| Author | Message | ||
| Tealeaves Registered user Username: Tealeaves Post Number: 292 Registered: 5-2004 |
I just thought I'd share something I heard from our pastor this week. In the context of a marriage series, he was talking about contract vs covenant. His idea was that we live in a contract society, where each party in the contract has to hold up their part of the bargain, or the contract would be terminated. FOr instance, you buy a cell phone, sign a contract, agree to pay X amount of money at certain times in exchange for a phone that works when you need it. But if the phone only worked 25% of the time, then you'd be complaining to the company and trying to get out of the contract. If you pay your bill late, then they call and give you penalties etc. In contrast, God is a God of covenants. Starting with Abraham He made covenants with His people. Covenants were absolutely binding, ending only in death, not in disillusion over disappointments. Then the pastor shed some light on the history of covenants and the vision Abraham saw with the"smoking pot" that I hadn't fully understood before. (Genesis 15:17) Here is the background: (please forgive if I mess it up a tad, I am going from memory). In that time, for a covenant to be put in place, an animal was split in half from nose to tail, and the two identical pieces were laid opposite each other, one on each side, with a "blood path" in the middle. Each side of the animal represented the parties involved. For instance, 2 families, or 2 countries. A representative from each side walked the blood path from opposite ends, meeting in the middle and holding hands. Thus sealing the covenant forever, and signifying, by the blood, that death would be the result of the breaking of this covenant. This is where we get the format for the wedding ceremony. the two families sit on opposite sites of the aisle, and the aisle itself is the blood path. The bride and groom meet in the middle and seal the covenant with their vows. So as far as marriage is concerned, God meant it not to be a contract, where each person has to put in 50%. But a covneant in which each person devotes themselves 100%, a covenant, a blood vow, "as long as we both shall live" as opposed to "as long as we both shall love." We absolutely do live in a contract society, so it makes sense that people approach marriage that way. But God so obviously meant something different for us. Another point that I found fascinating was the further explanation of the symbolism of the Abrahamic Covenant. The Smoking pot represented God, and the pastor noted that Abraham did not meet God in the middle of the 2 pieces, as was customary. But the pot, representing God, walked the blood path alone. Symbolizing that He was taking the weight of the covenant on Himself. That if the covenant were broken, then God would take the death upon Himself, foreshadowing, of course, the death of Christ, which would usher in the final and perfect New Covenant to come. I just found that interesting. It also made me think that the SDAs definitely have a contract view of their relationship to God. They are trying to make the old Covenant work in a contract manner without incurring the penalty of death that comes along with it, by using Jesus as a "helper" in their task.... broken reasoning that makes for broken hearts! -tanya- | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 218 Registered: 3-2005 |
Tanya: You said: "They are trying to make the old Covenant work in a contract manner without incurring the penalty of death that comes along with it, by using Jesus as a "helper" in their task.... broken reasoning that makes for broken hearts!" I like your thoughts! Very insightful. You point out that in SDA Theology, Jesus is the 'helper' that makes us do our work the 'right' way. In reality, Jesus isn't the helper, He's IT, the DOER of the work. What a relief! I am so grateful. (Contrary to popular opinion, this reality makes me want to obey Him more!) Thanks for sharing. Patria | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3457 Registered: 12-2003  |
Great points, Tanya. The new covenant really is the fulfillment of God's covenant with Abraham. The Mosaic covenant was temporary and conditionalóit was made between God and the nation of Israel. Israel had no hope of keeping their end of the agreement. There HAD to be a new covenant for God's promise to Abraham to be fully realized. Just as the Abrahamic covenant was made without Abraham being part of the agreementóthe smoking pot and the flaming furnace passed betwen those animal pieces without human involvementóso the Father and Jesus the Son make and keep the new covenant. We are not part of the agreement. We are the undeserving but grateful recipients of it when we accept Jesus' work on our behalf! Colleen | ||
| Tealeaves Registered user Username: Tealeaves Post Number: 294 Registered: 5-2004 |
True Colleen, and it is always interesting to note that God made several covenants with people: Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. and perhaps some that weren't even recorded in the Bible. There aren't just 2 covenants. And just as we aren't under the covenants made with Noah or Abraham, we are also not under the Mosaic covenant. The covenant we are under truly is the last covenant needed, and the only covenant that can provide hope and life. -tanya- | ||
| Lars Registered user Username: Lars Post Number: 13 Registered: 7-2005 |
That is a good discussion concerning the Abramic Covenant. The SDA belief system of the concept of covenants is that there is one covenant, from Abram, with modifications along the way, to Moses, and ultimately to the New Covenant. It is indeed an interesting spin to attempt to substantiate the present necessity to "keep" the Mosaic covenant. There is significance in God making the unconditional Abramic covenant with Abram before he became Abraham, and that it was made with Abram while he was sleeping. God indeed unilaterally ratified the Abramic Covenant. As far as the Mosaic covenant is concerned, it is significant that the sacrificial system was established as part and parcel of that separate and conditional covenant. Larry |
