the bride of Christ

[Marilyn C]

Hi Openly Curious,

I have gone back through the discussion, as you suggested, & I`ve come up with these thoughts.
This is what I see you are saying (but please correct me if I am wrong).
 

Openly Curious - Anyone who believes having faith in Christ are the "heirs" of the promise God made to Abraham through Christ as we are saved through faith by grace…….
As the heavenly Jerusalem will descend from heaven and Christ will sit on the throne and rule the earth from the Holy city of God along with the saints from every dispensation.

YOUR VIEW. (to my understanding)

God made a covenant with Abraham.
- His seed (Christ) would be a blessing to all the nations. (Salvation)
- Promises (city / New Jerusalem / (as a) Bride.)

God -> Abraham -> Christ -> promises to us all. (city / New Jerusalem / bride)

 

 

MY VIEW.

God the Father made a covenant with God the Son for the Redemption of mankind & also for the promises of different inheritances to the different groups.

God established His covenant with Abraham. (as in telling him some of His plans.)
- His seed (Christ) would be a blessing to all the nations. (Salvation)
- Promises (city / New Jerusalem / (as a ) Bride)

 

 

God reveals more of His plans & purposes through Christ to the Apostle Paul for the Body of Christ.
- (Abraham`s seed (Christ) would be a blessing to all the nations.) (Salvation)

- Reveals the Body of Christ as the New Man.

- Reveals Christ as the Head of the Body.
- Promise of `something better.` (than the city.) (Heb. 11: 40)

 

 

God the Father & God the Son
-> Abraham -> Israel (city / NJ / Bride) & the nations, (earth).
-> Paul -> Christ, Head of the Body of Christ,  (promised something better.)

 

Marilyn.



 

Edited April 13, 2015 by Marilyn C

[Guest shiloh357]

I hear you, Marilyn, but you are not using good hermeneutics because you are mixing contexts.    Paul uses the same terms different ways in different contexts and you have to pay attention to that when you are interpreting Scripture.   You are letting your theology drive your interpretation and people do that when they want a particular passage to mean something.  That is the opposite of how good interpretive skills work.

 

You want Jesus to be the root in Romans 11, so you find some other place in Scripture where Jesus is called a "root" and then plug that into Romans 11 and claim that because Jesus was called a "root"  in Revelation, for instance, then every time the word "root" is used, it refers to Jesus.    Same with the first fruits.   Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection, but that does NOT mean that we can make the assumption that we can apply that meaning to "first fruits" in Romans 11.   You cannot mix contexts, because the same terminology isn't be used the same way every time we see it in the NT.

[Openly Curious]

MY VIEW.

God the Father made a covenant with God the Son for the Redemption of mankind & also for the promises of "different inheritances" to the "different groups".

1. Where in the scripture is the "record found" of this said covenant between the Father and the Son?

2. Where in scripture is the "terms" recorded in this said covenant written between God the Father and God the Son made with each other?

3. What "agreements" in this said covenant were agreed upon between God the Father and God the Son?

4. Where is scripture is the record found in how this said covenant was "sealed" or brought into effect between the Father and the Son?

If such a covenant exists between God the Father and God the Son then there should be a record of said covenant and the terms of it found in the scriptures to reference and read? And saying "that God gave Jesus as a covenant to or for the people" is not a covenant between God the Father and God the Son and want work. That just means that God gave his only begotten Son to die on the cross for the sins of mankind that isn't a covenant but a gift of love called redemption from God to mankind. Jesus was sinless so he didn't need to be redeemed and the gift of salvation to mankind was not a covenant made between God the Father and God the Son. So that want work for an answer.

[Guest shiloh357]

Technically, the New Covenant is between the Father Jesus.  It was cut in Jesus' blood.  It was cut between them FOR us.   Jesus and the Father are, therefore, the guarantors of the covenant which is why it is an unbreakable covenant.   We are the beneficiaries by faith.   

[Openly Curious]

MY VIEW.

& also for the promises of "different inheritances" to the "different groups".

You are teaching that there are more than just one body of Christ by using the term "different group(s)". There is only ONE BODY of Christ made up of believing Jews and Gentiles. The "one" new man created in Christ Jesus our Lord as we are made a new creature in Christ. You have divided that One Body into "group(s)" That is not what the scripture teaches especially the scriptures that are found in Ephesians.

-The Promise of something better- was the promise of Christ who would be the sacrifice die and shed his blood on the cross and his blood would replace the blood of the bulls and goats that were required in the old covenant law. There wasn't a law given under the old covenant in which man could keep and observe that would take away their sins or take away their guilty conscious toward God. That is why it took the promised seed of Abraham being Jesus Christ whose blood cleanses and takes away the sin of the world. Christ shed blood brought better promises than what was in the old covenant which was not perfect. Righteousness comes by faith in Christ as we are no longer under law but we are under grace (New Testament promises) which is the spiritual inheritance of both believing Jews and Gentiles we share in the blessing and goodness of God as we are saved to the uttermost.

[Openly Curious]

Technically, the New Covenant is between the Father Jesus. 

It was cut in Jesus' blood. 

It was cut between "them" FOR us.

Jesus and the Father are, therefore, the guarantors of the covenant which is why it is an unbreakable covenant.

Where is this record found in the scripture where this is taught.

God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are all one and they three agree and that is not just technically.

[Guest shiloh357]

It goes all the way back to the Abrahamic Covenant when God swore by Himself.  And if you go back to Gen. 15 it was God alone who walked between the animal halves.  Abraham did not walk between the halves.   God made the Covenant with Himself and that is a picture of the New Covenant.  It was not made with mankind.   God made the New Covenant with Himself.  It is cut in Jesus' blood, not in the blood of any mere man.

[saved34]

It goes all the way back to the Abrahamic Covenant when God swore by Himself.  And if you go back to Gen. 15 it was God alone who walked between the animal halves.  Abraham did not walk between the halves.   God made the Covenant with Himself and that is a picture of the New Covenant.  It was not made with mankind.   God made the New Covenant with Himself.  It is cut in Jesus' blood, not in the blood of any mere man.

The reason God swore by himself was to let Abraham and any who would trust in the promise that it is rock solid. I'm sorry but all these fancy new doctrines are getting ridiculous now. Surely God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in wisdom planned the redemption of man in Eternity, but saying God made the covenant with himself is simply wild speculation at best.

 

Christ became a man for us, it is a covenant from God for us. God says if we believe on his Son, we shall be saved. Jesus Blood is that of a man, to deny this is antichrist(not you directly Shiloh, but in general). Only a man could redeem man, and Christ took upon himself our nature. We must be really careful on coming up with these out of the park thoughts that has not been taught in the Church. Where is your support for saying such things, what Church Father supports this train of thought, what scriptures are you interpreting to say such things?

 

God clearly says;

 

Heb 10:16  "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." 

Heb 10:17  Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." 

 

Notice he says, with "them", the New Covenant is a Covenant for the people. In speaking to Abraham he said:

 

Gen 17:6  I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 

Gen 17:7  I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 

 

Abraham is the father of faith for all of us who believe the promise of God. God's covenant is with man, not some by product of a covenant with himself. He even says he swore by himself so that we(men) would have confidence in him.

 

Heb 6:17  Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 

Heb 6:18  God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged. 

Heb 6:19  We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 

Heb 6:20  where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. 

[Guest shiloh357]

Jesus was fully human and the New Covenant was cut in His blood, not in the blood of a "mere" man.   Jesus was not a mere man, but was fully God and fully man.   The New Covenant is not with mankind but with God Himself, Jesus and the Father.   

 

I don't see how that is a "fancy new doctrine."   Jesus even said that His blood is the blood of the new covenant.   Who else would God make the New Covenant with?

[missmuffet]

Jesus was fully human and the New Covenant was cut in His blood, not in the blood of a "mere" man.   Jesus was not a mere man, but was fully God and fully man.   The New Covenant is not with mankind but with God Himself, Jesus and the Father.   

 

I don't see how that is a "fancy new doctrine."   Jesus even said that His blood is the blood of the new covenant.   Who else would God make the New Covenant with?

Right on shiloh..