Discussion All Areas Of Systematic Theology
1. The three parts combination in Paul is death, sin, and Law (I Cor. 15; Rom. 5, etc.), correct? Without Law, sin has no power, and with no power death has no sting. Where, then, did death and sin enter? Through Adam - without Law? No, he was a lawbreaker. Sin entered in through Law, and death resulted. The Law was added (to what?). If you add something, then something was previously there to which to add, correct?
Whenever I see some passages with “world” (kosmos), it seems to me that it is about the covenant world within heaven and earth, depending on the context. They can be within the Adamic world or the the Mosaic world. It is about to WHOM God revealed to them with his commandments and the covenants. That’s why I wrote in the beginning of this thread about the chosen race.
2. Let’s look into the beginning of the “world”.
Rom. 5:12 because of this, even as through one man (Adam) the sin did enter into the world (kosmos), and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin; 13 for till law sin was in the world (kosmos): and sin is not reckoned when there is not law; 14 but the death did reign from Adam till Moses, even upon THOSE not having sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of him who is coming.
I’m curious, who were “those” people?
We know that sin entered only in covenant world, but not for those who were/are the outsiders?
3. Let’s look at the time of Noah.
Heb. 11:7 By faith Noah, having been divinely warned concerning the things not yet seen, having feared, did prepare an ark to the salvation of his house, through which he did condemn the world (kosmos), and of the righteousness according to faith he became heir.
2 Peter 2:5 and the old world (kosmos) did not spare, but the eighth person, Noah, of righteousness a preacher, did keep, a flood on the world (kosmos) of the impious having brought.
2 Peter 3:6 through which the then world (kosmos), by water having been deluged, was destroyed; 7 and the present heavens and the earth, by the same word are treasured, for fire being kept to a day of judgment and destruction of the impious men.
This covenant world was destroyed by the flood but notice it says “the present heavens and the earth” would be destroyed by fire. What was it? From Gen 1 or the Mosaic covenant as some believe? Also what does the writer of Hebrews mean when he wrote about Noah "became heir"?
4. Let’s look into Jesus’ time.
Matt. 24:21 for there shall be then great tribulation, such as was not from the beginning of the world (kosmos) till now, no, nor may be.
When was from the beginning of the world?
5. Matt. 25:34 `Then shall the king say to those on his right hand, Come ye, the blessed of my Father, inherit the reign that hath been prepared for you from the foundation of the world
When did the foundation of the world occurred?
6. Luke 11:50 that the blood of all the prophets, that is being poured forth from the foundation of the world (kosmos), may be required from this generation; 51 from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, who perished between the altar and the house; yes, I say to you, It shall be required from this generation.
Here’s another one. Notice this says from the blood of Abel since the foundation of the world, right?
7. John 1:29 on the morrow John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, `Lo, the Lamb of God, who is taking away the sin of the world (kosmos).
Does this mean Jesus took away the sin of the covenant world from Adam?
8. Acts 17:24 `God, who did make the world (kosmos), and all things in it, this One, of heaven and of earth being Lord, in temples made with hands doth not dwell, 25 neither by the hands of men is He served -- needing anything, He giving to all life, and breath, and all things;
We know this is talking about Genesis creation but in next few verses are talking God has His purpose to choose His people above all other nations (Deut. 32:7-9).
9. 1 John 4:14 And we -- we have seen and do testify, that the Father hath sent the Son -- Saviour of the world (kosmos).
To whom Jesus saved them? Was it from the time of Adam, Abraham, or Moses?
I am not saying I agree with Taffy. I have no problem with our view from Abraham to Jesus but I am not sure about your view from the period before Abraham. I do not think God dealt with the descendants of Cain, Japheth, Ham, Esau, etc. but these people were among the covenant people. When will you answer these questions?
I decided to go back and re-read Hebrews 1:10-11 from Concordant Version. Seems to me what I’m seeing:
And, Thou (Jesus), originally, Lord (Jesus?), dost found the earth (new heaven and earth?),
And the heavens (new heavens and earth?) are the works of Thy (Jesus?) hands.
They (Mosaic covenant) shall perish, yet Thou (Jesus?) art continuing,
And all, as a cloak, shall be aged,
And, as if clothing, wilt Thou (Jesus?) be rolling them up.
As a cloak also shall they (heavens and earth/Mosaic covenant) change.
Yet Thou (Jesus) art the same,
And Thy (Jesus) years shall not be defaulting.
What do you think?
I think you're making it too complicated in Hebrews 1:10-11. I don't think the author of Hebrews is trying to comment on the "Mosaic covenant" here at all.
In the context, the writer is simply trying to show that Jesus was superior to the angels because he was the biological son of God (Hebrews 1:5). Since God the Father was the creator of the "heavens and earth" (i.e. the Promised Land and the covenant), He could delegate superior authority to His own son (by right of inheritance) over the lesser "servants" (i.e. angels) in His Kingdom (Hebrews 1:6-7) who had been mediating His covenant up until Jesus appeared (Hebrews 2:5-8).
Because Jesus was the only biological "son of God" (Hebrews 1:5; John 1:18), he could lay claim to having been the creator of the world while in the loins of His Father in the same manner of speaking that the writer of Hebrews said that Abraham's son, Levi, "paid tithes" long before he was born because Abraham was his father when Abraham met with Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:9).
Thus, from the perspective of the ancient Israelites, Jesus was the creator long before his birth by virtue of later coming into existence as the "son" of God when he was born of Mary by the power of holy spirit (Luke 1:35; John 1:18). None of this language requires us to think that Jesus existing before his human birth or that he was the actual creator in Genesis 1-2.
I don't think we need to try to break down every word of Hebrews 1:10-11 because the purpose of the writer (in that context) was simply to quote a few scriptures to prove that Jesus was superior to the angels and qualified to administer a new covenant on God's behalf (even though all men born before him were considered "lower than the angels").
So, you still believe "first heavens and earth" referring to old covenant = Mosaic covenant, nothing do with Gen. 1-2?
What does "no more sea" mean to you? Was it something to do with the temple with "brazen sea"?
I understand what you're saying but to be honest with you, I am not satisfied in Heb. 1:10-11. Maybe you could "translate" it for me? I need to know what are: 1. "of old"; 2. "heavens and earth"; 3. "they shall perish"?
From John Marra's post in Facebook group (Preterist and Fulfilled Theology):
"Don, I haven't done enough exegetical work in this area to have a definitive answer. I'm still trying to learn and figure it out myself. It does seems obvious to me that the "first heaven and earth" that passed away pertained to the Mosaic ...Covenant (Ish. 51:16; Mt. 5:17-19 cf. Rev. 21:1). However, I also think it is related to the "heaven and earth" of Genesis 1 & 2 which I think is the geographical region of the promised land since the connection seems to be made in the biblical language between that geographical area (specifically Jerusalem) and the covenant (Gal. 4:21-26 cf. Rev. 21:2-4). That said, how that relates to the "heavens and earth" that Christ is credited with laying the foundation of and that will also perish (Heb. 1:10-12), I'm still very unclear on. As I said, I'm still learning and trying to figure this all out within the perspective of the a truly consistent Full Preterist hermeneutic and all the theological implications which flow
Response to John Marra's post from Facebook Group:
If we consider the context of Hebrews 1-10, it is evident that the writer is not trying to prove that Jesus present during the time of the Genesis 1-2 creation. The writer of Hebrews is simply trying to prove that Jesus is superior to "angels" because he is God's own flesh and blood "son." Please consider the evidence:
1. God didn't speak through Jesus until "the last days" (Hebrews 1:1)
2. Jesus was not exalted until after he was born, died, and was raised (Hebrews 1:3-4)
3. Jesus wasn't God's "son" until he was "born" (Hebrews 1:5; Luke 1:35)
4. Jesus was called "the firstborn" when he was born (Hebrews 1:6)
5. Jesus was "annointed" by God at his baptism (Hebrews 1:9)
6. Jesus was given eternal life at his resurrection (Hebrews 1:12)
7. Jesus was exalted after his resurrection (Hebrews 1:13)
This sets the historical context of when the writer of Hebrews is associating Jesus with "the foundation of the earth in the beginning." Since Jesus didn't exist until he was "begotten in the last days", we should understand that Jesus participated in the creation only in the sense that it was God, his Father, who existed before Him and created the world.
We can't interpret Hebrews 1:10-12 as something that happened in Genesis 1-2 when the entire context of the passage is about "the last days" after Jesus was "begotten" and exalted. Thus, the writer is simply quoting from the Psalms to demonstrate that all things that belonged to God the Father were now the inheritance of His only "son." The angels were merely "servants" in God's house (Hebrews 1:14) and could never be hiers.
This is the same figure of speech that the writer used to explain how "Levi" was paying tithes to Melchizedek long before he was born because he did it through his biological father, Abraham (Hebrews 7:10). Thus, the ancient Israelites understood that a "son" could lay claim to the accomplishments of his "father" who came before him.
Thanks for your insights on this passage. They appear to make a lot of sense in light of the immediate context.