I suppose you do not see any Godly commands being issued, either.
On the contrary. They were told what to do.
Obedience to God's commands is an expected work.
This arises, of course, out of your messed up view of "works." Adam and Eve had nothing to earn. They already had eternal life with God and everything they needed. There was nothing they needed to earn from Him, thus, even if there was a covenant (which there was not), it wouldn't be on that required them to "earn" anything.
The establishment of law and works came as a covenant: God told Adam obedience and partaking of Godly blessings alone would produce life; disobedience and partaking of what is forbidden and evil would produce death. (Genesis 2:16&17)
0
That's not all that is required of a covenant.
This is the covenant that Adam (representing all mankind as their federal head) broke:
"But they like men (i.e. "Adam") have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me." Hosea 6:7
(And check the Hebrew word used for "men" in this verse, before you argue. It is the same word used in Genesis speaking of the creation and naming of "Adam.")
LOL.. The word "Adam" means "man". That doesn't give you the freedom to substitute "Adam" anywhere that "man" appears. (Yes, master's level study in Hebrew.)
Because the first Adam transgressed this covenant, the last Adam came into the world to fulfill this covenant on behalf of his people, who are the natural descendents of the "covenant-transgressor."
Again, no covenant established before the fall. You're imposing on the text, here.
It was necessary the first ("old") covenant be fulfilled so that "new" covenant grace and reconciliation be accomplished between God and men. Both covenants performed by the Son of Man, Jesus Christ.
Umm... You're equivocating on "performed." IF we grant for a moment that the Mosaic Covenant was made with Israel by God the Son (which you have not done), then He had a different role in the New Covenant than the Old.
All later covenants are the product of the covenant of works being transgressed. It is unorthodox Christian teaching to deny the covenant of works, for thereby, the obedience and righteousness of Jesus Christ unto death has no purpose or meaning.
The "Covenant of Works" was the Mosaic covenant.
No, my exegesis is correct. God saves individuals (in this context, Greeks as well as the Jews in the audience), by the teaching of the word of God that is understood through the Holy Spirit of God. All the elect are "taught of God," by God's Spirit, Himself.
Um... 1) There are only Jews in this audience. The context is very Jewish, both in word (calling forth Moses as the standard ~v30-33) and deed (grumbling against Jesus v43.)
2) It doesn't say that all the elect. It says "They will all be taught of God." You're inserting "elect" there. Furthermore, the context of the remainder of the verse indicates that only some subset of "all", namely those who hear and learn, will come.
So, once again, you miss the mark badly.
Not so. You are nit-picking in order to avoid the big picture of the entire tabernacle and temple worship system, established by God, to typify and example His promises of the Messiah.
LOL.. Yes, showing the context of the scripture you used is nit-picking. Noticing that you skip a chapter and a half, and a complete context change, is nit-picking.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
If you do not see and learn of Jesus Christ by reading the O.T. details regarding blood atonement, priesthoods, and worship ordinances, you are missing many spiritual blessings and are very vulnerable to misunderstanding the accomplishment of the Son of God who came as Prophet, Priest, and King.
Jesus isn't found in the Levitical ritual practices. The author of Hebrews does make some parallels to make his point, but he doesn't come out, as you claim, and say that every element of the Levitical law is a type of Christ. And, in fact, it is not.
For regenerated saints, yes, sanctification cleanses the heart, mind, and will of Christians. That is the particular working of sanctification through the indwelling of God's Holy Spirit in believers.
Thus, it's not salvific, but a post-salvational element.
But the general definition of sanctification, is being "set apart for God." And Scriptural history reveals God often sanctified persons for His purposes, without regenerating them unto salvation or cleansing them from their sins at all.
You mean like being elect but not elected to salvation?
For example, the entire nation of Israel was "sanctified" unto God as a peculiar people to bear His ordinances and witness as being the One True God. But only a very small remnant of persons were forgiven their sins and gifted with faith to believe in the promises of God. Only these were sanctified by the indwelling presence of God's Spirit, and walked in actual holiness and righteousness.
Bzzzzzt. Only those who believed were saved. Has nothing to do with sanctification.
You stated before that only those who believe were saved, even in Israel's day, and now you're abandoning that. You're being inconsistent.
Sanctification does not always justify. Sanctification does not guarantee justification. Justification always guarantees and produces sanctification, however.
Sanctification never justifies. Never.
Muz
