spirit question

[backtothefuture]

Hi,
If this has been answered somewhere else, just point me in the right direction.
I have been wondering if when the old testament speaks of "the spirit of the Lord", if that is the same as the holy spirit given at Pentecost?
I was just wondering, cause I was reading today where the Holy spirit wouldn't let Paul?? preach in some areas. And did the disciples have any kind of power before Pentecost and if not, how was the power of the Lord given then in the old testament:confused:
Hope someone will understand this question:)
Nancy

[Infinite Grace]

Nancy, I'm not sure if I got everything, because it seems like a multi-pronged question. But here goes (and all of this my opinion):

1) Yes. The spirit of the Lord in the ot to me is the exact same as the holy spirit in the nt. Unfortunately, we have so mythologized the spirit of God that sometimes it is not easy to understand the simplicity of the whole thing. First of all, we know that in Ezekiel, God was seen sitting on a wheel, in which all around the wheel were seen EYES, which were the spirits. We see in the Revelation that God has a "seven-fold spirit." We also know in the ot that God had at his disposal spirits that did his bidding (e.g., he sent a lying spirit to a wicked king of Israel, a tormenting spirit to Saul, etc.) In the nt, we see God sending a HOLY spirit. This spirit communicated truths to the believers, just as lying spirits communicated untruths to unbelievers in the ot (keeping in mind that each of these designations has to do with people within Israel).

Now, we also know from the bible that God himself is a spirit. Jesus is called "a life-giving spirit." So, I think it is safe to say that, whoever or whatever this spirit who was holy in the nt was, he was from God, represented God, spoke of Jesus to apostate/unbelieving Israel through the believing/faithful Israel, and manifested the works of God - both fruit and gifts. With this in mind, we then need to each come to a conclusion as to whether that spirit still continues to work in our day, or is it perhaps THE SPIRIT (God) who makes his tabernacle/dwelling place with men that is now manifesting himself in our midst? You decide.

2. It is true that Paul was forbidden to preach in some areas. In fact, so was Jesus. This was to all God's wrath to be poured out upon the apostate whore to the uttermost. If they "heard" the words of Paul or Jesus, they may have repented and then God would have had to forgive them (cf. Jonah).

3. In the ot, we see Prophets and those who prophesied. We see God working miracles. We see God giving revelation, discernment, healings, etc. So, God worked in limited ways through his spirits in the ot, worked in greater ways through his holy spirit in the nt, and now IS the Spirit who works in those with whom he dwells.

all of this my humble opinion.

[Infinite Grace]

I just want to make clear that I am NOT unitarian. I believe that God is a multi-faceted God. I don't know how that works, and I don't care. All I know is that all around me there is "the One and the Many." My family is ONE, and yet there are MANY within it. The fellowship that I attend is ONE, and yet we are MANY members. Society is ONE, and yet made up of MANY citizens.

I hope these two posts explain my current thinking on this subject.

[backtothefuture]

Thanks so much Ed.
That was a great response, considering my question was so whacked. I guess I have wondered in my life also, when in the Psalms David says, "take not your holy spirit from me" Did God in especially OT times, pick and choose when to give his spirit? And I have wondered, Is the Holy Spirit really here with us now, and or, is it something we have to keep asking for. Keep being filled with.
Thanks,
Nancy

[Lou]

Nancy in this age I believe God’s spirit is always with us. It isn’t about us asking it is us accepting that God is always with us.

[Amie]

Nancy,

I don't personally agree with the modern definition of the word "spirit" anymore. Ancient Hebrews did not understand nouns as "person, place, or thing", but as "the action of person, place, or thing". Descriptions had to do with function rather tha. I'll give an example: "Grass" to them would be defined as "it springs forth" (action) or "I feed the livestock with it" (function). They would have never thought of defining it as we do, which is without action.

"Spirit" in modern terms, is an abstract thing which was also foreign to the Hebrews writing the bible. They thought concretely, which means that they thought in ways that they could personally relate. They thought with their senses: They could see, touch, taste, experience, etc life.

Taken from http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/27_spirit.html:


The Hebrew word ru'ach literally means the wind and is derived from the parent root rach a prescribed path. The word rach is not found in the Biblical text but defined by the various child roots derived from it. The child roots derived from this parent root are arach, rachah and yarach. Arach is a traveler who follows a prescribed path from one place to another. Rachah is a millstone which goes round and round in the sense of following a prescribed path to crush grain into flour. Yarach is the root of yere'ach meaning the moon which follows a prescribed path in the night sky. The child root ru'ach is literally the wind that follows a prescribed path each season. By extension ru'ach means the wind of a man or what is usually translated as spirit. A man's wind is not just a spiritual entity within a man but is understood by the Ancient Hebrews as his character.

Reconsider for a minute, the meaning of these passages when thinking in terms of "spirit" being the character of a person, or that which flows forth from a person:

Matthew 4
3 And coming near to Him, the Tempter said, If You are the Son of God, speak that these stones may become loaves.
4 But answering, He said, It has been written: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but on every Word going out of the mouth of God." Deut. 8:3

Matthew 15
11 It is not the thing entering into the mouth that defiles the man, but the thing coming forth out of the mouth, this defiles the man.

By law, those who were going to approach the alter had to wash their hands first. Culturally (and traditionally), many Israelites believed that if they did not wash their hands before eating, that literal gods would enter into them and defile their personage. If the god, ie, entered into a person to cause them to become liars, it meant that an "evil spirit" entered into them.

The Holy Spirit entering into the church then, was the very person of God entering into them (He becoming "all in all"). Through them, the Holy Spirit entered all of humanity, giving everyone life - inclusively.

God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and God is love (1 John 4:8). Evidence that people were disciples of Jesus was their love for one another (John 13:35). Love is God in them.

I think the abilities of the church ceased, not because the spirit of God left humanity, but because those things existed so that the spirit of God would enter into all humanity. Once that was done, there was no need for them. Of them all faith, hope, and love remain (1 Cor 13:13).

Mark 9:38-40 suggests that more that the apostles had the power to cast out demons pre-pentacost. It seems that pentacost brought on the ability to speak in tongues. As well, pre-pentacost it was faith in Christ that could create healing (Luke 7:50 ie), while it seems that post-pentacost that it was the faith of Christ that brought about "gifts".

What of those in OT times? Were they love-less, God-less.. what are the implications? I'm compelled to think not. I think that returns again to the idea that in the Old Covenant, it was the faith in God that justified humanity, while in the New Covenant, it was the faith of God that actually saved them/us.


Nancy in this age I believe God’s spirit is always with us. It isn’t about us asking it is us accepting that God is always with us.

Agreed :). As is said in Transformations, God no longer sees the world from the outside in, but from the inside - out.. though I would take it an inch further to His seeing it both ways. I imagine him to be around, in, and of - hope that makes sense.

Amie

[christyG]

Wow, great response Amie:clap2: You broke down her question very nicely.

As I read through this thread something that I read kept coming to mind, so I thought I should share it...... I have read that the Jewish Rabbis and priests taught about the contradictory, or complex nature of God. They were fascinated by God's ability to be both in "a" place and everywhere, to be all-powerful, but seemingly limited (all be it self-imposed limitations). There was a book I read with a chapter entitled "Yes and Yes". The point being God is the ultimate of ALL things, good, bad, etc....God is complex, not easily expressed in human terms, enigmatic, fascinating, confusing, and (IMO) it is a thrill to try to grow in our understanding of him.

And...... not to through this discussion completely off, but....
Ed can you explain this thought a little further,

2. It is true that Paul was forbidden to preach in some areas. In fact, so was Jesus. This was to all God's wrath to be poured out upon the apostate whore to the uttermost. If they "heard" the words of Paul or Jesus, they may have repented and then God would have had to forgive them (cf. Jonah).
:confused:

Christy

[Infinite Grace]

Matthew 13:13 The reason I speak to them in parables is that "seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.' 14 With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah that says: "You will indeed listen, but never understand, and you will indeed look, but never perceive. 15 For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; so that they might not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and understand with their heart and turn— and I would heal them.' 16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.(NRSV)

It was God's intention, in order to prove that he was "just" (i.e., he did what he said he would) to bring "death" to the unbelieving Israelite Harlot. Those of faith were "saved" from the wrath to come, but those who did not believe were kept to be disciplined in God's wrath in AD70. Jesus made it clear in Mt. 13 that he didn't come to save the self-righteous, those who claimed to have kept the Law but were far from it (that was the point of the Sermon on the Mount). The prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, Samaritans, gentiles, etc. were despised by the Pharisees, but not by Jesus. The Pharisees were blinded and deafened, but those with "eyes to hear and ears to see" believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thus, were saved. You see, some were hardened, so that God might have mercy on ALL (Rom 11:32).

To kind of sum it up, please also read the following:
Romans 11:7-16 (NRSV) 7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8 as it is written, "God gave them a sluggish spirit, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day." 9 And David says, "Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; 10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and keep their backs forever bent." 11 So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means! But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. 12 Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! 13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry 14 in order to make my own people jealous, and thus save some of them. 15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead! 16 If the part of the dough offered as first fruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; and if the root is holy, then the branches also are holy.

[backtothefuture]

Thanks Amie for your post. I just read it again to try better to understand. Boy, when you start thinking from a fulfillment view its so different. And yet, it makes so much more sense to me.
Thank you for taking the time to break it all down.
Thanks everyone else also.
On another note, when in this day people speak of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as being one person? What is your take on that.
Thanks,
Nancy:biggrinbounce:

[Amie]

..when in this day people speak of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as being one person?

I don't understand the question, would you mind elaborating?

Thanks!

Amie

[backtothefuture]

Hi,
I guess from my fundamental roots, we were taught to believe in the Trinity. 3 in 1. When you are talking about the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost it was all the same person.
I was wondering how to look at that if any different from a fulfillment view.
If we don't have to ask for the "holy Spirits" help anymore. It just is. Same with God, I was wondering if there still is a Trinity???(Gosh, now even I am confused!)
Nancy ( does that help?)

[Amie]

Nancy,

I don't think that the fulfilled view effects whether a person is trinitarian or not.

The "shema" is "Hear, Israel. The Lord our God is one Lord, and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul" and with all your mind, "and with all your strength." (Mark 12:29, 30, Deut 6:4,5)

I can't pretend to understand the complexity of God, or to have the ability to measure his greatness. I currently don't understand God's Holy Spirit to be separate from him any more than my non-holy hair is from me. As well, if Jesus was God manifest, then I don't see how he could be separate either.

Trinitarians explain that "three distinct persons" doesn't mean "three separate persons". My inability to comprehend that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm not trinitarian I hear.

What are your thoughts on this?

Amie

[backtothefuture]

Hi Hi,
I guess I was just interested in the Holy Spirit part of the trinity since we were talking about is the Holy Ghost the same now as in the old Testament times and do we need to ask for it in this age.
We have been in churches that do believe trinitarian and some that don't. I didn't think about it much till I started wondering about the Holy Spirit now from kind of a fulfillment view.
It takes a while to kind of grasp a new way of thinking. I still find myself asking for the Holy Spirit to re-fill me, help me and for comfort. I have had to try to find for myself just what that "Spirit" means to and for me as I have had to kind of rethink lots of things, from what does being saved really mean, heaven and hell, all those kinds of things that mean something quite different from what I use to believe.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.:biggrinbounce: (especially when I am not sure what it even is I am asking) Sometimes I feel as if I am exploding onto a new horizon and I am thinking faster than I can absorb it all!)
Blessings
Nancy

[Paige]

Sometimes I feel as if I am exploding onto a new horizon and I am thinking faster than I can absorb it all!)

LOL...Been there, done that, got my face on the t-shirt :D

In Transformations class that is called the "uh oh :uhh: !". It is usually followed by an "oh boy :eek: !"

Paige

[Infinite Grace]

Nancy,
I think that even if you take Amie's view that "spirit" represents the character of a person (including God), you can still ask God to re-fill you - he re-fills you with his character.

I think that the Trinity can be inferred from the scriptures, but it must be done with proof texts mostly, rather than narrative. IOW, there is not really a STORY that speaks of God being a trinity. However, there are stories that tell of Jesus being distinct from the Father (as in the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days, and then similar imagery in the Revelation of the Lamb coming unto the Father's throne). We also have the story of creation wherein God says "let US make man in OUR image..."

The point though is that these stories do NOT necessitate a belief in a trinity, or any special view of that trinity. IOW, some trinitarians believe that all the persons of the trinity are "co-equal." Earlier trinitarians (mostly from Eastern Orthodox traditions) saw the Son and Spirit subordinate to the Father, in fact PROCEEDING FROM the Father (that was a big argument over the Nicene Creed's wording).

I think what we must consider in the fulfilled view is that it doesn't matter basically if we have a perfect understanding of God. Heck, we don't have a perfect understanding of ourselves (although thanks to much holistic health stuff out there, I think we are getting closer).

I believe that God is multi-faceted, as I explained elsewhere. That doesn't require a belief in a trinity - although I do believe that.

[Amie]

I think that even if you take Amie's view that "spirit" represents the character of a person (including God), you can still ask God to re-fill you - he re-fills you with his character.

Is that the same as taking a minute to focus before handling the situation where the child has just placed the peanut butter and jelly sandwich into the VCR? That's a true story, my nephew wanted to see what would happen, lol - but as parents, friends, neighbors, and just as folks living in this world alongside others, we've all experienced something like that moment.


I think what we must consider in the fulfilled view is that it doesn't matter basically if we have a perfect understanding of God. Heck, we don't have a perfect understanding of ourselves..

I can't imagine life without questions..

Amie

[backtothefuture]

I liked that Ed, Refill me with the character of God. Gosh I need that so much. Day by day by day.
I have learned so much from you all. Thanks so much.
Nancy

[christyG]

Hey, jumping back in:)
Sorry, I've been busy and haven't had time to make it back here.

Back to my question Ed,
I asked clarification on:
If they "heard" the words of Paul or Jesus, they may have repented and then God would have had to forgive them (cf. Jonah).

And you did, thank you.

But.... Are you saying that you see a sort of predestination? I'm not sure how I feel about God hardening people,a person or a group of people. I suppose it could be said that God "allowed" their hardening to happen, kinda like how he lets an earthquake happen, but I don't even feel really good about that thought.

I do see what is being said in Matthew 13:13 and Romans 11. They had to reject to let us all in. I see that. I don't know... The problem I really have may be with the thought of GOD sitting "out there" sending down lightening bolts whenever it is needed. And maybe that is not what is being said.

Christy

[Infinite Grace]

Christy, let me clarify.

From the beginning, in my view, God had an agenda. You see, that's the reason that Jesus said that he "came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it." The misunderstanding that so many preterists have is in the fact that Jesus DID fulfill the law, and once fulfilled, the next step was to throw it into the second death. Thus, it was destroyed - AFTER Jesus fulfilled the law.

What was the fulfillment? Death. The covenant promised death to the law-breakers. The Sermon on the Mount proved that all Israel was a lawbreaker and deserved DEATH, according to the Law. Jesus DIED IN ISRAEL'S PLACE. Those who trusted in that sacrifice of Jesus, thus nullifying all other sacrifices, were "saved" from the "wrath"; i.e., death under the old covenant.

We see in Romans that God HARDENED a portion of Israel, while saving a remnant. This hardening of Israel was God's "rejection" of them. The fulness of the gentiles came in, and the destruction of the unfaithful occurred. Upon their destruction, we are told that there was "a resurrection of the dead", which Max King saw as the resurrection of Israel (the dead in their sins and trespasses under the law). Those who had been condemned were at that time accepted by God, totally irrespective of their choice. Their "acceptance" meant "life from the dead"; i.e., resurrection.

You see, God has NEVER poo-poo'd sin. He took sin very seriously. He is JUST, HOLY. That is why He sent his son, Jesus. Jesus reconciled that which was lost (Israel - the kosmos) to God. But he would not do it simply by being nice. His Law had to be completed, fulfilled. Jesus did that. Had God simply "looked the other way" he could be accused of being unjust, or unholy (as some prets have done). But because he fulfilled the law, both through Jesus for the believer, and the "second death," the destruction of Jerusalem for the unbeliever, he was able to lawfully, justifiably, righteously accept, and show MERCY TO ALL.

Apostate Israel got what they deserved. They were the Kingly Priesthood, called to represent God to the nations/gentiles. They failed. Jesus, the True Israel, the True Adam fulfilled ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS by dying on the cross. He rose from the dead to further prove that death could not hold him for he was without sin. The Father accepted his sacrifice, and he appeared a second time to nullify death once and for all.

I know that you knew most of this stuff. But with some of our recent folks joining here, I wanted to make sure that everything that I say is abundantly clear. I wouldn't want to be misquoted again, even though some people don't care if you actually say it or not, they make it up.

[davo]

Well Ed I think that is a great summary. :clap2: It does seem a little odd how those who claim to hold to "the sovereignty of God" have a problem with God sovereignly bestowing mercy on all, and when challenged on this get rather emotional. :cool:

[christyG]

Thank You Ed,

And I hope that I did not misquote you. :( I was trying to read into what you were saying though.

I see where you are coming from with your answer, and right now I see this as definitely the message that Paul was trying to convey. I also think right now that the Isrealites definitely believed that God had a plan for them, and with many Early Christians being Jews (Isrealites) this thought carried over. Do you think that God worked his hand throughout history?...Or, just in that particular time in history?....And, do you see God as working his hand now, with a plan?

Thank You,
Christy:)

[backtothefuture]

Hi,
I am a little confused. Was the first death at the cross and the second death after Jesus came back in the 70 AD period then? If so, did he come back to humanity physically or spiritually?:confused:
Thanks,
Nancy

[Amie]

Hi,
I am a little confused. Was the first death at the cross and the second death after Jesus came back in the 70 AD period then? If so, did he come back to humanity physically or spiritually?:confused:
Thanks,
Nancy

The first death was that which took place "in Adam" which placed all of humanity in a state of death (however you define it). The second death, was the death of that death (Adam passed away - a new Adam in his place).

Jesus came in judgement as he had done in the OT before, except this was the last time it would happen - the final judgement. Much of what people quote from the OT as prophecy for the future, was prophecy concerning the OT day -- like when the King of Babylon lost power, or when Jerusalem was originally conquered by him.

I have to go out and then dye some Easter eggs, but hope to get back to this.

Amie

[backtothefuture]

Oh Gosh, I don't mean for this to sound stupid, but just by Adam being born, that brought death to everyone else?
The second death?? Was that the death of the law?
Maybe I have been cheating with to much Easter candy today:confused:
But really in all seriousness, I don't understand when you talk about the death in Adam.
Nancy

[Paige]

Nancy,

It helps me to understand the first death as an exile.

Gen 2:17, "...for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

From the story told, we know the death was a separation from God (exile). Adam (and the rest of humanity) was never again allowed access back to the Garden and the ToL that was there. The story illustrates the far reaching consequences of the first Adam's failure. If you remember, Adam bore the image of God when created, but what did he pass on? Gen. 5:1, "...In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God." Gen. 5:3, "...and begot a son in his own likeness, after his own image."

What was humanity in need of according to 1 Cor. 15? Vs.48-49, " As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly man."

IMO, this explains what it meant for humanity to be dead in Adam (in exile from God) as opposed to being alive in Christ (no longer in that exile).

Hope that explains a little for you. Let me know...

Paige

[Barry]

Oh Gosh, I don't mean for this to sound stupid, but just by Adam being born, that brought death to everyone else?
The second death?? Was that the death of the law?
Maybe I have been cheating with to much Easter candy today:confused:
But really in all seriousness, I don't understand when you talk about the death in Adam.
Nancy

Nancy, I like Page's exile comments.
This is my take:
The first creation was natural and the second creation spiritual.
The natural man the spiritual man.
This is two kinds of relationship.
The natural is tribal and ethnic and puts confidence in independent human potential. It looks to justification of life in appearance issues.
The spiritual is married with God. It is not independent. It is justification of life in the presence of God. It looks to neither male nor female, neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free. It makes peace! It loves unconditionally.

Now the first creation had a place a standing. It however was destined to pass away. Those who were identified as "old creatures" would experience the second death. The first death is sin or condemnation. A relentless seeking for vindication of life which did bring insecurity, and needing to prove something about ones self all the time and low self worth and low self esteem and always comparing ones self with someone else and trying to measure up or down, ECT. The second death is the ending of the status of the old creature.

In my personal theory, the first creation was to have the natural man populate the earth (or land). So male and female were brought into a relationship that would make this happen. "As natual brute beasts, bred to be slaughtered".
Our relationship IMHO is far more spiritual now. It's up to us to realize this truth.
Barry

[backtothefuture]

Thanks Paige and Barry.
So then I was wondering, in the OT was relationship with God dependent on the laws? Was that the only way to have relationship with him?
Were as now, I believe it is a spiritual relationship, but I don't think its dependent on us. I may be wrong about that, don't know. Although its kind of hard to have a relationship one sided?
Thanks so much to explaining things for me. After the Easter Crowd comes and eats, I am going back and re-reading it all again.
Oh and Paige, I did read all those links about the feasts in the old testament. So very interesting. Thanks!
When I read some of the stuff here, I have to tell myself to breath!!! I just sit some days when it does connect and go, oh my gosh!!
Have a great day,
Nancy

[Paige]

Nancy,

The way I see relationship in the OT was that there was always a barrier. There was a barrier between God and man, which made it necessary for a human intercessor to be a representative (Moses, Priests, etc...). There was a barrier between Israel and the rest of humanity. There was a barrier between men and women, between free men and slaves.

What I see from the practice of OC Religion is how it continued to reflect and reinforce this barrier to the people.

Christ broke down all the barriers between God and man, and man and man (women included). God is all in all (1 Cor. 15:28) Death, law, heirarchy, you name it. We have been restored to the full presence of God.

Paige

[Amie]

Nancy,

1 Cor 15
22 "for as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive."
Adam died by transgressing the law/breaking covenant with God:

Hosea 6
7 But, like Adam, they have broken the covenant; they have acted like traitors against Me there.

Death reigned over the Gentiles as well:

Romans 5
14 but death reigned from Adam until Moses, even on those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of the coming One.

The Adamic covenant:

Genesis 2
16 ¶ And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Eating you may eat of every tree in the garden;
17 but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, dying you shall die.

The Mosaic law was "added to increase the trespass" (Romans 5:20)

I believe that death entered through Adam in that the law/covenant was passed on through Adam. He therefore received it on our behalfs, just as Christ later (the "second Adam" 1 Cor 15:45) received and passed on the New Covenant on our behalfs. The trespass of the OC increased in Israel, as did Grace increase in the NC through Israel.

I agree with Paige and Barry's takes. Under the Old Covenant, man pursued God and could not reach him on his own. As you can see in Romans 5:15, "death reigned until Moses", there was some semblance of life in the Law. I think that it twinkled in as hope and faith for the future resurrection. "Where sin abounded grace did much more abound" (Romans 5:20).

Sin ("sin" defined as "trespass of the law") now, no longer abounds. Paul asks the rhetorical question that I think means "Shall the law ordinance remain in place that grace might abound?" I think it means that because if no law convicts us/them, then there is no sin. Here's the reference:

Romans 6
1 ¶ What then shall we say? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?

Whether or not Grace still abounds, brings this to mind:

John 1
16 And out of His fullness we all received, and grace on top of grace.
17 For the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Keeping the law was the only way to have a covenant relationship with God back then. God said to Moses:

Exodus 19
5 And now if listening you will listen to My voice, and will keep My covenant, you shall become a special treasure to Me above all the nations, for all the earth is Mine.
6 And you shall become a kingdom of priests for Me, a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the sons of Israel.

So if they kept the covenant passed on through Moses, they would be a special treasure, a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. The people accepted the covenant offered by God through Moses (Exodus 24:7). Problem -- no one was able to keep the law (All were sinners/trespassers Romans 3:23). If Israel could not keep the law, then Israel would not become Priests (intercessors) for God to humanity. Gentiles would remain separate from God and dead, and the Abrahamic covenant couldn't be fulfilled.

Abrahamic covenant: "In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed" (Gen 12:3). "All the land which you see I will give to you, and to your seed always. And I will make your seed as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can count the dust of the earth, then your seed also will be counted." (Gen 12:15, 16). The covenant given to Abraham was unconditional and required no agreement or effort on Abraham's part (Gen 15).

The New Covenant (see also Hebrews 8:8):

Jer 31
31 Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
32 not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt (which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah).
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, declares Jehovah, I will put My Law in their inward parts, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
34 And they shall no longer each man teach his neighbor, and each man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah. For they shall all know Me, from the least of them even to the greatest of them, declares Jehovah. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.

The New Covenant was also unconditional. When Hebrews was written, the Old Covenant was "growing aged is near disappearing." (Hebrews 8:13). Hebrews 12:24 declares Jesus as the mediator of the New Covenant.

All things were fulfilled in him, and through him, Israel was enabled to become "Kings and Priests".

The New Covenant sort of becomes God's pursuit of humanity - rather than the other way around. So you are right, nothing is required on our behalf. God is present with all of humanity and will wait patiently for those who don't notice, to notice - or to know him in the next life.

Hope this wasn't too long :)

Amie

[backtothefuture]

Paige,
I loved what you said. Restored to the full presence of God! That just carried me through my entire day today.
Do you think its possible to have a spiritual awakening at 55 years old!! I feel like I am floating on a cloud of something knew and wonderful.
For one year straight, I could only sing my prayers on my guitar and end with the song, open the eyes of my heart. Then for 6 months after that, all I could pray was God, help me. I don't know what happened but now 6 months after that I kid you not I am a different person. Same name, Nancy, same problems, hurting friends, family, world...But I have something now I didn't have then. Paige, I believe you told me today what that is. I have been restored to the full presence of God.
Oh thank you for those words of truth:biggrinbounce:
Blessings,
Nancy

[Paige]

Nancy,

Its possible to have a spiritual awakening at any age! I'm glad I had the opportunity to share what has also been shared with me by everyone here! Christ has truly blessed us and brought us all together.

Paige

[backtothefuture]

Amie,
I just noticed your reply. Sometimes for some reason, I miss some of the things posted:confused:
Thank you so much. I was wondering then, Are we considered Priests of the Lord? Or just ordinary people now basking in the knowledge that we don't have to do anything to have a relationship with him, its already here.
I have felt such a burden lifted from me this last year, worried about my entire family. I don't worry now about them "accepting God" I know now that God already has accepted them.:clap2:
On another note, What was the difference between the Covenant to Israel and the one to Judah?
And if anyone has a good article on Ishmael and how he played into the plan for fulfillment I would really love to know. So often when we are with our friends we hear, The Jews are all from Isaac and the Arabs from Ishmael. But I don't understand if that is really a correct response now and some days that doesn't make any sense to me. These are friends who are coming from the fundamental, futurist type of back ground. I would like to know though, so I can start sharing some thoughts with them.:biggrinbounce:
Thanks,
Nancy

[Amie]

Nancy,

I started a thread here (http://talk-grace.com/showthread.php?p=1909#post1909) and will answer those things over there the best I can, asap :)

Love,

Amie

[backtothefuture]

Thanks Amie,
I did read over at the other thread today. Must have been were I got wondering about Priests!!
I will watch over at the other thread.
Nancy

[Amie]

Nancy,

I split it up into two topics, one fit over in "Adam to Adam" and I started "Ishmael and Isaac" here: http://talk-grace.com/showthread.php?p=1929#post1929

I am looking forward to hearing others takes on these things as well :)

Amie

[Bill]

I have a different thought on the first death and I wonder what you all think. It's my own thought so I hope you can show me why it's wrong.

I think that the first death is Christ's death on the cross as the fulfillment of the Law of Moses and the second death is the death of the Law of Moses in 70ad.

I think that the first resurrection is Christ's resurrection from the tomb as a sign that death had been overcome and the second resurrection is the resurrection of believer's in 70ad as a result of death and hades, whose power was the Law, being destroyed.

Just a thought.

Bill

[Amie]

Bill,

I think the first death was when "all died in Adam". I think the second death was when all were made alive in Christ (the death of the first death).
1 Cor 15:22

Shall we start a separate thread on it? :)

Amie

[Bill]

Sounds good Amie.

I always like to have my own threads!

Anyway, I would like to get some feedback.

Thanks,

Bill

[Amie]

Bill,

I set it up over here: http://talk-grace.com/showthread.php?p=1980#post1980

:) Amie