate Old Testament theme that carries over into the New Testament. At any rate, Old Covenant believers were identified as “righteous.” Because Christ’s righteousness was imputed to them? No, remember, the big Protestant thing is that Jesus became righteous by fulfilling the “righteous demands of the law” and then that righteousness is imputed to us. Nope, clearly, Old Covenant believers were already righteous well prior to the law. They became the offspring of Abraham by believing God. I also suspect that this is key, somehow, in understanding the significance of election.
Also, Old Covenant believers were not permanently indwelled by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit filled them for special tasks, and was with them (Exodus 31:3). He would leave their presence when they were in sin (Psalm 51:11) in contrast to New Covenant believers (Ephesians 4:30). It can be assumed that He had a role in the new birth, but this is not the same as the Spirit baptism.
When Christ went to the cross, he effected certain aspects of “The Promise” which is not fully realized until the new heaven and new earth; the city built by God (Hebrews 11:10). This is when God’s final enemy will be defeated, death. Prior to this, Christ defeated sin by going to the cross, and disease/sickness will be defeated at the coming of the Millennial Kingdom. This is the kingdom Christ came to preach and why His ministry was accompanied by healing and authority over sin as its major themes.
Prior to the first coming of Christ, Old Covenant believers were saved by atonement; ie., their sins were covered by the law, or as Andy articulated, ALL sin was imputed to the law. This freed them to love by the law. When they died, they went to a place referred to as the abode of the dead. This is where Christ went to preach to the “captives” after He died and then led the captives to freedom. This refers to those held captive by the law, or those who were in its “protective custody” (Ephesians 4:8, 1Peter 3:19, 4:6,).
The New Covenant baptism of the Spirit is actually what the Bible refers to as the “mystery of the gospel”:
Ephesians 3:1 – For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— 2 assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6 This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
Ephesians 2:11 – Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.
This even led to a transition period of sorts documented in the book of Acts (19:1-4).
It also brings to mind another dominate Bible theme: God’s endeavor through the Bible to make all things one, or an endeavor of total unity…a plenary peace between everything. The gospel seeks to reconcile God to man as well as reconciling everything that is divided in human existence and on every level.
Again, this ministry does research to understand the big picture, but the details will only come into focus through the collective efforts of God’s children as they utilize the gifts God gave to man when He resurrected Christ and set the captives free. This ministry can aid in those collective efforts.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
I would add one further wrinkle for consideration. It is quite possilbe that the “New Birth” was not a reality until after Christ was resurrected.
Consider:
–Jesus informs us in Luke 16:19-31 that the “abode of the dead” (“Sheol” in Hebrew or “Hades” in the Greek) was divided into two parts divided by a vast gulf: the “Bosom of Abraham” and another place described as a place of torment. Yet despite the vast gulf, those in each place were aware of the occupants of the other place and were able to converse with each other.
–Paul tells us that Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteouseness (Romans 4:8, Galatians 3:6). Not that he was born again.
–The covenant of circumcision in the OT was a sign of a promise yet to come. I believe Paul is alluding to this in Colossians 2:11
“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:”
Circumcision being a metaphor or a sign of the promise of the New Birth yet to come.
–Christ is refered to as the firstborn of many brethren (Romans 8:29). If people were born again before Christ died, then Christ would no longer be the “firstborn”.
Putting all of these pieces together, here is the conclusion I have come to.
OT saints were not yet “born again” but had righteousness “credited” to them because of their demonstration of belief in Jehovah. (If you think of a “credit” as something that someone has not yet realized but is due to him.) This crediting of righteousness placed them under the protective custody of the Law. The result of this was two-fold. First, all sin was imputed to the law. Second, believers under this “atoning” aspect of the law or “covering” would find themselves in the “Bosom of Abraham” upon their death, rather than in the place of torment. When Christ died, He preached to those in the Bosom of Abraham. Those who were there were then born again at the resurrection of Christ, and He freed them from their captivity (thus making Christ indeed the firstborn, and all OT saints reborn offspring of the Father AFTER Christ). Some went to heaven immediately to await the first resurrection and future glorification. Others were resurrected immediately.
“And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” ~ Matthew 27:52-53
Of course, this all is going to need a LOT further study, but so far, this seems to be the most resonable conclusion I can come to given what I already know.
LikeLike
Your case makes sense, but it must figure in that the Old Testament saints were not merely declared righteous, but literally righteous as a state of being. What made them righteous? Was it their faith alone, or some kind of new birth effected by the Spirit in response to their faith? I buy into your construct, but it must encompass the fact that OT saints were not simply declared righteous, but were in fact righteous as a state of being. James, post-resurrection, demands a faith that has works and we know that’s a faith that works through love (Galatians 5:6). Lots to consider including the fact that Abraham did not ultimately look for a new birth but a city built by God. Peter states that we ultimately look for the new heaven and new earth where nothing but righteousness dwells. Is the OT circumcision indicative of the new birth? Was the OT new birth a circumcision of the heart? Not sure, but the OT saints were presently righteous resulting in certain behaviors (James and Hebrews 11). Lot’s soul was vexed by Sodom because he was righteous, not because he was simply declared righteous. So, what made them righteous as a state of being? Could it have been nothing more than their very own change of heart, or did God do something additional in response to their faith?
LikeLike
No denial that the reality of righteousness, even in the OT, is state of being, but could it not be said that such a state of being in OT times was due to the imputation of sin to the law? If we are going to grammatically interpret the word “accounted” that Paul uses in Romans and Galatians, then such would be the case of a righteous state of being “credited” (an accounting term) to them until the promise of the new birth came later. The way I see it, it would be consistent.
LikeLike
My point is not meant as an argument againt the reality of righteouness as a state of being. I’m just asking the question for consideration. I am not ready to stand on my conclusions dogmatically yet. But with everything I have considered with what I have found so far in scripture, this seems to be a pretty good conclusion. Was it not the reality of the law taking OT saints into protective custody which made their righteouness a reality? Was that not the reason they found themselves in the Bosom of Abraham rather than the place of torment? Could it not be said that OT saints were waiting in Sheol to be born again? Unless I am missing something, it seems to be rationally consistent.
LikeLike
It’s a declaration rather than a change of heart and doesn’t account for his good works; only the removal of what he did wrong. The just live by faith just like in the OT. A person cannot be righteous as a state of being just because everything they do wrong is imputed to the law; it is determined by their righteous acts that flow from faith.
LikeLike
This is why Hebrews 11 is so perplexing to people. It’s like God totally ignores the fact that Rahab was a prostitute and totally focuses on what she did by faith. This, however, makes perfect sense if she was not under law and judged purely on her acts of love…which she was.
LikeLike
So, it has to be more than the removal of sin…something else is going on.
LikeLike
I am not saying that I know what it is, I am just saying we are missing the connection somewhere.
LikeLike
It could be the simple fact that a change of mind about God is what saves people, and then God takes care of the condemnation problem with the new birth. If the law of God is written on the hearts of man, and as Moses said the word of God is close to man and in us, why not? The new birth would then take care of the condemnation problem. Just throwing out interpretive questions here.
LikeLike
It was great reading you two guys’ comments, and it spared me from writing something (thank goodness!). But I did notice one thing: Your respect for each other and the civilicised, Christian, and brotherly way in which you conducted yourself, whether you disagreed a little or not. Wonderful, friends of mine!
Blessings to you both, and to Susan, and to Andy’s family and the organ (I don’t forget).
LikeLike
It’s unchartered territory for sure that will take a lot of study. Not sure the new birth is the same thing as the Spirit baptism, but it could be. Another angle that needs to be looked at is the word of God being a seed. It has the ability to give life, so when one believes does “faith” have commonality with a new birth in some way. I guess the question is: what specifically made the OT saints righteous? Whatever it was, it was reckoned based on what they did “by faith.” The taking away of condemnation alone doesn’t make one righteous; at least in the new testament it involves having the seed of God in us (1John, chapter 3). With that said, the seed in some context could be the word of God.
LikeLike
…when one hears the word and BELIEVES…”FAITH COMES.” What then is “faith” specifically? Obviously, faith made the OT saints righteous, but does faith qualify as the new birth?
LikeLike
Andy, it seems that I do forget sometimes. You said, “piano.” (About your family devotions.)
LikeLike
No worries.
I saw that, but I wasn’t going to nitt pick. 😉
LikeLike
Much of what Andy said in his first comment are all things I had been taught in my Kjv church.
One pastor I do enjoy listening to who attempts to expound on these issues is Charles Lawson, who says it’s his job to make you think about these things for yourself. His sermon entitled The Standard of the New Birth https://youtu.be/O1tvvtr5LRM
is something you won’t hear at a SBC church anymore. He has a lot of sermons on Faith, like Bible Faith on Hebrews 11. https://youtu.be/hf5RK5KvPtU
My older kids look forward to his messages every week as this was feeding them while we were still going to what increasing seemed like a stealthy neo- cal takeover operation. So glad to be detoxing from that constrictive spirit that WILL not testify to the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
Where do OT women fit into ‘circumcision as a sign of the promise yet to come’?
LikeLike
This is an excellent question. Let me see how well I can articulate my thoughts into words.
Culturally, circumcision was not a practice that was unique to the Jews. So when God instituted it with Abraham as a sign of a covenant, it wasn’t an unheard of practice prior to that. But what God was doing was associating this practice as a way of identifying His people. So while it is true that actual surgical proceedure was only perfomed on males, the practice itself would have been strongly associated with the Jews as a people group. Much like other aspects of the ceremonial law, (the dietary restictions for example) there were certain hygenic advantages where the goal was to produce a people that were healthy and robust.
But it is clear from Paul’s teaching in the NT, that he understood the metaphorical implications of circumcision; the “cutting away” of the body of flesh, as he called it, “circumcision of the heart”. It is symbolic of the death of the old man who was under law. This is the reality of the new birth. So in this sense, as the sign of circumcision identified God’s people (not just males specifically, but the people group as a whole), the death of the old man and the new birth identifies God’s own offspring. This is why I believe that OT circumcision was symbolic of the new birth that was to come.
Does that make sense?
Andy
LikeLike
That’s a good question. In sorting it out, I would ask what verses of Scripture specifically connect circumcision, the new birth, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit as the same thing in the same way Scripture connects faith with being born again by hearing the word and believing it. I do think that circumcision being a male thing plays into the equation somehow. Obviously, baptism is not gender specific. Consider the present tense aspect of God calling on the Jews to circumcise their hearts:
Due 10 – 12“And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13and to keep the commandments and statutes of the LORD, which I am commanding you today for your good? 14Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. 15Yet the LORD set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day. 16Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.
Then God also refers to it as an act He performs:
30:5-And the LORD your God will bring you into the land that your fathers possessed, that you may possess it. And he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. 6And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
I think that more than likely, the circumcision of the heart took place when OT believers obtained faith through believing God.
LikeLike
Note the present tense reality of OT righteousness:
9Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
As I wrote in the other post, “counted” is not really an accounting term but an assessment of one’s state of being which can be noted by, “He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” He HAD righteousness BY faith. Circumcision was merely a sign of what God did to the heart because of “faith.” Women would not have been exempt from God circumcising their hearts as demonstrated as a sign on males.
LikeLike
I totally understand the metaphorical and tribal meaning but want to float something else that rarely gets mentioned.
In Genesis, Eve admits she was deceived. Adam blamed Eve and God. In Genesis we know that teshuqa has a meaning of turning and was translated as such up until about the 1300’s. Eve was ‘turning’ to Adam instead of God. And because of that he ruled over her. Eve’s bad choice had serious consequences.
There was no need for a sign for women.
What about Zipporah and her circumcision of Moses. Any thoughts?
LikeLike
Men and women both have hearts; the physical demonstration is male. When sin entered in Adam and Eve shared a mutual desire to control each other. The grammatical sentence structure is the same as Genesis 4:6,7. The essence of sin is a desire to control others. Apparently, God took the command for the outward sign seriously. He was going to slay Moses for disregarding the sign of the Covenant. PS 119:70 reads, “their heart is unfeeling like fat, but I delight in your law.” Circumcision is an outward sign proclaiming what God has done to the heart.
LikeLike
…also, what would have been significant about circumcision is the removing of flesh from the [heart], and the resulting blood…it was a blood covenant.
LikeLike
…what Zipporah did was a substitute for what God really wanted and was a pretty heads-up response. I think I am going to post on this in the morning.
LikeLike
“When sin entered in Adam and Eve shared a mutual desire to control each other. ”
Obviously, I don’t agree with that rendering of the passage at all if we are reading Genesis literally and not as an Ancient Creation narrative showing a Great and Good God who operates very differently from the pagan gods other creation narratives. I realize that interpretation is conventional wisdom and tradition but I don’t see the support for it in the literal translation. Eve” turned” to Adam instead of God, followed him out of the garden, etc.
check this out which includes the historical rendering of Gen 4:
Click to access teshuqa_chart.pdf
History, after what we term the fall, does not even bear out the idea that women sought to control men. Quite the opposite, in fact. This is even born out in the fact that God allowed polygamy because women had to have protection in that barbaric culture.
“The grammatical sentence structure is the same as Genesis 4:6,7. The essence of sin is a desire to control others. Apparently, God took the command for the outward sign seriously. He was going to slay Moses for disregarding the sign of the Covenant. PS 119:70 reads, “their heart is unfeeling like fat, but I delight in your law.” Circumcision is an outward sign proclaiming what God has done to the heart.”
I do agree that the essence of sin is a desire to control others and that women are just as flesh as men using other methods within their control. I disagree that is what Gen 3 is saying. Eve was deceived. She admitted it. Adam was not and blamed God and Eve. There is a difference there. Eve turned to Adam. Not to God.
And I do think history of the world from ancient times to relatively recent bears out exactly which gender won the “control” issue except for a few exceptions here and there with female queens, wealthy widows, etc, etc.
LikeLike
Um excuse me, but if there is anyone on the face of the earth that is not influenced by “conventional wisdom” that would be me. I have yet to find another ministry that is emphasizing Protestantism’s major flaw regarding the law being the standard for justification. I didn’t come to that conclusion by getting anywhere near conventional wisdom. And frankly, it is a glaring error that I think people are avoiding discussion of as a way to protect the church as institution. I think the “conventional wisdom” you are speaking of is the idea that Adam had authority over Eve but Eve had a sinful desire to control him instead. This seems to be reflected in your reading too much into the word “allow” in the meme. BUT, that is nowhere near what I hold to. In relationships and fellowship I hold to an organized body illustration as opposed to authority. This goes for marriage as well. It might help if you don’t come here with a feminist prism. Lastly, not sure what isn’t plain about the sentence structure of Genesis 4:7. Sin has a desire for Cain. It crouches at the door waiting for an opportunity to pounce when Cain does not do well. But instead, Cain must master sin. The exact same dynamic regarding sin is explained throughout the New Testament particularly Romans, chapter 6. Now compare Genesis 6:7 “And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him” with Genesis 3:16: “and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” As far as all of this stuff about Eve admitting that she was deceived and then following Adam instead of God blah, blah blah…I find it painfully convoluted and presumptuous.
LikeLike
“In relationships and fellowship I hold to an organized body illustration as opposed to authority. This goes for marriage as well. It might help if you don’t come here with a feminist prism.”
“Feminist prism” as in voting rights? Equal pay? Not sure what feminist prism means.
Kephale does not denote Authority. There are several clear Greek words that communicate Authority. Kephale denotes a source. It is metaphorical. As in the 1st Century the husband was considered the source for the wife’s needs. Food, shelter, protection. It’s not like women could choose a career at the Ephesus community college. Only wealthy women had such independence such as Lydia and Phoebe.
An interesting aspect of this is the ancients believed that thinking and decision making came from the heart. That thinking changed a hundred years after Paul when the physician, Galen, discovered that the limbs were controlled by the head. (Brain). We see this play out in Scripture with all the “heart” passages. The head was thought to be the source for the body in eating, hearing, seeing, etc.
The problem is taking a metaphor too far a few thousand years later.
LikeLike
My point exactly; it’s not about authority. But I don’t even think “source” is the idea either in Paul’s body analogy. I think the main idea is being of the same mind regarding ONE truth. The husband is to lead in that endeavor to be of one mind the same way Christ did.
LikeLike
“The husband is to lead in that endeavor to be of one mind the same way Christ did.”
So the husband is a sort of mini Christ mediator for the wife to bring her to one mind? What are his credentials? His physical characteristics?
I would think we look to the pre fall narrative of subduing the earth together. Interesting word choice of Exercise as God is referred to as an Ezer as are other OT men.
LikeLike
A mini Christ mediator because he leads his wife in the study of God’s word? I see. And right, men and women are not created differently. Still looking for those female NFL linebackers.
LikeLike
So Braun is the indicator of spiritual leadership? I don’t get that either. If that is the prerequisite, Didn’t Paul say that God chose the weak to shame the strong? This is not about gender differences, it’s about spiritual truth. But I will remind you that if the building were on fire, I would have to carry Piper out. He is tiny and I tower over him by about 5 inches. :o)
You seem to be saying that God chose men to lead women into spiritual truth. Or perhaps this only applies to married people?
Does this not apply to women/wives?
26 These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. 27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will[e] abide in Him.
LikeLike
Not only does the church have justification completely wrong, but I don’t think we yet have a solid enough biblical worldview to even begin many discussions. Women teachers? In the cesspool called church we want to fight for women to have equal opportunity in teaching progressive justification? Uh, ok, I guess.
LikeLike