Ahhhh, the man from Bremo Bluff!!
How's ya doing, Clint?
Fine questions. Let's git started!!
First of all I would be interested to know if the exegesis in your post comes from a specific catechism(s) or whether they are your own reasoning.
Personal reasoning, but from Scripture. That is what we are supposed to do, right?
Not that I doubt your personal beliefs,
You have every right too do so.
but I would really like to see this thread stay on Catholic teachings that are in black and white.
What I have said is consistent with what is being taught by Dr. Scott Hahn at Steubenville. Had a chance to hear him this past Saturday at St. Joe's in Mechanicsburg. What a GREAT way to spend a Saturday. He really does a bang up job of "connecting the lines" between the Old and New Covenant
It was the covenant of God which led Brother Hahn into the Church and that very same covenant also helped me to see that Catholic teachings are consistent with both Biblical Covenantalism as well as with the Preterist view of Eschatology.
Here's a link to 1Corinthians 15:35-58. There is no mention of Eve in this passage. Paul is speaking of the "man made of dust" (v. 47) as opposed to the "Man from Heaven." The entire point of the whole passage is to expound on the idea of the nature of the resurrected body. There is no mention of headships, covenants, nor the Fall.
Not the point I was making. You need to ask yourself WHY did God, in holy and inspiried Scripture, use the term "Last Adam"? That term is absolutely fraught with meaning in light of the covenant. Yes, the context is the resurrection, and that also lends itself to understanding exactly what is happening here.
The first Adam DIED. He, and by extension, the whole human race with him, died on the day that he was expelled from the Garden. Therefore, the application of the name "Last Adam" should take you right back to the Garden to start making type/antetype considerations. If mankind was indeed lost by the action of the first Adam, then mankind was indeed resurrected in the action of the Last Adam. St. Paul is refuting the error of those (Gnostics if memory serves me correctly) denied the physical resurrection. There is both a
corporate as well as an
individual participation in this resurrection. Corporately, all mankind is restored to God and the separation is ceased. However, each man must come to God and individually make covenant with Him through Christ in order to participate in the "resurrection of the body" in glory. This bodily resurrection will happen to ALL MEN because of the CORPORATE WORK of Christ for mankind. If not, then the wicked would not be resurrected, but merely rot in their graves. But as you know, this is not the case. All men will be resurrected
physically but only those who have "cut covenant" with God through the Blood of Christ will inherit those glorified bodies spoken of in 1 Corin. 15.
Where did you get this? The New Testament family structure puts men at the head of the house just as Christ is the head of the church. You can find this at this link to Ephesians 5:22-6:4. I would be very interested in seeing where you got this "shared headship" concept.
It is shared headship, but the woman is subordinate to the man. Try telling some sassy 7 year old who just got his butt whupped by Dad for mouthing off to Mom that Mom doesn't bear authority and command respect. Ultimately the man is the final authority and all decisions (I speak, of course, of very ideal conditions) are his responsibility as the head.
The one flesh concept does not pertain to parents, it is the profound mystery in the Ephesians passage I linked above. Mary was not Jesus' wife, she was His mother. Once again, I would like to see the catechism that puts forth this notion. This sounds strangely reminiscent of the story of Oedipus Rex.
This is because you are thinking
sexually in this regard. Of course, there is this verse in Scripture:
Isa 62:5 For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.
Now THAT is interesting, wouldn't you agree, in light of our conversation.
The "one flesh" relationship is filled in the Christian body by Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:31-32), not with Mary
Theologians see a relationship between Mary and the Church. There again is the type/antetype fulfillments which you are not taking into account.
The covenant of God is the relationship of the Father to the Word. That relationship of union in love brings forth life -- the life giving Holy Spirit. When God created mankind, He said "let us create them
in our image. Therefore, for a proper relationship to exist between Adam and Eve, they had to be in a union of love which would also bring forth life (offspring).
The nuclear family is the smallest covenantal unity in which the Godhead is imaged. As I said before, since Jesus is the Last Adam, He must have the "new Eve" (which is the exact title given the BVM by the Early Fathers) with whom He brings forth new life (believers - raised from the dead and adopted as "sons and daughters"). When Jesus and the BVM went to Heaven to rule and reign together, they left behind another covenant couple who are the earthly representatives of the heavenly reality -- the Holy Father (male covenantal head) and the Church (female covenantal "helpmeet"). In their work together, they also bring forth life here on earth.
Every structure regarding God's work among men MUST image the covenantal relationship of the Holy Trinity. That is why Adam had Eve, the Last Adam has the New Eve, and the Holy Father has the Church. Look carefully at the similarities in the structure and hopefully you will see it.
Really? Where did you get this tid-bit? Is this another Catholic teaching?
Actually, I first heard trumpeted in an Fundamentalist assembly I was attending as the pastor taught on the 2nd coming. He was gleefully looking forward to "ruling and reigning" with Christ 1000 years. Of course, since we are in the millenium now, since the kingdom has come now, we do indeed rule and reign with Him.
And ya know what, that is another redemption of the original plan. Adam (and by extension, Eve )was given authority to "take dominion" over the creation as God's priest to the creation. That means "rule and reign", except that Adam blew it.
To whom are you referring when you talk about this co-regency? Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon? If you think she was co-regent, please explain her need for manipulation and careful wording in 1 Kings 1:15-21.
She was not co regent with David. I said that the reign of the "giberah" began with Solomon. Your link starts before this happened.
This is not a correct definition of "covenant." A covenant is an agreement between two parties. There were three different types of covenants in Old Testament times: the Royal Grant, Parity, and the Suzerain-vassal. Here's a link to the major Old Testament covenants and a description of their nature.
Why don't YOU use the Biblical description of covenants? You accuse me of not being Biblical and then turn right around and use covenantal terms which are NOWHERE FOUND in the Scriptures.
WHERE, my friend, is your consistency?
These are all POLITICAL CONTRACTS between countries. They are not a Biblical covenant. Let us see what a Biblical covenant is:
Eze 16:8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.
Read the entire chapter, please. A covenant is described right here as God describes His taking the Jews as His people and His Bride. You are mistaking a contract, in which goods or services are exchanged, with a covenant, in which one life is given to the other. The two lives become one and in that union produce life, and this union is so complete that nine months after you make this covenant, you may well have to give the resulting life a name.
You are using Ray Sutton's paradigm, which is common among the Presbyterian Calvinists. It is merely contractual. If you ever put a covenant in terms of two becoming one you will understand the Catholic Faith. As long as you think of it as simply a contract, it will make no sense to you.
The BVM is not "equal to Christ" because Christ is God. He is the living Word. But She is most assuredly "one flesh" with Jesus, and in the most intimate way possible, since He recieved His flesh from Her, can you deny that they have a VERY "one flesh" relationship?
Christ is the nature of God. Jesus is the nature of perfect man. They both existed in one body, the One we know as "Jesus the Christ". Remember, it is a MAN who rules and reigns in Heaven. Yes, He is divine by the union of those two natures, but it sometimes seems that Christians forget his humanity by overshadowing it with the fact of His deity.
To say that the BVM is "equal" to Christ is indeed blasphemy, but to say that she is "co-regent" as the New Eve to the Last Adam is not. They are perfected humanity and the restoration of the lost Garden covenantal family.
Cordially in Christ,
Brother Ed
