Yep!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Featured Where did the Wrath of God go? Part 3
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
And you cannot understand how Christ Himself is the guarantee of the New Covenant?
Think about it. Christ suffered and died under the curse by the will and predetermined plan of God. He was forsaken to suffer and die. But He was vindicated.
We suffer under the curse. We will also die under the curse. But we are freed from it's bondage. Although we die, death has no sting.
Why? Because Christ Himself is the guarantee of the New Covenant. We may be forsaken to suffer in this life, and we will die. But like Christ God will never abandon us. Our hope is in the Resurrection and we know we will be justified because of this Guarantee. He is our deliverance.
And? For example, what does it mean to you that ἔγγυος. is a hapax legommenon?
That the Greek word is used once in the NT has no meaning, except that you might read into it.
The context is provided.
Hebrews 7:20–22 And inasmuch as it was not without an oath (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
“The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind,
‘You are a priest forever’ ”); so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.
What can we expect of God? Look to the Cross. We are in Him. We can expect of the Father what Christ experienced on the Cross. We will live and die under the curse, but we live and die in Him. We will be resurrected in Him. We have life in Him. His flesh for our flesh, His life for our life. He is a he faithfulness and righteousness of God. You are failing to grasp the Cross.
And you studied at Bible College? Fascinating!
The fact that ἔγγυος appears only once in the NT is important because we have no other usage of the word to compare with the one in Hebrews 7.
Therefore it is necessary to look at the usage outside of the NT. There is a lovely illustration of what it means to be a surety in Genesis 43:8-9. 'Then Judah said to Israel his father, "Send the lad [Benjamin] with me, and we will arise and go, that we may live and not die, both we and you and also our little ones. I myself will be surety for him; from my hand you will require him. If I do not bring him back to you and set him before you, then let me bear the blame forever."' And Judah was faithful to his agreement. When Joseph's cup was found in Benjamin's sack, Judah was ready to offer his life for his brother's, his flesh for Benjamin's. "For your servant became surety for the lad to my father, saying, 'If I do not bring him back to you, then I shall bear the blame before my father forever.' Now therefore, please let your servant remain instead of the lad as a slave to my Lord, and let the lad go up with his brothers" Genesis 44:32-33). As a surety, Judah had to do whatever was necessary to restore Benjamin to his father, even to his own ruin. So we find it in various places in Proverbs, for example: 'He who is surety for a stranger will suffer' (Proverbs 11:15).
ἔγγυος also appears in the Apocrypha. In writing this, I am not at all ascribing infallibility to the Apocrypha, merely pointing out how the word ἔγγυος was used around 200 BC.
Sirach 29:14-18, NRSV. 'A good person will be surety for his neighbour, but the one who has lost all sense of shame will fail him. Do not forget the kindness of you guarantor, for he has given his life for you. A sinner wastes the property of his guarantor, and the ungrateful person abandons his rescuer.
Being surety has ruined many who were prosperous, and has tossed them about like waves of the sea; it has driven the influential into exile, and they have wandered among foreign nations.'
So we see again that being a surety or guarantor is a risky business. "A surety is one who who agrees to undertake for another who is lacking in ability to discharge his own obligations. Whatever undertaking the surety makes, whether in words or promise, or in the depositing of real security in the hands od the arbitrator, or by any other personal engagement of life or body, it implies the defect of the person for whom anyone becomes surety. The surety is a sponsor for another, standing in the room of, and acting for, one who may prove to be incompetent to act for himself: he represents that person and pledges to make good his engagements.
Thus, Christ was not a Surety for God, for He needed none; but for His own poor, failing and deficient people, who were unable to meet their obligations, incapable of discharging their liabilities. In view of this, Christ has agreed to undertake for them, fully pay all their debts, and has completely satisfied every demand which God had against them' (A.W. Pink).
Christ, as our Great High Priest, has settled every claim against His people, paying for every sin in full by the one, perfect offering of Himself.
Finally, just to mention that the ESV translates ἔγγυος as 'guarantor' rather than 'guarantee.' I believe that in the light of the quotations above, 'guarantor' is probably the more helpful translation.
Per the Roman legal system, yes! As he was advocating Jesus as lord over even Caesar!
Yes. Well, several years as an undergraduate at a secular university, then transfered to a Christian university and changed my major (adding more years). Once I finished my undergraduate degree (Christian university studying religion) I focused on theology and finished my graduate degree. Did a little post-graduate work, but did not continue.
When we encounter a word used once we do not get to guess at the meaning based. The context, in the case of ἔγγυος (the sentences immediately prior to it's use in Hebrews) provides us with the meaning.
You approach Scripture as if it were a code to be solved rather than simply reading what God has written. I find this a bit odd, but not uncommon today.
It is like me saying "I flew to Germany in a plane. The flight lasted ten hours" and you arguing that the word "plane" means "a flat surface" because the word has been used in that way.
Well I reckon you wasted your time. Hermeneutics 101 teaches that Scripture interprets Scripture.
Baptist 1689 Confession 1:9. 'The infallible rule for the interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, and therefore whenever there is a question about the true and full sense of Scripture (which is not manifold but one), it must be searched out by other passages which speak more clearly.'
"Scripture interpreting Scripture" does not mean searching out individual words from the Greek to see how it is used in a Hebrew form.
This is an issue I have with all of the Greek language tools available today. They are intended to increase biblical literacy but have often proven (as with you here) to have had the opposite effect.
The passage literally interprets that verse. How you miss it is evidence of a man being carried away by vain philosophy.
Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek,who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. For it is attested of Him,“You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.And inasmuch as it was not without an oath (for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,“ The Lord has sworn And will not change His mind,‘You are a priest forever’ ”); so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.
Where did the divine wrath of God towards and due to us as sinners go then?
We are now on part 3, and you have yet to answer that simple question!
We are discussing an individual word, so it is of the greatest importance to know what that individual word means. Certainly the context is very important, but if you decide, as you have done, on a less than accurate understanding of the word in question without even bothering to study it, you are simply using the context as a sort of wax nose and pressing it into the shape you want.Hebrews 7:20-22. 'And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him:
"The LORD has sworn and will not relent, 'You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek'"), by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.'
As John Owen says, there may be a two-fold design in these words.
1. That His being made a priest by a divine oath made Him suitable to be the surety of a better covenant, or
2. That the covenant of which He is Surety must be better than the other because He who was its Surety was made a priest by an oath.
The one way proves the dignity of Christ from the new covenant; the other shows the greater dignity of the covenant from the priesthood of Christ. In fact, both are true: the priesthood gives dignity to the covenant, and the covenant sets forth the greater dignity of our Lord's priesthood.
The term 'a better covenant' reveals that there was another, older covenant, which may have been good in certain ways, but not as good as this better one. This 'first' or old covenant is contrasted with the new in Hebrews 8 with a meaty quotation from Jeremiah 31. Aaron was the typical surety of this covenant, for he offered sacrifices on behalf of the people, making atonement for them according to the terms of the covenant.
But the Aaronic priesthood offered sacrifices that could never truly take away sins (Hebrews 10:11) and the priests could not make continuous intercession for the people as they were taken away by death. Christ's priesthood brings about a better covenant in both respects:
1. He has offered the one perfect, acceptable sacrifice of Himself for sins to God (Hebrews 9:24-28). As Surety or Guarantor of the new covenant, He has done everything necessary to reconcile His people to God. He has lived the life of perfect, spotless obedience to God that they could not live; and He has paid in full the penalty for sins that we deserved to pay (Isaiah 53:4-6).
2. Having been vindicated by God in His resurrection, He now sits at the right hand of the Father, ever interceding for His people. And how does He do that? Does He say, "Oh, he's not such a bad chap! He loves his mother and he gives a few bob to charity'? Not at all. He has only to show the nail-scars on Hid hands and feet, and say, "You gave Me that one to redeem and I paid the price for Him in full' (eg. John 6:39; Revelation 5:9-10).
This is what I mean by the availability of language tools has had the unintended consequence of strengthening biblical illiteracy.
Hebrews 7:20-22. 'And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him:
"The LORD has sworn and will not relent, 'You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek'"), by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.'
As John Owen says, there may be a two-fold design in these words.
1. That His being made a priest by a divine oath made Him suitable to be the surety of a better covenant, or
2. That the covenant of which He is Surety must be better than the other because He who was its Surety was made a priest by an oath.
The one way proves the dignity of Christ from the new covenant; the other shows the greater dignity of the covenant from the priesthood of Christ. In fact, both are true: the priesthood gives dignity to the covenant, and the covenant sets forth the greater dignity of our Lord's priesthood.
The term 'a better covenant' reveals that there was another, older covenant, which may have been good in certain ways, but not as good as this better one. This 'first' or old covenant is contrasted with the new in Hebrews 8 with a meaty quotation from Jeremiah 31. Aaron was the typical surety of this covenant, for he offered sacrifices on behalf of the people, making atonement for them according to the terms of the covenant.
But the Aaronic priesthood offered sacrifices that could never truly take away sins (Hebrews 10:11) and the priests could not make continuous intercession for the people as they were taken away by death. Christ's priesthood brings about a better covenant in both respects:
1. He has offered the one perfect, acceptable sacrifice of Himself for sins to God (Hebrews 9:24-28). As Surety or Guarantor of the new covenant, He has done everything necessary to reconcile His people to God. He has lived the life of perfect, spotless obedience to God that they could not live; and He has paid in full the penalty for sins that we deserved to pay (Isaiah 53:4-6).
2. Having been vindicated by God in His resurrection, He now sits at the right hand of the Father, ever interceding for His people. And how does He do that? Does He say, "Oh, he's not such a bad chap! He loves his mother and he gives a few bob to charity'? Not at all. He has only to show the nail-scars on Hid hands and feet, and say, "You gave Me that one to redeem and I paid the price for Him in full' (eg. John 6:39; Revelation 5:9-10).
The passage itself defines the word in how it is used. You ignore what the passage says because you reject what the passage means. The word itself means "guarantee". This can carry different ideas based on the context (what is guaranteed, how is it guaranteed, etc.). You ignore all of this to impose your theory on the passage.
Let Scripture interpret Scripture. The author of Hebrew goes to great lengths explaining the passage. Why can't you just accept God's Word for what it says?
The question is nonsense.
When you are sad but then get news that makes you happy, where do you put your sadness so you can get it later?
Where does unused blessings go? Where does unexpressed wrath go?
The question is philosophical, but it is illogical. Wrath does not go anywhere.
God's wrath is on the wicked. It will be expressed towards the wicked at Judgment.
God wrath was upon all who were saved, and his wrath Had to be propitiated and atoned for, so who provided that to happen?
The passage does not define the word. You have made your own definition of it that fits in with your philosophy and imposed it on the text. I have given you an exposition of the two verses involved, and as usual, you have made no effort to engage with it.
The New Covenant is in Christ's blood (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:23-25; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25; Hebrews 13:20-21). As Surety of the New Covenant, He has paid for our sins with His own blood (Acts of the Apostles 20:28; Hebrews 9:14, 24-28).
Yes, the passage defined the word. You rely on language tools when you should grasp the role context plays in interpretation. This is why God's Word appears to you as foolishness unless grounded to your theories. You start with philosophy and then go to Scripture to find support. This is poor hermeneutics.
No. You defined the word to suit your philosophy and then misunderstood the whole passage as a result. Until you understand what ἔγγυος means you won't understand what a surety is and your exegesis of the passage will crash land.
No. Read the passage.
I am not sure why you approach Scripture as some sort of a code of unrelated words when it suits you.
As far as the word ἔγγυος (guarantee), what do you think it means that Christ is a guarantee of a better covenant if the passages surrounding the word in Hebrews is somehow unrelated?
No, rather he is taking it in the plain and literal sense, using the NT to flesh out what was already given to us in the Old Covenant concerning the suffering messiah and Servant of the Lord!
His view is to reject away the wrath of God, hence no need for the Psa view now!