The New Covenant

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by NetChaplain, Jun 23, 2016.

  1. NetChaplain

    NetChaplain
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    21
    Covenants are always made between two parties and all covenants between God and man were derived from the “Everlasting Covenant” (Heb 13:20). “New,” not in the sense of development for it was made in eternity past, but in application. This is the final and eternal covenant between the Father and the Son which involves the Son’s “surety” of redeeming man by expiating sin, and the Father raising Him from the dead. Hence this covenant is not between God and man, but man is the recipient of its eternal provisions.

    When a covenant was made between God and man it was always stated as such and involved both parties doing their part, i.e. God instructed Israel to faith and obedience in return for union and blessings. When the Lord Jesus said, “this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mat 26:28), we do not see any language that indicates covenant establishment between God and man, for there is no stipulated accountability of man’s part in it as there was in the prior covenants.

    Man has no part in the work of the New Covenant but rather in the manifestation of it. Thus the keeping of the commands of Christ is not a surety for redemption but confirms an antecedent establishment of redemption prior to obedience, for as we know it is Christ’s Cross-work alone which effects expiation.

    Jesus said, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13), and God’s love exceeds by being manifested in a greater sacrifice than Self—His Son! This ensures that it constitutes a “gift” and thus eliminates the potential of it being a merited action, and hence no debt to repay. The result is not returning to God anything out of debt but of love and gratitude (2Cor 9:15), which can only be performed and expressed in love to others (1John 4:20).

    God used Abraham to signify Christ’s sacrifice, which he would have performed in the faith that “God was able to raise him up, even from the dead” (Heb 11:19), for he believed God’s promise of using Isaac for future blessings to the children of God.

    “Now may the God of peace—who brought up from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great Shepherd of the sheep, and ratified an eternal covenant with His Blood—equip you with all you need for doing His will. May He produce in you, through the power of Jesus Christ, every good thing that is pleasing to Him. All glory to Him forever and ever! Amen” (Heb 13:20, 21 NLT).


    Notated References:

    The ‘blood’ was the seal of the everlasting covenant entered into between the Father and Son; in virtue of the Son's blood, first Christ was raised, then Christ's people shall be so” (Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown).

    The blood of Christ on the cross sealed the everlasting covenant of the Gospel of which the resurrection of Christ from the dead was the surety (B. W. Johnson).

    The Blood of Christ satisfied divine justice, and so procured Christ's release from the prison of the grace, as having paid our debt, according to an eternal covenant or agreement between the Father and the Son (Matthew Henry).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. utilyan

    utilyan
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    21
    Chap lets say I owe you 1000$, And I don't have the money for it.
    Jesus comes and pays you 1000$, He says I'll take the bill for him.

    Have you forgiven me the 1000$? No you haven't you simply got paid for it.


    Who is Jesus paying GOD?

    If Jesus is paying GOD then your sense of GOD is one incapable of forgiveness.


    No where in the bible does it say God's wrath was poured out on Jesus.


    I have scripture God was with Jesus on the cross.

    2 Corinthians 5
    19namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.


    I have scripture that says Jesus pulled us out of they way of the wrath TO COME:

    Romans 5
    8But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

    This is a future tense, we shall be saved from wrath of God.



    How do you explain things like: Smitten by God (Isaiah) , Our being crucified with Christ, our carrying our own cross.

    Did Jesus die for us or did he die instead of us?


    Does God forgive anything? If its paid for its paid for that's not forgiven. To give illustration:

    Matthew 18
    21Then Peter came and said to Him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” 22Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.
    23“For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. 24“When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25“But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. 26“So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’ 27“And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. 28“But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back what you owe.’ 29“So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you.’ 30“But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. 31“So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. 32“Then summoning him, his lord said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33‘Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ 34“And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. 35“My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”

    Jesus shows God forgives completely he felt compassion forgave the debt without collecting from anywhere.

    We are told to follow the Father's example. Does this mean I shouldn't forgive anyone till someone pays out for the person?
     
  3. NetChaplain

    NetChaplain
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2013
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    21
    Hi U - I suppose that determines what you mean by God's wrath.

    "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand" (Isa 53:10).

    God forgave all believers from eternity past and this life brought it to pass.
     
  4. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,504
    Likes Received:
    454
    You mean apart from Isaiah 53:4-6, 10 and Romans 3:25 (a 'propitiation' is a sacrifice that takes away wrath)?
     
  5. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    You are confusing the concept of a debt that is paid and forgiveness bestowed by God in regards to Redemption.

    When a debt is forgiven, it is not a moral judgment, but financial.

    Under the Covenant of Law, and the prior Ages that preceded the Age of Law, sins were forgiven through animal sacrifice.

    But note carefully, Utilyan, the debt...was not forgiven.

    So in view is remission of sins apart from payment of the debt. In modern concept it would be similar to making a payment on a mortgage. You are, when you make the monthly payment, relieved of the responsibility of the debt on a temporary basis. It is not until payment is made in full that the debt is forgiven.


    Continued...
     
  6. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    The New Covenant is a Covenant established through one party, rather than the typical arrangement in which two parties participate. The Covenant of Law carried a responsibility of two parties, and is, in my view, the only if/then Covenant of Scripture. For example, "If you obey Me, then will I..."

    The Abrahamic Covenant could be viewed as having two parties, but, when it was established, Abraham was alseep.

    The New Covenant, however, has the same Person both offering up the Sacrifice and being the Sacrifice Himself.

    The difference between a monetary debt being forgiven, in which it is not a moral obligation of the one being paid off to "forgive" the debtor, and Christ making payment for the penalty of sins in completion, is this: the payment of debt and remission of sins are never divorced, because the debt paid is the debt sin incurs. That's the whole point.

    And it is the beneficiary of that payment that is impacted concerning conscience. The one that would loudly proclaim remaining debt (in regards to both those not forgiven through Christ as well as those forgiven in their temporal lives), Satan, is in no way "forgiving" even though he has no choice. The debt is paid, but that doesn't mean he is happy about it, or that he does not still try to point out that those forgiven still sin.


    Continued...
     
  7. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    Jesus is God, Utilyan, and while we distinguish between the Persons and recognize the Incarnation as being a point in History where God took upon Himself the flesh of man for the purpose of making Atonement, it is still not a matter of sinners "owing God" in the same sense of a financial transaction.

    When sinners die for their sins themselves, do we conjure up a satisfaction in relation to God's view on their deaths? Does God say "Well I am now satisfied, because their debt has been paid"?

    No. That is why God has always made provision for men, that He not have to exact the penalty at the time the debt is incurred. If God were solely interested in having the debt paid, rather than interested in providing a means of forgiveness for men, then He would have simply destroyed Adam and scrapped mankind in the Garden.

    While the concept of Jesus paying the debt owed to God has a valid element to it, there is still a distinction from transactions that take place between men. While financial transactions can be established, carried out, and even mediated apart from a moral element, the payment of the sin debt cannot be.


    Continued...
     
  8. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    I agree in part with this in the sense of the view that it was necessary for Christ to have the wrath that is awaiting the children of darkness poured upon Him in order to make Atonement.

    The payment for sin was His death. He died in order to take upon Himself the penalty for sin that we have incurred. We do not need to impose concepts that Christ suffered the Second Death in order to make Atonement, that is not the case. Christ went into Hades, not Hell.

    But...


    John 3:36

    King James Version (KJV)

    36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.



    ...it is true that the wrath that will come upon everyone who has not become a beneficiary of the New Covenant was removed from the sinner that places saving faith in Christ, so in that sense Christ took upon Himself the wrath rightfully deserved by the sinner. They stand in a present state of that wrath looming over their heads. I think we can distinguish between orge wrath and thymos wrath in Scripture, and the penalty for sin has nothing to do with God losing control of His emotions and thus penalizing man for his sin. It's simply a matter that a debt is incurred that has to be satisfied, it was not a debt established by God, He is independent from the debt in that respect. This too forces us to distinguish between the debt of sin and Christ's relationship to it and a financial debt established between two parties among men. We are given a picture of Redemption in Boaz, where redemption by an independent party can take place according to the will of that independent party. That independent party could ignore the debt and would not be found guilty for it.


    So too with God, He did not create the conditions through which the debt arose, and was not obligated to pay the debt, nor to give provision that the debt be temporarily satisfied until the debt was paid (i.e., sacrifice for sins under Old Testament Economies/Covenants, likened to mortgage payments).

    But aren't we glad He did?


    Continued...
     
  9. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    Me too:


    John 16:32

    King James Version (KJV)

    32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.





    This speaks of the Incarnation as a whole, rather than just Christ on the Cross. But I agree with the premise, because it is an impossibility that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit could actually be separated the One from the Others.


    I agree with that too.

    But let's not forget the Sufferings of Christ. And I would suggest to you that there is a suffering that goes beyond the physical pain endured when He died on the Cross. I would suggest to you that having a full knowledge of sin and its impact on man was a source of suffering for Holy God.

    And it is in this that we can marvel at His decision to take upon Himself the flesh of man.

    This is the same concept I believe God did not want man to understand in the Garden, hence the restriction from eating of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Prior to Adam and Eve eating of that fruit, their existence was...good. They had no experiential knowledge of evil. For example, Eve would experience sorrow in the death of her son Abel, which would have been a new experience to her, I think we can safely assume.

    When Christ died on the Cross He said it is finished. I think we can safely assume that He meant what He said, rather than create a concept that more had to be exacted in order for Atonement to be made.


    Continued...
     
  10. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    That we shall not suffer wrath is a past tense reality.


    John 3:18

    King James Version (KJV)

    18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.




    John 3:36

    King James Version (KJV)

    36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.



    The condemnation unbelievers are under and the penalty are identical. They are condemned, we are not. They will suffer God's wrath, we will not.


    1 Thessalonians 1:10

    King James Version (KJV)


    10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.



    Both temporal wrath and eternal wrath are covered here. There is no way to conclude one might be delivered from temporal wrath then turn around and say it doesn't mean they are delivered from eternal wrath. Just as one cannot impose a condition or position of condemnation to those that believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.


    Continued...
     
  11. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    We have been delivered from the wrath to come.

    Period.

    Let's look at your statement again:

    The point is, if we have been justified by His death, even more so are we delivered from the wrath to come.


    Romans 5:9-10

    King James Version (KJV)


    9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

    10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.



    The point Paul makes in the preceding verses is that what God has done is incredible. He makes the point that among men we might see someone lay down their lives for those they deem worthy of that sacrifice, but Christ...laid down His life for those absolutely unworthy.

    The point in regards to wrath is that if Christ laid his life down, not for the worthy, but the unworthy...how much more does that show that we shall be saved by the Life we receive in reconciliation? This is similar to Paul teaching that we have been given the earnest, the down-payment, the guarantee of our salvation...because we have been brought into union with God through the indwelling of God.

    Paul is not saying "Boy we sure stand a good chance of no coming under God's wrath when it is poured out!"


    Continued...
     
  12. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    Simply put, Christ's death falls under God's Sovereignty. He laid down His life, He took it back up again.

    The point is that what men did to Christ was not a matter of men paying the debt by offering up a sacrifice that would make Atonement. It has to be understood that while men did take Him, beat Him, scourge Him...they did not orchestrate the events. Understand?

    The priests under the Law and prior took an animal, slew that animal, and thus made atonement for sin. That is not the case in regards to Christ's death. He was the Priest, He was the Sacrifice, and He was the God the offering was made unto.


    Continued...
     
  13. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    It is relational only...we were not on the Cross of Christ, Christ was alone, having only the Father with Him.

    I view the idea that we "spiritually died on the Cross with Christ" a fallacious popular teaching not supported by Scripture.

    If that were the case then we would preach "We died for sins" rather than He died for the sins of the world.

    That is just a Basic Bible Principle in regards to Christ and His offering up of Himself...not ourselves.


    Continued...
     
  14. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    Relates to temporal existence, and has nothing to do with Atonement, though many confuse the two contexts, and maintain the popular pulpit concept.


    There is no distinction, both mean the same thing.

    Just as the animal died in the stead of the sinner, thus were their sins temporarily forgiven, even so Christ died in our stead, taking upon Himself the penalty that sin demands...death.

    Someone is going to die for sin, and God has always given provision for men that it not be themselves. Under Old Testament economies the death of animals was permitted, but in this Age the only acceptable death God recognizes is Christ's death in the stead of the sinner. The Writer of Hebrews seeks to impress upon his brethren that they must forsake the former provision and embrace the Provision of Go in Christ.

    This is what he means when he says it is impossible to renew them unto repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh. In view are those of the Hebrew people returning to the sacrificial provision of the Law, rather than embracing Christ's death. When they offered up those sacrifices, they again "crucify Christ" in the figurative sense, just as the deaths of animals pictured Christ's death. The Passover Lamb, for example, was a picture of the death of Christ on the Cross. To impose remissive quality to sacrifices abrogated by Christ's death was to reject Christ's death.


    Continued...
     
  15. utilyan

    utilyan
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    21
    Tell me what these mean. Keep in mind I don't agree with the idea I can save myself without Jesus.

    I'm gonna keep throwin verses because that "either/or" theology is just not gonna work.


    Galatians 2

    20“I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.


    Colossians 1

    24Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.
     
  16. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    Yes.

    But here is what is vital to our understanding, Utilyan: we must distinguish between remission of sins under Old Testament Economies and remission of sins through Christ.

    They are not the same.

    God forgave sin through animal sacrifice, but, those sacrifices had to be continually offered because they could not take away sins (Hebrews 10:1-4).

    Christ's offering of Himself did take away sins and the need for continual sacrifice, making the one sanctified by that Sacrifice perfect in regards to remission of sins...for ever (Hebrews 10:14).

    That is made clear here:


    Hebrews 9:12-15

    King James Version (KJV)


    12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

    13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

    14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

    15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.



    Continued...
     
  17. utilyan

    utilyan
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2016
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    21
    Is it the wages of sin is death or Your wages for sin is death?

    Matthew 20

    20Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, bowing down and making a request of Him. 21And He said to her, “What do you wish?” She said to Him, “Command that in Your kingdom these two sons of mine may sit one on Your right and one on Your left.” 22But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to Him, “We are able.” 23He said to them, “My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.”
    24And hearing this, the ten became indignant with the two brothers. 25But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26“It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, 27and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
     
  18. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    We cannot divorce remission of sins, particularly when Scripture makes a clear distinction that this remission of sins is eternal...from the payment of the debt owed for sin.


    This is a temporal context, Utilyan, and deals with man's relationship to other men, not God's relationship to man.

    Again, we can see the financial element which has nothing to do with Eternal Redemption, which is not a financial arrangement.


    We see Christ often forgive sin in the Gospels during His ministry, but we do not place these in an eternal context.

    Consider:


    Matthew 9:2

    King James Version (KJV)

    2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.



    I ask you...did this man still need Christ to die in His stead?


    Again, the context is temporal, not related to Eternal Redemption. Salvation is based upon God manifesting in flesh and dying in the stead of sinful man. If you equate you forgiving other men with what is clearly stated in Scripture as a sacrifice for those unworthy, then you are saying that you forgiving makes you worthy.

    Christ didn't die in your stead, Utilyan, because you were worthy, but because you were not worthy, and your only means of making payment of that debt was for you to actually die.

    But He died for you, not because you met a certain standard (i.e., forgiving as God forgives), but because He did not want you to have to personally pay that debt.

    He didn't want you to die for your sin.

    Now, in the temporal, you are indeed taught to seek to follow the Father's example, just don't think that whatever degree you do follow the Father's example that in some way that degree comes even close to the Father Himself. It is not possible for you to forgive men to the degree that God forgives in regards to sin. Everything you do and accomplish is accomplished here in the temporal, whereas what Christ accomplished pertains to the Eternal Perspective.



    Is that what is taught? You know it isn't. You are to forgive...period. Even when the insult or injury or cost to you increases.

    But again, no matter how well you forgive, you cannot equate that to the remission of sins achieved by God in Christ. No amount of forgiveness you bestow will ever...save anyone. You cannot forgive, in other words, the sin debt of the unbeliever...only God can do that, and He does that, completely (perfectly and forever) through Christ only.


    God bless.
     
  19. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    You know, I actually know you don't think you can save yourself, but, there is the implication in your teachings, as well as in Catholic teachings...that you are helping Christ save you, lol.

    That's what all the fuss between the groups is about, Utilyan.


    And that is interesting, considering your position concerning Scripture.

    After discussing Sola Scriptura with you, why would you "throwin' out verses" be thought to have any relevance?

    ;)


    Again I ask...is salvation accomplished by Christ alone or did you help Him "finish it" by dying with Him on the Cross?

    Scripture does not present a concept of salvation through Christ and believers, but salvation through the Death of Christ alone.

    Secondly, if you helped Christ by being there on the Cross, then your salvation is a matter of debt, rather than a Gift.


    Galatians 2:19-20

    King James Version (KJV)

    19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

    20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.



    We would have to reword v.20 to "...the life I now live I live by the faith of the Son of God, Who loved me, when we gave ourselves on the Cross."

    You did not die with Christ on the Cross, He died alone, Himself giving Himself...alone.



    Again, a temporal context. The sufferings of Paul were temporal, rather than Eternal. Paul's sufferings did not contribute to Atonement, nor do we see a concept of Christ and Paul dying for the sins of the world.

    "Behold The Lamb of God...which taketh away the sins of the world."


    Back up a bit to see the reference to Christ's death:


    Colossians 1:14

    King James Version (KJV)

    14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:



    The consistent teaching of Scripture is that Christ died that we might receive remission of sins, which when we do, the Penalty for sin is relieved.

    When He died He states "It is finished (complete)."

    The question we ask ourselves, Utilyan, is do we really agree with Christ on this point. If there is anything that has to be accomplished post-Cross, then it was not finished.

    There is no reason to question the Word of God on this point.


    God bless.
     
  20. Darrell C

    Darrell C
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    6,249
    Likes Received:
    118
    Again we have a temporal context in view. The cup which John and James would drink of are not equated to the Cup prepared of the Father for Christ. They would suffer persecution as Christ did, but, Christ's point is directed at the relationship among disciples rather than the relationship between God and man. That is clarified in this text.


    Continued...
     

Share This Page

Loading...