Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract

[Wm. Taylor]

John,   I have really been appreciating your posts. You and Terry are like the elders of our little congregation. I'm fully on board with your grace doctrine. I think it is the only way to understand the whole of Scripture, Old and New Testaments. I agree that there was a transference of righteousness which took place between Christ and us. I just have a small question about the substitution of our faith for Christ's righteousness. I believe that it is (was) Christ's faithfulness that stands in for us and it is here that the substitution is made. As you would, I'm sure, agree with me, even our faith is weakened by the flesh and is unworthy. Faith, it seems to me, is the assurance we have that we are saved by Christ's faithfulness to his Father throughout his earthly life -- by this I mean his blessed fulfillment of all righteousness. Faith is the assurance of this truth. Obedience is faithfulness and is thus the prime purveyor of assurance. "Justification by faith," then, is justification by Christ's faithfulness and not our own. This distinction is important, I believe, because it leaves room for other aspects of atonement besides just a substitutionary transference (see my Atonement post below).   Allow me now to set out the question as I see it, in particular relation to pistis Christou (faith or faithfulness of Christ). There are eight occasions in Paul's letters where the phrase pistis Christou or its equivalent occurs. These are all important passages relating to the central issues of God's salvation in Christ and of the participation by humans in that salvation. If in these phrases, or in any of them, the faith or faithfulness of Christ is meant (as distinct from our faith in him), I suggest it at once becomes likely that there are other occurrences of pistis by itself which should also be referred to the faith or faithfulness of Christ if the context allows this -- he is, after all, our Savior. Just for the fun of the exercise, I suggest you read "the faithfulness of Christ" (or the equivalent where stated) in place of pistis ... in these eight verses and just see what it does for your understanding of Christ's atoning work, and your fuller understanding of Scripture. The eight basic occurrences are:   Gal 2.16 (twice) -- "We... knowing that a man is not justified from works of law but only through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ  (pistis Iesou Christou), even we believed (episteusamen) on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified from the faithfulness of Christ (pistis Christou) and not from works of law." Gal 2.20 -- "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me, and that life I now live in the flesh I live by faith (pistis) which is of the son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me. Gal 3.22 -- "but the scripture shut up everything under sin so that the promise from the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (pistis Iesou Christou) might be given to those who believe (pisteuousin)." Rom 3.22 -- "but now the righteousness of God has been manifested... the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Christ (pistis Christou) unto all who believe (pisteuontas)." Rom 3.26 (which concludes this same section) -- "to display his righteousness at this present season, that he himself might be just and the justifier of the man who is from the faithfulness of Jesus (pistis Iesou)." Phil 3.9 -- "that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not having my own righteousness which is from law, but that which is through the faithfulness of Christ (pistis Christou), the righteousness of God on the ground of that faith (pistis)." Eph 3.12 -- "according to the eternal purpose which he determined in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through the faithfulness of him (pistis autou)."   John, I know you are aware of this, but for the sake of those who may not be, the difference between our Bible's translation and these here is strictly a matter of interpretation. The phrase pistis Christou is a genitive construct and can be translated either "faith in Christ" or "faithfulness of Christ." The first translation is what would be called an objective genitive, and the second translation a subjective genitive. It is the same distinction we have to make when interpreting the phrase "the righteousness of God." Is this God's righteousness bestowed upon us, i.e. "righteousness from God"? or is it the righteousness God demands of us? or might it be something else? We can only commit to and answer this question, and hence draw a distinction, in prayerful interpretation.   If you are interested I will be glad to expand and clarify.   Bill Taylor   Appendix.       From 03/02/04 on TruthTalk. In regards to the Atonement:   Jesus Christ himself explained that he had come as a servant to give his life in an act of sacrifice for us. Thus resting on Christ's own self-interpretation, the New Testament concept of atoning redemption assumes a central role in the doctrine of atonement. In order to clarify the term atonement, we have to turn to the Old Testament. Behind the OT conception of redemption there are three basic terms and their cognates. Although all three denote different aspects of divine redemption they are all profoundly interrelated. 1)     Kipur — Together with its cognates kipur is applied to express the expiatory form of the act of redemption in the OT. It speaks of the barrier of sin and guilt which exists between God and humanity as being done away by the sacrifice and  propitiation made between the two factions. Here, the subject of the atoning act is always God. Thus even though in the OT it is liturgically carried out by a high priest, the human act has to be seen as only a witness to the fact that God himself makes atonement and blots out sin by his own judicial and merciful act. Both God's judgment of wrong by offering an equivalent and the act of restoration to holiness before him are involved here in the understanding of atonement. This is brought out most clearly in the NT where we see Christ stand in as both Priest and Mediator; e.g., "Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." (Heb. 2.17). 2)     Pedah — Together with its cognates pedah is applied to express the aspect of the mighty acts of God in the OT concept of redemption. Significantly these acts bring immediate deliverance from oppression of evil and out of God's judgment upon it. It also carries the notion of offering a life in substitution for another as the cost of redemption and emphasizes the dramatic nature of the redeeming act as a sheer intervention on the part of God in human affairs. When the NT writers speak of Christ in terms of victory over the tyrants--sin, death, devil, the world--they have in view the pedah aspect of atoning redemption; e.g., "Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil;" (Heb 2.14).  3)     Go’el — Together with its cognates go’el is used to express the aspect of someone redeeming others out of a situation of bondage or forfeited rights. The "redeemer" or go’el, upon whom the emphasis is placed in this type of redemption, possesses a bloodline kinship to those in need, and can thus claim the cause for their needs as his own and stand in for his kinsmen who cannot free or redeem themselves. This ontological concept of redemption is applied in the OT to God acting on behalf of Israel by virtue of its special covenant relationship. That covenant was, of course, fulfilled in Christ in that he stood in as go'el for Israel as Seed of Abraham and David and, by way of kinship attachment to Eve, the entire human race in recapitulation (i.e., e.g., the gathering together language of Eph. 1-2; see also Heb 2.14a -- "Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same").   As mentioned before, these three concepts of redemption not only overlap each other in the teachings of the OT, but they also modify each other within the unique relations of God with his people. Thus they are quite different from secular concepts of redemption. It is significant that all three concepts are applied in the OT paradigm event of divine redemption—Israel's redemption from Egypt in the Passover and the Exodus. In Isaiah these three concepts are also applied to God's servant—the Holy One of Israel—who offers himself for the transgressions of Israel and intercedes for them. However, the Israelites did not identify this servant with the divine go’el because the idea of God becoming incarnate within the existence of humanity seemed impossible for them. This identification was left to be made in the NT in God's incarnate Son. However, in doing so the NT reinterpreted this OT concept of redemption in terms of what the Son of God had actually become and had actually done while in the flesh.   God Bless You,     Bill Taylor  ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:16 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Covenant versus Contract In a message dated 3/31/2004 8:24:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the  flow of the blood is eternal and continual, that our sins are remembered NO MORE.   The problem for the sinner is not sin,  it is the decision to avoid God and, hence, His solution.   The problem is already solved. Blaine's words appear ahead of mine on the above post from Jon.  I am not surprised at Blaine's  works salvantionist position.  I know that Perry does a good job showing the inaccuracies with Mormon claims --  but the single most devastating teaching, striking at the very heart of Mormonism, is the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith apart from obedience to a system of commandments. If we are saved by grace, there is no for the "right church." Central to the biblical doctrine of grace is the very obvious reality that man is a sinner.  Tons of bible on this.  I Jo 1:8 makes a statement in Greek, a present tense statement:   "if we say that we are having no sin, the truth is not within us."   When I sat in first year Greek and read that, understanding the impact of continuous linear action  ("are having no")  I was stunned.   My mind did not race to figure out how to escape the implications of this verse.   Implications?  I mean I as sitting in Greek class, for crying out loud studying "the Word of God.'   Not smoking.  Not drinking.  Not lusting.  No t ...    well you get it. AND STARING ME IN THE FACE, RIGHT THERE IN GREEK 101, WAS A VERSE THAT SAID I WAS HAVING SIN RIGHT THEN.  Bummer.    Since that first shock, I have come to realize that sin exists in, at least, two quantitative forms:  time/space   (historical sins such as drinking, lying, and the like  --- things that last for a relatively brief period of time; things I can hide;  things that often do not define who I am)  and sins of character  --  like envy, jealousy, hatred, bitterness, anger, slothfulness  --  all those things that lay the foundation for  historical sin.   One murders because one is filled with hate or some type of perversion.  This is exactly why Paul says that "all have sinned and are falling short of the glory of God."    Grace people recognize the fact that sin is ever upon us, inescapable, often intentional, always disastrous and deserving of death.   Works are commanded, they are necessary, but they are never accomplished by those who are righteous on their merits  --  never.   So God substitutes our faith for our supposed righteousness and refuses to consider our sins.   Much too long.   John