GRACE THROUGH THE AGES
HANDOUT UNIT #1
By: Bradley Anderson
CLASS DESCRIPTION
In Grace Through the Ages, Bradley Anderson, will take us on a journey through the covenants of the Bible. On our first stop we will look at the scriptures which point to an eternal purpose of redemption, between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit from before the foundation of the world. From there our path will follow redemption as it unfolds in the covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and David, culminating in the New Covenant of Christ.
UNITS
Introduction
Redemption
Adam
Noah
Abraham
Moses
David
The New Covenant of Christ (under construction)
CLASS FORMAT
Prayer.
Review previous lessons.
Interactive lecture.
In this class we will be engaged in what is called biblical theology. Biblical theology is understood best by comparing it with other methods of bible study.
Application
The technical name for this method is Exemplary Exegesis.
Characters and stories of the bible are studied for their exemplary qualities and lessons.
Life principles are drawn from bible teaching [didactic] and bible stories [narrative].
In the story of David and Goliath, David might exemplify victory over the giants in our life.
This is the most common method of bible study.
This method has high pastoral value for sermons.
Topical
The technical name for this method is Systematic Theology.
Doctrine is developed from this method, drawing from verses in the bible that speak directly to the doctrines. It synchronizes historical revelation in summary fashion.
Important for denominational distinction and statements of faith.
Categories of Systematic Theology include:
Theology Proper - God
Christology - Christ
Pneumatology - Holy Spirit
Angelology - Angels
Anthropology - Man
Hamartiology - Sin
Soteriology - Salvation
Biblical Theology - Doctrine of the word of God
Ecclesiology - Church
Eschatology - Last things
There is general consensus between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics in the first four categories of Systematic Theology.
There is broad consensus among Evangelicals in the first eight categories and less in the final two categories.
Historical (our focus)
The technical name for this is Biblical Theology.
It attempts to understand and construct the flow and chronology of God’s unfolding plan and purpose of redemption through history. It is diachronic: it views redemption through time.
It answers the question of how people are saved in every age of history.
There is a joke about a lost tourist in Ireland asking a farmer for directions to Dublin. The farmer replied: ‘Well, if I were you lad, I wouldn’t try to get there from here.’ Biblical Theology can be helpful to those who feel lost in the Old Testament; it sees a clear path of redemption back to the beginning and forward to the end of the bible; from wherever you are in your reading of scripture, you are on one trail of redemption.
My goal in this class is to take us on a journey that follows the scent of the one trail of redemption.
COVENANT DEFINITION
Mike Horton, Westminster Seminary CA (1964 - ) A covenant is a relationship of oaths and bonds that involves mutual though not necessarily equal commitments.
Oaths are a solemn promise, often invoking a divine witness, regarding one's future action or behavior.
Bonds are agreements with legal force.
Covenants are relational.
They give structure to existing relationships. (Genesis 12:1-3, Genesis 15)
They provide for our great need of surety and confirmation. (Hebrews 6:13-18)
Covenants involve parties. In scripture there are examples of men entering into parity covenants, e.g. Abraham and Abimelech (Genesis 21:22-34), King Solomon and King Hiram (I Kings 5) and Jacob and Laban (Genesis 32:43-54), but when God enters into covenant He is always the greater party and the initiating party of the covenant.
In the God-man relationship, man has to relate to God with love and fear. We will see that the covenants are structured to make love and fear complimentary.
Deuteronomy 10:16–11:1
[16] Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart,
Circumcision is a legal ceremonial act that symbolizes true heart devotion.
and be no longer stubborn. [17] For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. [18] He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing.
God is to be greatly feared. But this is not inconsistent with love or our experience as people who are capable of love.
[19] Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. [20] You shall fear the LORD your God. You shall serve him and hold fast to him, and by his name you shall swear. [21] He is your praise. He is your God, who has done for you these great and terrifying things that your eyes have seen. [22] Your fathers went down to Egypt seventy persons, and now the LORD your God has made you as numerous as the stars of heaven. 11:[1] “You shall therefore love the LORD your God and keep his charge, his statutes, his rules, and his commandments always.
Covenants are contractual and consequential.
King Saul’s violation of the Gibeonite covenant in (Joshua 9:16-20) will bear severe consequences in Israel’s later history (II Samuel 21:1).
The covenant cutting ceremony in Jeremiah 34:8-11 is like the ceremony in Genesis 15; the consequence of breaking the covenant is recorded in Jeremiah 34:15-20.
The divine covenants between God and man are intergenerational. The divine covenants include the descendants of those who are party to the covenant and some covenants speak additionally of those who are far off.
Technically the promises in the OT covenants could not come true if they did not transfer to the next generation.
It makes sense, does it not, that God would enter into redemptive relationships of promise that transcend the generations, thereby impacting the maximum number of people?
There is a strong familial component to the covenants. Even today surveys show that 90% of believers have believing parents and these surveys are consistent globally!
Moses’s writings were not confined to the assembly of his own time. Moses consciously wrote to the succeeding generations, so that they too could be given the covenant commands for their good always.
Deuteronomy 6:20–25 [20] “When your son asks you in time to come, ‘What is the meaning of the testimonies and the statutes and the rules that the LORD our God has commanded you?’ [21] then you shall say to your son, ‘We were Pharaoh’s slaves in Egypt. And the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. [22] And the LORD showed signs and wonders, great and grievous, against Egypt and against Pharaoh and all his household, before our eyes. [23] And he brought us out from there, that he might bring us in and give us the land that he swore to give to our fathers. [24] And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as we are this day. [25] And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us.’
The divine covenants also entail blessing to other people groups outside the blessing promises to the families of the parties in the covenant.
Noah was righteous and blameless in his generation, so God saved:
Noah
and his family,
to preserve a righteous remnant from which to redeem people out of all people groups.
There is a three part formula in the Abrahamic promise of blessing, first to Abraham, second to Abraham’s children, and third to all the families of the earth. (Genesis 12:2–3)
[2] And I will make of you a great nation,
and I will bless you and make your name great, [greatness entails progeny]
so that you will be a blessing. [3] I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
In the covenant renewal ceremony on Moab, Moses says:
Deuteronomy 29:10–15 [10] “You are standing today, all of you, before the LORD your God: the heads of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, all the men of Israel,
[11] your little ones, your wives,
and the sojourner who is in your camp, from the one who chops your wood to the one who draws your water, [12] so that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the LORD your God, which the LORD your God is making with you today, [13] that he may establish you today as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. [14] It is not with you alone that I am making this sworn covenant, [15] but with whoever is standing here with us today before the LORD our God, and with whoever is not here with us today.
Peter’s Pentecost sermon in Acts 2:39 follows the three part formula:
For the promise is for you
and for your children
and for all who are far off [the Gentiles], everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
The biblical covenants are similar to ancient near east treaties. This has factored significantly into 19th and 20th century covenant studies.
To clarify:
The areas of similarity between the bible covenants and the ancient near east treaties and grants, that we will now explore, do not require us to see the covenants as imitating ancient near east culture, rather we may see the covenants as communicating God’s work of redemption in contractual and ritualistic forms which everyone had some common understanding of. (Genesis 15:7-12)
It is also possible to view cultural forms as a reflection of concepts that are embedded in the very nature of things that God has created. In ancient near east culture, law treaties were kept in the respective temples of the nations which were in treaty with one another. In modern times we keep land plats and legally binding documents in courthouses under the supervision of clerks. The word for clerk is from the same Greek word that gives us the word clergy. In the middle ages the clergy were often entrusted with the keeping of legally binding documents of local import. All of this is to simply point out that human traditions are of a universal pattern that cannot be explained entirely by evolution; human traditions and patterns also have their origins in the way things were created for organization.
The rule of interpretation is that scripture interprets scripture, not culture interprets scripture. Nevertheless, an understanding of the cultural context of scripture can be very helpful in our interpretive work.
The bible covenants differ from the ancient near east treaties in significant ways. Ligon Duncan highlights at least three contrasts:
No ancient near east treaty involves the god of a people group entering into a covenant with the people.
No ancient near east treaty holds the parties of the covenant accountable for internal attitudes in their heart, e.g. thou shalt not covet.
Ancient near east treaties may begin with historical prologues, but “no ancient near east treaty is recorded inside a historical narrative.”
1878, German source-critic-scholar Julius Wellhausen, and others developed the Documentary Hypothesis, JEDP:
J stands for a Yahwist (LORD) source of authorship 7th century BC.
E stands for an Elohist (God) source 9th century BC.
E was combined by an editor with J into JE.
D early Deuteronomistic (theocracy) 7th-6th century BC.
P stands for a Priestly source (Leviticus) 6th-5th century BC.
P combined itself with JE and D
1931, Victor Korošec (U of Ljubljana, Slovenia)
Cuneiform scholar.
Worked out the translation of ancient Hittite treaties.
1955, George Mendenhall (U of M) ancient near east studies found support for the historical Moses in Korosec, which challenged the Documentary Hypothesis; the covenants in the Pentateuch are:
more like the Hittite treaties (1600 - 1200), written around the time of the historical Moses (1445–1405 BC).
less like the Neo-Assyrian (900 - 600) treaties, written around the times purported of JEDP.
Mendenhall along with other scholars categorized the biblical covenants into two types:
Royal Grant Covenant (see table 1, page 9)
Also called a Promise Covenant.
Sworn by the greater to the lesser.
The obligation is on the master who gifts the benefits of land and house to the servant and secures those promises by an oath.
Included in the house is offspring.
Land and offspring are at the heart of the Patriarchal covenants.
Features of the Royal Grant Covenant model are seen in Noah, Abraham and David.
In Noah God promises never to flood the earth again. (Genesis 9:11)
In Abraham God takes the self maledictory oath on himself to fulfill His promises to Abraham. (Genesis 15)
To David God promises to install and protect a dynasty of successor kings upon David’s throne. (2 Samuel 7:12)
All the covenants have a curse component. But the curse component in the Royal Grant Covenant is meant to protect the servant from those who would harm the servant.
In Noah the curse is on animals or people who would take the life of a person. The administration of the curse is assigned to the institution of human government as proportionate judgement. This is a key change from Adam, wherein we will see that murderous Cain was protected by God from retributive justice. Now under Noah the curse component is delegated to all men for the protection of all humanity, thus instituting human government and law enforcement. (Genesis 9:5-6, Romans 13:1-7)
In Abraham the curse is on those who would curse Abraham. (Genesis 12:3, 15:14)
With David God promises that Israel will not be oppressed. (2 Samuel 7) God has and will continue to fight for David in his battles, to protect Israel from her oppressors. Now God Promises to also protect David’s throne after David dies. It may be noted that David’s sons will be struck by the blows of men if they are disobedient to God’s law [Moses], but this is not a curse, rather it is understood as the discipline of a loving Father. (2 Samuel 7:14) In the Psalms we see that the relationship between the King and Yaweh was a special father and son relationship. (Psalm 2, 89)
Loyalty is very important in the Royal Grant Covenant. This might sound like legalism or like good works salvation, but let us consider:
It is understood by all parties that the grant is given as a reward to the servant that has been loyal.
God takes the initiative; He is not obligated to give gifts to the servant, but at the same time the promise covenants are plainly given to those who have shown faithfulness to God:
Noah walked with God. (Genesis 6:9)
God had called Abraham to leave his house and go to the land God would show him. Abraham was faithful to the call. Abraham further demonstrated his faithfulness in his willingness to sacrifice Isaac. (Genesis 22:16-17)
In I Kings 3:6 Solomon says of David: “You have shown great and steadfast love to your servant David my father, because he walked before you in faithfulness, in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart toward you. And you have kept for him this great and steadfast love and have given him a son to sit on his throne this day.”
In the Royal Grant Covenant the emphasis is more on the unconditional side than it is on the conditional side, but as we have seen, the loyalty of the servant to the master is important.
The realization of the covenant is not dependent on the servants actions. (Hebrews 6:13-20)
This is especially evident in the history of Israel where most of the heirs of David are unfaithful kings. While they do not enjoy the fullest blessings of God and also experience God’s chastening, God does not abandon the covenant promise. (2 Samuel 7:14-15)
In Abraham we will see examples of Abraham’s failure to trust God wholeheartedly, but God will keep His promise to Abraham. It must be noted here that there is an example of an ancient near east suzerainty lord, Abban, making a self maledictory oath to a vassal, Iarimlim in a treaty which stipulates that the territorial gift is forfeit if Iarimlim is disloyal to Abban.
Suzerainty Treaty Covenant (see table 1, page 9)
Also called Law covenant.
Sworn by the lesser to the greater.
From conquered vassal nation king to victor suzerain nation king.
The obligation is on the vassal servant to keep the terms of the covenant.
The giving of the law by Moses at Sinai and again at Moab are examples of the Suzerainty Treaty Covenant.
In Exodus 24:3 the people swear the oath of the covenant at Sinai.
Benefits are in the forms of blessings and protection that you receive for obeying the terms of the covenant. These are part of what we might call carrot and stick sanctions.
The curse in the Suzerainty Treaty Covenant is against the vassal who disobeys.
Loyalty is induced by the benefits and the curses.
Scholars have identified the following structure and elements in the Suzerainty Treaty Covenant:
Preamble identifies who is in the covenant. The Bible identifies God as the suzerain over Israel as his vassal. “I am the Lord your God….”
Prologue gives the background of how the suzerain Lord and vassal came together. “…..who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.” The first 19 chapters of Exodus can be seen as Prologue to the Covenant given by Moses at Sinai.
Stipulations are the actual rules of the treaty. In any ancient treaty these are the bulk of the material.
Sanctions are the carrot & stick of the treaty; in Moses these are called the blessings and curses.
Witnesses - God is the witness, the people are the witnesses, in Deuteronomy Heaven and earth are called as witnesses.
Documentation. The two tablets, kept in the tabernacle. Suzerainty Law treaties were kept in temples. In Israel, the duplicate copies, God’s and the people’s, are kept in the ark of the covenant.
There is more conditionality in the Suzerainty Treaty Covenant.
This explains why Israel ultimately lost the land.
The prophets brought covenant lawsuit sentences against Israel and Israel’s kings, direct from the sanctions of the Mosaic covenant of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. A proper understanding of prophecy requires an understanding of Moses; often the prophets are making different terminological choices than Moses and we are not able to detect a direct law citation in the prophets without careful analysis.
Israel, as God’s vassal servant, was not able to keep the terms of the covenant. A new servant would need to arise to keep the terms of the covenant and this was pointing to Christ, the son of David.
Caution must be taken in attaching too much significance to the conditionality of the covenants. Conditionality under-emphasizes God’s grace and oversimplifies the complexities in how God and man interact and relate covenantally.
Every covenant has an as for me, as for you mutuality.
The as for you obligations in all of the covenants might be understood as God’s guidelines for the maximum enjoyment of the covenant blessings.
I will be laboring to demonstrate that the blessings in the covenants cannot be enjoyed to the fullest extent that may be experienced apart from obligations and commands in the covenants. We see this critical aspect of covenant in God’s seminal relationship to the first man Adam.
Adam is created in blessing and he enjoys unmediated communion fellowship with the Creator God.
The prohibition to not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil may be understood as the means of Adam’s enjoyment of God; in keeping that command Adam enjoys the fullest measure of his blessing. In disobeying that commandment Adam experienced something very much like law treaty sanctions: his blessings were not entirely lost, rather they became a source of difficulty for Adam, e.g. weeds in dominion labor, pain in childbirth.
The commands in the covenants and the blessings of the covenants are a package deal.
The covenants help us to see that law and beatitude are complementary.
In all the covenants, blessing from God precedes the as for you stipulations. There is no such thing as a divine quid pro quo covenant in which God says if you obey me and love me, then I will bless you. All the covenants begin with people who are already in God’s blessing. Even the law covenant with Moses began with God having first delivered the Jews out of their bondage in Egypt.
It is commonly mistaken that there is no grace in Moses. But grace is not altogether missing in the Mosaic covenant. If the Suzerainty Treaty Covenant between God and Israel were a prenuptial agreement it would read something like this:
If you cheat on me I will still love you.
If you cheat on me I will make a way for you to be reconciled to me, through the priests, in atonement.
If a pattern of cheating on me continues for multiple generations, there will be a separation (exile). But even in separation I will intervene in world history to make a way for our reconciliation (restoration).
The law had gracious atonement for Israel’s failure and reconciliation built into it.
Table of Divine Covenant Types.
THE CONTINUITY PROBLEM OF ABRAHAM AND MOSES
In Galatians chapter 3, Paul teaches that the law covenant of Moses did not annul the previous promise covenant in Abraham.
Meredith Kline states: “Somehow the law was administratively compatible with the promise. But even when this compatibility has been affirmed the difference between the two is not denied but rather assumed. The Sinaitic law covenant was consistent with the earlier promise but as a covenant it did not consist in promise”
Meredith Kline also notes that “conflict between covenants is in the last analysis simply the fundamental theological paradox of divine sovereignty and human responsibility which confronts us in all the divine-human relationships.”
The harmonization of law in Moses with promise in Abraham is not as problematic as it may appear on the surface, given that both administrations, law and promise, had prehistoric precedent in Eden, between God and the first man Adam.
When we study the relationship between God and Adam we will see all the ingredients of law and promise.
In Eden Adam began with the commandment not to eat from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:16).
After Adam failed to obey God on this one point, God promised redemption (Genesis 3:15).
If the law of Moses had been the first appearance of law in history, then we might be presented with the difficulty of explaining why God would give a promise covenant, first to Abraham and his progeny, only to abruptly annul the promise covenant in a subsequent law covenant, through Moses. We would have to explain why God would work this way in redemption history, through two very different covenant models, with one family? One might observe that the first covenant was an unconditional promissory gift, while the next covenant was given with rigid and onerous laws that threaten to take away the gift.
If however, the law covenant of Moses was not the first administration of law in redemptive history, and if the promise covenant to Abraham was not the first administration of promise, then what these two very different covenants represent are expansions and extensions of previous law and promise covenants respectively. Abraham and Moses may be seen as compatible because they are each in their own way functioning as advancement of prior covenantal administrations of law and promise.
In Eden law was first given and then grace was given in response to failure to keep the law in the fall. The logical priority would have law prior to grace. Grace is in this sense responsive to the failure to keep law.
From Eden, then, grace will overarch the rest of redemption history, while the terms for obedience, in law, will need to be upheld for the redeemer to one day fulfill, in promise.
From Eden, law was first given and promise followed. From Eden, these two administrations run as parallel covenants which underwrite all of redemption history. (see fig 2, page 14) The promise to Abraham is an advancement then of the gracious promise that began all the way back in Eden. And the law of Moses is an advancement of the law command that also began with Adam all the way back in Eden.
Meredith Kline explains it this way: Was the covenant of law established by God at the beginning (Gen. 1 and 2) made of none effect by the subsequent introduction of the promise (Gen. 3:15)? Was the promise against the law of God? None should hesitate to answer this question, as Paul did his, with a "God forbid". For if there were an annulling of the Edenic law covenant after it had been established by God and later broken by man, then the justice of God would be mutable and his threats vain. God remains just when he justifies the ungodly through his administrations of promise. Herein is the depth of his redemptive wisdom revealed that in the very process of securing for his chosen the covenant's blessing of life, God honors his original covenant of law in its abiding demand for obedience as the condition of life and with its curse of death for the covenant breakers. It is in Christ that the principles of law and promise cooperate unto the salvation of God's people.
Ordinary suzerains of antiquity were not able to implement their administrative purposes by sovereign exercises of election, propitiation, and irresistible grace such as would result in the reconciliation and the subsequent perseverance in loyalty of their offending subjects. Consequently, they were unable in their covenants to guarantee to the vassals the perpetuity of those benefits which were contingent on a continuing display of loyalty. But because the Lord of Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Paul is the God of sovereign election and grace, the God who gives Christ as a covenant to his people, he is able to guarantee an everlasting realization of the beatitude [blessings] of this covenant to his covenant-breaking vassals even while he reaffirms that the fulfillment of the holy demands of his law is the prerequisite of the promised blessings.”
The Apostle Paul explains it forcefully:
Galatians 3:17–24
[17] This is what I mean: the law [Moses], which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God [Abraham], so as to make the promise void.
[18] For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. [19] Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring [Christ] should come to whom the promise had been made, [the law was in this sense provisionary, until Christ came]
[21] Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. [the law did not purport to give life or salvation in it’s keeping] [22] But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin [the law was in this sense prosecutorial of sin; it brought greater clarity to the Edenic law], so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. [23] Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. [24] So then, the law was our guardian [paidagōgos - the law was in this sense pedagogical, as an aid in holiness] until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith [not by the law, but by belief in the promise of the law’s fulfillment in Christ, first promised in Genesis 3:15].
TRANSLATION OF THE WORD COVENANT
Hebrew.
Berith used 282 times.
Between two or more men, Genesis 31:44-50.
Between God and the men who acted as representatives. Adam, Noah, Abraham, David and Christ.
Between God and nations. Moses, the law. Exodus 19:1-8.
Verb pairings to berith are critical to understanding the covenants.
Karat ( kaw-rath') berith is to cut a covenant; used to start or inaugurate a covenant; to solemnize a covenant. Used in Genesis 15 with Abraham, with Moses (Ex 24:8) and David (Psalms).
Quwm (koom) berith is to make a covenant stand; setting it back up; used for covenant renewal. Significantly used in Genesis 6:18 with Noah suggesting that a covenant is already in place when we first encounter the word covenant in scripture.
Nathan (nawthan) berith is the third verb attached to berith; used to give a covenant. Not establishing a covenant for the first time (karath) nor reestablishing a previous covenant (koom) but presenting (nathan) the same covenant. Noah (Genesis 9:12).
zakar (za-c-haire) berith - I will “remember” my covenant, chapter 9:15,16. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Greek Septuagint (250 BC), New Testament (35-95 AD).
Diatheke
The disposition of the testator to the heir.
May be used in “last will and testament”.
Suntheke was the next most relevant term, but it was not used.
Mutual contract. Like the ancient parity treaties.
Equal parties.
The Septuagint translators settled on the word diatheke rather than suntheke because diatheke is richer in conveying the greater to the lesser aspect of the divine covenants.
Latin - uses three words in the place of one word in Hebrew Scriptures and one word in the Greek OT translation and NT.
The Vulgate was translated by Jerome (382 to 405).
Foedus from which we get federal.
Pactum from which we get the word pact.
Testamentum from which we get testament. This is where we arrived at the term testament.
Adam - pactum. Hosea 6:7 “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.”
Noah, Abraham, Moses, David - foedus.
Christ - testamentum.
In Jeremiah 31, which points forward to the New Covenant, Jerome uses foedus. But, in Hebrews 8:6 which quotes directly from Jeremiah 31, Jerome used the word testamentum. It would seem that Jerome followed a simple rule:
Jerome favors foedus and pactum in Genesis - Malachi.
Jerome favors testamentum in the Matthew - Revelation.
English
The early english bible translations favor “testament” over “covenant.”
Technically a covenant is different from a testament, in that the testator in a testament must die to bequeath his gift to the heir,
whereas a Noble Lord does not have to die to give land and house to his loyal servant, nor does the Suzerain Lord have to die to give a gift to his vassal.
Newer english translations favor “covenant” over “testament.”
SUBDIVISION OF PREHISTORIC, GENERAL-HISTORICAL AND SPECIAL-HISTORICAL COVENANTS
The general historical covenants (fig 2) are for all people.
These covenants include the creation ordinances in Adam together with the preservation covenant of Noah. These are common covenants which continue to this day.
A proper understanding of the covenant with Noah, as still fully active today, would be helpful in defining the very confused and divisive issue concerning the role of Christians in society.
The role of the Chrisitian in society is not exclusively missional. Along with our missional responsibilities, which are certainly primary, Christians are also under the same obligation that unbelievers are under, in Noah, to preserve the safety of life from violence. This may not draw the church into the sphere of social justice, but it certainly draws the Christian believer in the sphere of social justice.
The general character of Noah as a common covenant, requires that Christians also collaborate with common unbelievers, thereby prohibiting withdrawal or cloistering from society at large. Christians have an equal stake in the affairs of the world and they must work together with unbelievers to fulfill the covenant with Noah.
Job 29 is perhaps the most important social justice passage in the entire bible and it was stated prior to the special covenant given to Abraham. A general awareness of, and attention to, social justice, is demonstrated by Job prior to Abraham. Job lived in the days between Noah and Abraham and he is the exemplar of what it looks like when a man of God is keeping the Noahic covenant. Job’s example is as relevant today as it was in his period of history.
Jewish tradition says that the followers of Noahidism are assured of a place in the world to come, which the Jews refer to as Olam Haba, signifying that the Jews understand the teachings in Genesis as being for all people. [To clarify, Christians do not believe in Olam Haba.]
The general historical covenants place men under law for all of history. In Genesis 26:1-5 we read that Abraham was observant of these laws. In Exodus 16:22-30 we see that the Sabbath Laws were enforced on Israel, prior to the arrival at Sinai for the giving of the law. The law at Sinai is not the first appearance of law in redemption history, but an extension and expansion of law.
“According to Jewish theology, there are laws that Jews must obey, the 613 mitzvot, and then there are seven laws for children of Noah—everyone else in the world. They are:
Do not deny God
do not blaspheme
do not murder
do not engage in incest, adultery, pederasty, or bestiality
do not steal
do not eat of a live animal
establish courts of law for proportionate justice.
In the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, James includes the dietary laws of Noah in the letter that is drafted for the Gentiles, suggesting that the first century Jews were aware of the universal quality of Noah.
Acts 15:19–20 [19] Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, [20] but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
The special historical covenants are for the redemption of the elect or chosen people of God, but all people could and may be blessed, residually by the blessings that God has given to His chosen people. (Mark 7:24-30) The question of continuation of the special covenants is very difficult to answer. I will be teaching that the special covenants with Abraham and David continue even today, but that many of the elements in the special covenant given through Moses are not continued into the age of the New Covenant of Christ. (see fig 2, age 15)
Fig 2
Prehistoric Eden: Law------------------------------------------------Genesis 1-2-------------------------------
Promise-------------------------------------Genesis 3:15-------------------------------
Historical General: Adam-----------------------------human condition / environment----------------------
Noah------------------------------------------civil----------------------------------
Historical Special: Abraham-------------------blessing / promise------------------------
Moses-------------ceremonial--------|
------------------civil-------------|
------------------moral--------------------------------
David----------------------blessing-------------------
Christ-----new---------
COVENANT SIGNS
God gave signs of His covenant promises for the confirmation, certainty and assurety of those to whom He made His promises.
The signs are not the means of attaining the covenant. Being chosen by God is the means of obtaining the promises in the covenants. The signs function as tangible sacraments for strengthening our faith in the covenants and confirming our commitment to the covenants.
In Noah God gave the sign of the Rainbow.
In Abraham God gave the sign of circumcision as a symbol for cutting away sin and doubt, for confirming Abraham’s commitment toward living like the covenant is real.
In Moses God commended Sabbath keeping as the sign for confirming one’s faith in His promise to sanctify Israel. (Exodus 31:13, Ezekiel 20:12)
To David God gave two signs:
the anointing oil poured over David's head by Samuel
and victory in battle over all Israel’s enemies. (1 Samuel 10:1)
In The New Covenant God gave the signs:
of baptism which is in apposition with circumcision, (Colossians 2:9-12)
and communion which is in apposition with the blood of the old covenant sprinkled on Israel at Sinai. (Exodus 24:8, Matthew 26:27)
No comments:
Post a Comment