How exactly did the Remnant become justified by grace?

[footwasher]

How exactly did the Remnant become justified by grace?

[footwasher]

The answer is prolly to be found here:

Gal 3
19Why the Law then? It was added on account of the [aa]violations, having been ordered through angels at the hand of a [ab]mediator, until the Seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 20Now a mediator is not [ac]for one party only; but God is only one. 21Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? [ad]Far from it! For if a law had been given that was able to impart life, then righteousness [ae]would indeed have been [af]based on law. 22But the Scripture has confined [ag]everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

[footwasher]

People say that they were saved by faith in Christ, belief in the Gospel. They heard the Gospel, that Christ was raised from the dead, believed it and they were justified.

However, rather than say that the Gospel was preached to those 7000, we need to understand that these believers were under two covenants, because the Mosaic Covenant could not abrogate the Abrahamic Covenant.


Gal 3
17What I am saying is this: the Law, which came 430 years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.


So when the text says God used Abraham's belief of His promise to justify him, declare him righteous, save him, we use the same sequence of events to explain what happened to the 7000: they were justified by believing what they heard, it was near to them, didn't require God's word, Christ to come down from heaven, to be loyal, faithful, believing, by observing fasting and tithing, without neglecting the weightier requirements of the Law, justice, mercy and love of God, like Elizabeth and Zechariah, Anna and Simeon.

Of course, they couldn't observe it as it needed to be observed, because failing at one results in failing at all, so it caused brokenness, humility at their own inadequacy, which is why they, and the Publican in the temple, were justified, declared righteous.

Luke 18
14I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other one; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”


The short answer: God accepted their belief in His word, that all the requirements of the Law were compulsory, to justify the Remnant and rejected those who neglected them. He did it to preserve Israel as they requested at Sinai. Had God not followed this principle, Israel would have been exposed to the general judgment of God, and perished, like all the other nations inevitably perished, like Sodom and Gomorrah eventually perished.

Even today, a Remnant exists, who believe all of God's word, which is why Israel continues to exist, whilst other even stronger civilizations have disappeared.

[footwasher]

I was tempted to start a new thread, 'What is the differences between the old and the new covenants, relationships between God and His People, lump of clay, both Jew and Gentile?' but it can fit here, and more than that, give coherence through continuity.

What is the difference between those who were saved by grace under the Covenant of Law, like the Remnant, and those saved by grace under the New Covenant?


Under the old covenant, justification depended on how people reacted to moral feelings. Anybody, Jew or Gentile, could be brought into initial justification, covenantal relationship with God, be accepted in His family, the single lump of clay, by responding correctly to moral pricking:

Rom 2
14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.


That was in the past. Now the thing that brings on acceptance by God, apart, different, from responding correctly to moral demands, is responding correctly to the demand of the Gospel, which commands obedience to Jesus, specifically that He has made available the privilege to earn wages that does not rust or perish, eternal gains, and this includes, with no exception, both Jew and Gentile, because their previous responses, though found acceptable for inclusion, failed for final justification, compliance to have God be with us, as noted by Nicodemus in Jesus (they were found unrighteous, not completed, perfected, requiring waiting, because only together with us would they be made perfect!):

Rom 3
21But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness is given through faith in h Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

[tabibito]

[QUOTE=footwasher;n1322862]People say that they were saved by faith in Christ, belief in the Gospel. They heard the Gospel, that Christ was raised from the dead, believed it and they were justified.

However, rather than say that the Gospel was preached to those 7000, we need to understand that these believers were under two covenants, because the Mosaic Covenant could not abrogate the Abrahamic Covenant.

According to Hebrews, not while the testator lived. Once he died the New Covenant could be introduced.

[footwasher]

According to Hebrews, not while the testator lived. Once he died the New Covenant could be introduced.

Heb 9
16 In the case of a will, it is necessary to establish the death of the one who made it, 17because a will does not take effect until the one who made it has died; it cannot be executed while he is still alive.

There's a difference between a covenant and a will.

A covenant is a contract. A will is a legacy.

The thing is God made a contract with Abraham: he and his descendants would become blessings to the world.

Jesus created an inheritance: the Kingdom/Country/Promised Land. He really had to die, so that it could be passed on to the beneficiaries!

Who were also the beneficiaries of the covenant.

You could say the Abrahamic Covenant benefited those who were loyal to God.

Abraham's children are identified by faith, so disloyal Israel were not his children. And the disloyal were those who did not believe Deut 27:

26Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

You can see how the Remnant were justified, through mercy by the covenant of grace, which has a requirement of loyalty, and not by payment for successful completion of works, the requirement of the covenant of law.

They accepted that they were cursed, fell on their knees and asked for mercy:

Lk 18
13But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to raise his eyes toward heaven, but was beating his chest, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’

Whilst the Pharisee, used possession of Law, expressed as performing the minimum required to identify as a Jew, fasting and tithing, to claim Abraham as father.

We must be careful not to miss the nuance, the loyalty of the Remnant/Publican and the disloyalty of the Rest of Israel/Pharisee.

Also not to be missed were the crowd trying to escape wrath. A tower in Siloam fell killing hundreds. Pilate desecrated the Temple by executing Jews in it. These were the temblors that preceded a giant upheaval causing Israel to be scattered. However, the crowd did not know why it was happening. John the Baptist enlightened them: they were being disloyal, not believing Deut 27.26. Faithfulness to observe all the Law was required, not just fasting and tithing, whilst neglecting the weightier requirements of the law, justice, mercy and faithfulness. They needed to change their mindset, meta noia, wrongly translated as repent.

[tabibito]

Heb 9
16 In the case of a will, it is necessary to establish the death of the one who made it, 17because a will does not take effect until the one who made it has died; it cannot be executed while he is still alive.

There's a difference between a covenant and a will.

A covenant is a contract. A will is a legacy.

Unfortunately for your expositor, the Bible wasn't written in English, and the author of Hebrews saw the covenant in terms equivalent to those of a will. According to Paul, the coming of the law (of Moses) did not annul the covenant made 430 years earlier (with Abraham). In that covenant, there was no contract: God swore that certain things would come to be without making any demands on Abraham. There was only a promise.

[footwasher]

Unfortunately for your expositor, the Bible wasn't written in English, and the author of Hebrews saw the covenant in terms equivalent to those of a will. According to Paul, the coming of the law (of Moses) did not annul the covenant made 430 years earlier (with Abraham). In that covenant, there was no contract: God swore that certain things would come to be without making any demands on Abraham. There was only a promise.

A will is a type of covenant, yes, but it comes into existence based on an existing covenant.

First God the Father made Abraham a friend, because He found him agreeable. So a relationship was created in this covenant.

Then God the Son created an inheritance and then made a will, instructing the living how it would be passed on to God's friends. In other words, wills creation follow relationship creation.

So the covenant that could not be superseded is the one that created the friendship relationship.

It can not be superseded because God chose to interpret who were the children of Abraham: they were not blood related but identified as those who believed His instructions, His Torah, and His instructions was that all the Torah were mandatory, not just fasting and tithing.

In other words Israel used possession of Torah, and only Jews had the Law, to insist that they were children of Abraham.

God used loyalty (a condition of the Covenant of grace established with Abraham and his children) in finding acceptable those who believed in the requirement to be compliant with all the mandates of Covenant of Law to identify the children of Abraham.

This is what is meant by the Sinaitic Covenant not superseding the Abrahamic Covenant: possessing the Law did not replace loyalty.

It's a matter of interpretation, and what was being interpreted was the Abrahamic Covenant.