I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me! For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.
So what is Paul saying here?
I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me! For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I engaged you to one husband, to be perfectly, personally, and perpetually obedient. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, you will cease to do the required good works that are the meritorious ground of your relationship to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.
OR
I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me! For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I engaged you to one husband, to trust and follow Christ. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from faith in and allegiance to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.
In other words, even though it is true that Adam and Eve could not sin under the covenant of works (i.e. there was no provision for ongoing forgiveness), and were required to be obedient, is it not also the case that the basic issue for them as for us was faith? How else could Paul use this analogy if there was no basic similarity?
Someone will probably try to make the point that only Adam, “properly” :(, was under the covenant of works.
Course that hits the apparent contrast between the common sin and curse of wcf VI.3 “They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;”
and the special adam-only promise of VII.2 “The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.”
I wonder if Paul claiming to be a faithful Adam as opposed to the others they are following who are more like the original Adam?
Couldn’t the basic similarity could be merely:
false apostles disguised as servants of righteousness = deceptive serpent disguised as messenger of light
Church = Eve
?
Right, but if there is this basic structural similarity then is Paul “guilty” of “mono-covenantalism”?
Also, parallels between Adamic and Mosaic covenants have been used to “prove” that the Mosaic covenant was a republication of the covenant of works. So if the reasoning doesn’t work in this case, why should it work in other cases?
Is it just me in my level of learning, or is the word “covenant” being overloaded beyond biblical clarity?
http://www.leithart.com/archives/003101.php
Like I ask on http://new.hornes.org/mark/2010/04/25/two-of-the-ways-westminster-treats-law-and-gospel/comment-page-1/#comment-444794
aren’t there only two taught in the NT (esp. Galatians and Hebrews):
The obsolete faulty covenant of slavery to sin/death
versus
The better covenant of faith and freedom from slavery/death
Faulty/Obsolete: Abraham’s work of flesh+Hagar=slave children->Father->Works of Law for life at Mount Sinai via Moses & Aaron->Jerusalem enslaved
Better: Melchizedek blesses Abraham’s faith+Spirit+Sarah=Isaac->Jacob->Mary(+ Holy Spirit)->Jesus+bride (faithful children of Abraham / Israel of God)=Jerusalem above that’s free
That’s a very good point.