Sabbath: Jesus, The Mediator of the New Covenant
Image © Pacific Press
Sabbath Afternoon
Read for This Week’s Study: Hebrews 7:11–19; Hebrews 8:10–12; Jeremiah 31:31–34; Hebrews 8:1–6; Exodus 24:1–8; Ezekiel 36:26-27.
Memory Text: “But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises” (Hebrews 8:6, ESV).
By living a perfect life, and then by dying in our place, Jesus mediated a new, better covenant between us and God. Through His death, Jesus canceled the penalty of death that our trespasses demanded and made possible the new covenant.
This truth is explained in Hebrews 10:5-10, which identifies Jesus as having manifested the perfect obedience required by the covenant. It references Psalm 40, referring to Messiah’s desire to render to God total obedience: “Behold, I have come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me: I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart” (Psalm 40:7-8, ESV). “In the original context this phrase [‘to do your will’] described moral obedience to the will of God. The author of Hebrews uses the phrase to show that the sacrifice of Christ fulfilled the will of God in providing an acceptable atonement, which the animal sacrifices had not provided.” — The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 460.
For Paul, this psalm acquired special significance with the incarnation of Jesus. Jesus embodied the obedience of the new covenant. He is our example. We have been saved, not only because of His death but also because of His perfect obedience.
Study this week’s lesson to prepare for Sabbath, February 19.
(15)
My grandson is in the process of being taught the intricacies of binomial expansion and all that it entails. He had sat through his classes and written down all the notes, but when he arrived at our place in the evening, he was tired and it made no sense to him. I said to him, "Ok, here are a couple of pictures to help you understand what is going on." I drew some diagrams, showed a couple of relationships between the various terms and asked him to explain what I had told him. Voila! He understood what was going on.
I make no claim that I was a better teacher than his current teacher. But, what was needed was a different picture to aid his understanding. Binomial expansion is not rocket science. It is essentially just a pattern of numbers that make sense (and are quite useful too if you are one of those people who slept through your senior maths classes, or fired spitballs at the ceiling while the teacher was explaining it to you).
God's relationship with us is not deep theology. It is a pattern of love. What is confusing are the countless convoluted explanations of the symbolism. The big picture Gospel is that God loves us and wants to restore the relationship. And that is more important than explaining it.
Maurice – I very much appreciate you saying that: “The big picture Gospel is that 'God loves us and wants to restore the relationship'.” Yes, to know how to wholeheartedly believe - this is ‘more important than to explain it’.
All the ‘commandments’ - acts of kindness - are now embodied in ‘Love God with all your heart and being, and your fellow man as He has loved you’. This has been recorded to be the teaching of Christ Jesus in Mark, Matthew and Luke, and many references to His Love and Faith are found in the Old Testament.
Could it be that we still do not understand how to rightly ‘love and have faith’ in the Father through His Son? You mention confusion because of “countless convoluted explanations of the symbolism”; does this show that we still are not able to commit to heaven’s simple, child-like, Love- and Faith-relationship the Son demonstrated for us that He had with the Father during His life as a man?
It appears to me that our lesson studies get hung-up with describing the shell, the outer cover of that which is inside - Love and Faith. What does it take to move passed that shell? Could it be that SDA have committed themselves to see everything through the lens of the Old Testament Covenant? Chris Jesus has demonstrated that Love and Faith is the Spirit of the Law – the Ultimate, final form of the Father's Covenant with mankind!
Would it be acceptable for SDA to shed this all-interpretive shell and embrace the simple love and faith a child has for its father?
I am in a privileged position to interact with a lot of people. And one thing I notice is that a lot of people have a 'picture' of God that is a barrier to their relationship with God - whether they have a relationship with God or not.
Today's lesson touches on two points that reflect a particular picture of God - one that I would propose is different to what Paul (in the book of Hebrews as well as his wider writings) is actually attempting to convey. The lesson refers to (a) a "death penalty that our trespasses demanded" and (b) a form of obedience that is "perfect obedience required by the covenant". Whether they are aware of it of not, everyone will have at least a subconscious sense of these elements and it will have shaped their picture of God. Therefore, it is worth taking some time to briefly consider the reality of these two points. In order to keep my initial comment brief, I am going to need to state things as assertions that you can challenge me on and we can look at the evidence in subsequent posts. Don't believe a word I say, consider and check it out for yourself.
The death penalty our trespasses (transgressions) demanded
The tresspass/transgression that is associated with death is transgression of (ie, going against) the 'laws' of life. However, these are not the kind of laws that humans make up - standards that must be adhered to and, if not, penalties must be applied. Rather, the 'laws' of life are the cause-and-effect principles that make up the very 'fabric' of reality. This means that every time you choose option A, outcome A results. Every time you choose option B, outcome B results. This is what provides the necessary order (as opposed to chaos) that is vital for life to work. Whether they are what we refer to as natural laws (laws of physics, health, etc) or moral laws makes no difference - all true laws are inherent cause-and-effect principles that always hold true.
Because these cause-and-effect principles are inherent, the effect is the direct result of the cause. These inherent cause-and-effect principles are the 'mechanisms' God has created and through which His life-giving energy (His "breath of life") is 'put to work' to facilitate life and living.
Perfect obedience required by the covenant
God has always had a relationship with His creation. Consequently, there has always been, and always will be, a 'covenant'** - a vitally necessary relationship between The Creator-Sustainer and the created. God, the I AM, will always beneficently provide what is needed for life and living. And the created being will always need to be in-harmony with the reality that life and living is based upon. To be truly alive and living is inherently dependent upon both of these things (Hebrews 1:2-3). From a functional perspective, 'obedience' simply means to be in-harmony with something. Consequently, obedience is simply the 'functional necessity' of being in-harmony with that which is absolutely vital for life and living. On the other hand, being out-of-harmony with that which is absolutely vital for live and living will inherently preclude (ie, prevent from happening, make impossible) life and living - "you will surely die" (Genesis 2:17).
In light of the above, I find that Paul in Hebrews views tresspass/transgression as being out-of-harmony with the necessary conditions required for true life. It is this being out-of-harmony that inherently causes/produces the negative consequence - or 'penalty - of death (as per Romans 6:23; Galatians 6:8; James 1:15). Thus, trespass/transgression does not demand a death penalty - it directly produces death. And, the obedience that is inherently 'required' by covenant-relationship is simply the being in-harmony with that which is necessary in order for life to actually be viable. Awareness of these realities paints a very different picture of God.
-------------
* Because we live in a sin-infected world at present, it can appear that you can be out of harmony with the cause-and-effect principles of life and out of connection with God and still 'live'. However, existing and truly living are two completely different things.
** Covenant from God's perspective is not the same as the covenants we have as humans (Isaiah 55:8-9). God's covenant is a personal commitment as the beneficent Creator to providing every good and perfect thing (James 1:17) to His created beings in the course of His personal relationship with each and every created being. God's covenant is not a legal arrangement.
What you have described, Phil, seems to be what Ellen White more succinctly expressed thus:
God designed the universe in such a way that only by giving and loving can we truly live.
However, as Jesus noted, Satan is the prince/ruler of this world since our first parents yielded their rulership to Him. Thus, in this world, the innocent often suffer and the guilty prosper. To all appearances, on this planet, the selfish and the liars prosper, while unselfish and the honest may be incarcerated and even killed. And we only need to take note of the news occasionally to see that this is so. (You seem to note this in your footnote.)
You also say that the covenant is not a legal arrangement - which seems to be contrary to generally accepted use of the English language because, as soon as we deal with aspects of law, we deal with legal issues.
Furthermore, when God made a covenant with Abraham, He deigned to engage in a complicated procedure that was accepted as the sealing of a legal contract at the time. When God made a covenant with Israel, He did something similar.
Yahweh Himself referred to the Law given to Israel as "my covenant."
Thus, in saying that God's covenant is not a legal arrangement, you are moving outside of Scripture as well outside the common meaning of words. That doesn't seem particularly helpful to me. Or am I missing something?
I would suggest that law and relationship are not inherently at odds, even though currently popular elements in our society claim it is. (For instance, marriage is a legal arrangement and it is also a relationship.) Certainly Bible writers don't see it that way. David exclaims, "Oh, how I love thy Law! It is my meditation day and night!" And the Apostle James calls God's Law "the law of liberty," as, indeed, it is, since living within this law keeps us from the slavery of sin.
Thanks Inge for your comments and inquiry.
Yes, what I have briefly unpacked is in line with what Ellen White refers to as "the law of self-renouncing love which is the law of life for earth and heaven". However, Ellen's succinct statement is likewise unpacked by her over several paragraphs to pages. It is true that "God designed the universe in such a way that only by giving and loving can we truly live". So, on the one hand we have these succinct, yet comprehensive, statement and concept by Ellen White. Yet, at the same time, the lesson's proposition (mirrored by widely held views within Adventism) that our trespasses demand that a death penalty be applied, or that 'the covenant' requires perfect obedience as a required standard reflects a disconnect of understanding with what Ellen is attempting to convey. Thus, it would appear that the truth of the succinct statement is not yet sufficiently understood to enable a succinct statement alone to suffice and, therefore, some additional unpacking is yet in order to try and help 'join the dots' to the issues that are the focus of this week's lesson.
The matter of management of a broken world using laws and applied penalties is a related, though also distinctly different, issue. Laws that involve applied penalties are only needed under a fallen, sin-infected reality that exists for a time because God has temporarily restrained (eg, 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8; Revelation 7:1) the wider reality that would otherwise inherently occur and preclude the breakdown we see in our world (ie, Genesis 2:17). However, it is not the case that these laws and applied penalties, though temporarily necessary under a broken world, equate to God's higher reality and ways.
You correctly state that what I have outlined in regard to covenant "seems to be contrary to generally accepted use of the English language because, as soon as we deal with aspects of law, we deal with legal issues." I fully agree - and that is the point. God's ways are very different to our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9). Yet we unwittingly typically see God's ways as essentially similar to ours and, in doing so, misperceive God's ways.
And yes, scripture refers to concepts that are part of our lives under a fallen reality. But these references are used as metaphors - merely starting with what we are familiar with, in order to then move on to seeing what is beyond our familiarity. We use the term 'covenant', but in God's wider reality it is conceptually relationship. Ty Gibson speaks of covenant (rather than the covenant) this way too. So, in what I am conveying, I am not moving outside of what Scripture is trying to help us grow our understanding towards, though I am as you note, moving outside the common meaning of fallen-humanity's notion of covenant. It is no coincidence that (the) new covenant is metaphorically God writing the principles that reflect self-renouncing love on our hearts. This is not a legal concept - it is far more intimately relational in nature.
You are correct - true 'law' (inherent cause-and-effect principles, not made up standards) and relationship are not at odds - they are inherently linked. What currently popular elements in society are referring to under the notion of 'law' is something entirely different.
When you state that David exclaims "Oh how I love thy Law! It is my meditation day and night", was he referring to meditating on the kind of laws that reflect 'rules and standards', or to meditating on unpacking the intricate, inherent cause-and-effect principles that constitute reality? And, likewise, when James calls God's Law "the law of liberty", is he referring to law as 'standards and rules' or to the inherent cause-and-effect principles, which when one is in harmony with, promotes truly abundant life and living?
While I agree in principle with what you write above (with exceptions noted in my previous comment), I do wonder why you appear to object to "Perfect obedience required by the covenant."
Is that not what was required in Eden for continued life? Did the lack of obedience not result in death? We can state things in different words, but the facts remain the same, and I question the wisdom of denying the validity of much-repeated biblical statements of required obedience. While you may call the statements "metaphor," (in a sense all of God's communications with us are metaphor because of our inability to comprehend His perspective of omniscience and infinite love) yet God chose to communicate with us in language best suited to our understanding.
Jesus taught the requirement of "perfect obedience" in the parable of the wedding feast. James, when referring to the Ten Commandments as "the law of liberty," wrote that when anyone offends in one point, he is guilty of all. The New Covenant requires perfect obedience as much as the covenant in Eden.
Because we cannot render such perfect obedience, we need Christ to cover the sins we have committed, which He does to "justify" us, and we need Him just as much to transform our character into His image, which He does as He "sanctifies" us.
I think the English language hasn't changed so much from the early 20th Century that we can't understand it, and I read in one of my favorite books, *Christ's Object Lessons,* page 391:
I believe that if we lessen the necessity of perfect obedience as a condition for life, we also lessen the value of the sacrifice of Christ.
Thanks Inge
"I believe that if we lessen the necessity of perfect obedience as a condition for life, we also lessen the value of the sacrifice of Christ."
I am in no way lessening the significance of the need to be in harmony with what is essential for life. As I stated, "the created being will always need to be in-harmony with the reality that life and living is based upon." What I am questioning is the typical understanding of obedience as authoritarian-based requirement. What I am proposing is that obedience is instead reality-based necessity. It is like the difference between (a) I eat healthy food because I was commanded/'required' to versus (b) I willingly choose to eat healthy food because I understand how doing so will enhance my cellular metabolism and therefore quality of life.
As for the concept of "perfect obedience", I am not entirely sure what you are referring to. However, Paul's statement in Philippians 3:12-14 comes to mind as a description of a mature Christian's walk as does the 1 Samuel 16:7 principle of God looking on the core heart state.
Similarly, I in no way lessen the sacrifice of Christ. I rather question the nature of that sacrifice.
With regard to language, God uses the best that is available at a point in time. But human language is inherently limited in and of itself. On top of that it is further impacted by factors such as our inherent default tendency to apply a human frame of reference to words and concepts. Then there are times when humans don't put much effort into developing their capacity to grow in their understanding of God as per Hebrews 5:11-14. Consequently, God has worked, and continues to progressively work, to refine and update our understanding as per the principle reflected in Hebrews 1:1-2. This need to continue to grow in our understanding of God and His ways is consistent with what Ellen White has proposed in, for example, Christ's Object Lessons 133.1 and 133.4 - 134.1.
What was the sin of Adam and what was the inherent (natural) effect? Was the sin the simple act of eating of the fruit or was it the eating of ‘forbidden’ fruit. The tree was pleasant to the eyes, and good for food, like all the other trees (Gen 2:9), and there was wisdom/knowledge associated with it. Could death be inherently or naturally associated with it?
Death was God’s righteous judgment/condemnation of the rebellious act of Adam. In Rom 1:32 God says, “and although they know the ordinance/judgment of God, that those who practice such things (i.e. all the sins, evils He had given them up to perform ) are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.” “And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.”(Rom 2:2). Such acts are said to be storing up wrath in the “day of wrath” and revelation of the righteous judgment of God (Rom 2:3-12).
“But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world?” (Rom 3:5,6). We see that God inflicts the wrath.
The people of God are rescued from this wrath “to come” through the Lord Jesus (1 Thess 1:9: 5:9; Rom 5:9). What is the wrath? It is that judgment/condemnation which Christ, Himself, bore for his people on the cross (Rom 6:2-11; 8:2,3; 3:21-26; 1 Pt 2:24; Heb 2:14). His soul was so troubled in anticipation of the dreaded hour. He pleaded for relief from the cup. The judgment was/is eternal death, eternal damnation - “These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power…(2 Th 1:9). Christ cried out: “Why have You forsaken Me”. This is the second death, lake of fire, reserved for the devil and his angels, and the sons of disobedience. It’s where the I AM IS NOT. Does Satan or sin have power or authority to execute this judgment/sentence?
The wise man said: “Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons of men among them are given fully to do evil.”(Eccl 8:11). Scripture indicates that it was a death sentence imposed on Adam and Eve. The death was penal. Only a holy sinless divine human being could endure that judgment.
(We may compare all “shall die” or “shall be put to death” like 1 Kings 2:36-46; Gen 20:6,7,18.)
Hi Kenny
Thanks for contributing to the conversation...
As you note, the topic of God's wrath is reflected by Paul in Romans 1:32. However, Romans 1:32 is the culmination of thought systematically unpacked earlier in the chapter. In Romans 1:18 Paul introduces the "wrath of God" and then explicitly goes on to unpack how that wrath is is manifest in Romans 1:24,26 and 28. Three times* Paul details that God's wrath is manifested in "giving people up/over". Thus, according to Paul, God's "wrath" is allowing people their freedom to choose and releasing such people to the consequences of their destructive choice/s when that is their genuine heart's desire.
The English translations of Romans 1:32 unfortunately appear to reflect a post-second century translation bias that has God determining death as a sentence to be imposed. However the original Greek does not preclude a valid, alternative translation - that God has rightly/truthfully informed humanity that doing certain things will inherently produce death, just as He did right at the outset in Genesis 2:16-17 and has been doing ever since (eg, via Moses in Deuteronomy 30:15-20). Such an interpretation then accords with Romans 1:24,26,28 and the inherent consequences that were associated with this as per those same and/or surrounding verses. It also accords with Galatians 6:7-8, James 1:15 and a careful unpacking of Romans 6:23 where death is sin's wage - that is, sin's inherent and 'natural' payout which is paid-out by sin via sin's lawless (1 John 3:4) nature that destroys the order necessary for life to exist.
Your thoughts?
-------------
* Stating something three times was a particular literary technique used by Bible writers to emphasise - via repetition intended to 'drive home' - a particular/main point.
Hebrews 10:5-10 explained. This what is meant by this prophecy, put in the mouth of Christ You don’t want sacrifices and offerings year after year;
you’ve prepared a body for me for a sacrifice. It’s not fragrance and smoke from the altar that whet your appetite. So, I said, “I’m here to do it your way, O God, the way it’s described in your Book.” When he said, “You don’t want sacrifices and offerings,” he was referring to practices according to the old plan. When he added, “I’m here to do it your way,” he set aside the first in order to enact the new plan—God’s way—by which we are made fit for God by the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus.