I Peter 2
Posted by 
Nathanael Szobody on
Nathanael Szobody on “As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”
I’m just a stone; all I know is the stone to right of me and the stone on my left; they are good stones, ones I grow to love. God knows I feel the weight of the stones on top of me. But the most blessed stone is the one I feel beneath my feet, for:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
I wish so much that I could see the blueprint, the master plan, to know why I am where I am
Comments ( 50 )
To give instruction not to go near a woman does not mean that they all had a woman.
How in Ex 19, using the word priests, does not refer to priests?
Is there some sort of display of elusiveness for fear of having a discussion?
A simple "yes" or "no" to the acknowledgment of the ostensible premise might be fruitful.
Since you agree. My point is to support your idea that the family unit was God's intention for salvation since priests were appointed for both gifts and sacrifices for sins (Heb. 5)
Note that the promise in verse 6 is with the condition that they obey his voice and keep his covenant. We know that no person is able to fulfill this requirement except Jesus Christ. The promise was one pointing forward to Christ when all his people would indeed be priests.
3 And Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: 4 'You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to Myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."
Later on we read that it was to be offer in the place where God would choose.
Historically, practically and effectually, the priestly capacity of applying the blood, and roasting it was accomplished by the Levitical orders and not heads of families.
We can only conclude that this was a direct result of declining the offer of the priesthood. Take a look at the verses below and tell me what you think.
Ex 12.3 ...each man is to take a lamb [a] for his family, one for each household. 4 If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. 5 The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. 6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. 7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. 8 That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast. 9 Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over the fire
Certainly, as is the case for the Adamic covenant, the Noaic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant. The reason for this being that it was founded in creation itself, and ultimately in Christ, the true bridegroom and high priest.
When God chose Noah he chose his family and saved his family.
When God chose Abraham he called him out of his family to start a new family, demonstrated by the circumcision of all the males.
You have already expounded on the Mosaic covenant.
In the new covenant all these things are shown to find fulfillment in Christ who makes one family of every tribe and nation, althewhile affirming the created role of the family in places such as Ephesians 5, showing that marriage and the family continues to proclaim the mysteries of God's work in his people.
Luke 12.51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
Matt10.32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
What I can say is that it is irrelevant to the question at hand; it is dealing with a different question. Our discussion about the family in covenants is about the created and intended order and means of God's grace being spread in the world. The passages you have just quoted are referring to the harsh worldly realities when truth meets sin.
The new covenant will not be a national centralized implementation. Thus, the family will not be the principle means of God's saving grace. It will be a decentralized personal faith.
Heb. 8.7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said[b]: "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."[c]
13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
Mark 10.28Peter said to him, "We have left everything to follow you!"
29"I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields
Correct.
"Thus, the family will not be the principle means of God's saving grace"
Also correct; it is not the principle means.
The passing of the old covenant has no effect on the essential nature of the family since the family is not an instition of the old covenant itself but of creation.
Indeed, many families are divided by the gospel. This is a commentary on sin; not on the nature of the family.
you--"Certainly...."
contradiction sir? Would you care to clarify in light of your last post?
We both agree that parents have a great responsiblity in rearing a child, but the proof text you and Joseph have often cited is the passover as a prime example of household salvation. Now, the puzzling thing is that Scripture differentiates physical salvation (out of Egypt) with ultimate salvation (heaven). Notice these verses below, verify that those who died in the wilderness did not have a personal faith even though they were brought out and bought by the blood of the lamb. Since these are completed tenses, we can conclude that they never believed.
Jude 1:5 But I would put you in remembrance, you who once knew all things, that the Lord, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, in the second place destroyed those who had not believed.
Hebrews 4:2 For indeed we have had glad tidings presented to us, even as they also; but the word of the report did not profit *them*, not being mixed with faith in those who heard.
But we must make careful note, as you are right to point out: those who participated in the picture died in the wilderness. Parents should consider their children saved and partakers of Christ only insofar as they teach them the word and bring them up to live and believe as partakers of Christ.
"...spirtual salvation from the parents to the children" I haven't and wouldn't state the case in those terms. The salvation is by the power of the word; the parents are an ordained channel for that word.
With God giving Israel explicit instructions to include the whole family (infants no exception) in the covering of the blood of the lamb and in the exodus as a picture of salvation from sin, and also in the subsequent signs of salvation, such as circumcision, a picture of the removal of sin from the heart that would take place in Christ, it's no hidden message; especially when Peter reiterates that perspective in his sermon on Pentecost that "the promise of for you and your children."
This is a weak point in that it does not negate personal faith, and certainly does not exhibit an imputed, parental faith.
The problem is that you say that the nature of the family hasn't changed throughout the covenants (particularly household salvation). So, the example of the passover for spiritual salvation in the OT and the NT should bear out entirely; however, you have agreed that Scripture is clear that the Israelites indeed were not saved spiritually seeing that they perished under God's judgment because the "gospel...had not been mixed with faith". I agree that it is the parents responsibility to teach, train, and exhort their children, especially in matters of faith. It seems to me that there is a great lack of evidence to push beyond the parental responsibility so stated. Parents are "channel of the word" no more than anyone else teaching a Sunday school class. In other words, if I spoke the gospel to a child and they wanted to receive Christ, the child could have saving faith. Why the doctrine of household salvation? What's the point? Don't give the trite answer "God wants families to be saved"....ummm....God's wants everyone to be saved, but we know that everyone won't respond to God's invitation. Again, why the security blanket?
In no way do I wish to negate personal faith, nor would I advocate an imputed parental faith. I consider an infant to be very much an individual. The Holy Spirit quickened my soul without an prerequisite excercise on my part and this in no way negated personal faith. That God places on parents the responsability of bringing their child to the word and believe in the promises therein is in no way in imputation of the parents' faith; it is a gift to the child himself through the word which creates faith.
"I agree that it is the parents responsiblity to teach, train, and exhort their children, especially in matters of faith."
The dissagreement lies in how, then a parent should regard their children when they do so. I contend, based on the foreshadows of the new covenant found in the OT, that they should be considered as participants in Christ, individually.
Neither do I pretend that Peter's statement is a water tight arguement; rather, it shows that this familial perspective found in the OT is not lost for the sake the new covenant.
Again, that those who participated in the passover were not spiritually saved has no implications whatsoever to what was being proclaimed concerning the new covenant in the passover. The lack of faith was theirs, the proclamation was a prophecy of God's.
The application of the passover in the New Covenant is not to the earthly family as a type/shadow; rather, it is addressed to the spirtual family, the professing Christians at Corinth. Again, we seem to be reading in a subtext which has no place. Let me ask you a question from a different angle? Where do you say a unborn aborted infant would go if the mother were an unsaved drug abusing prostitute and why?