John 8: I AM and I AM

Remember how I told you to begin looking out for “I AM” statements? Well, 2 of these “I AM” statements will appear in John 8 alone. So let’s check them out.

But before we get to the “I AM” statements we have to discuss John 7:53 to 8:11 (although it has nothing to do with the I AM statements) because most of you probably won’t let this topic go. The last verse of John 7 and the first 11 verses of John 8 do not appear in any of the earliest manuscripts of John. The earliest manuscripts found with this story are not the most reliable manuscripts either. These manuscripts will put this story in the middle of John, at the end of John, in the middle of Luke, or at the end of Luke. None of the earliest church fathers (100s-300s AD) mention it, but that is an argument from the silence. The earliest mention of the story is in 450 AD. It was most likely part of the oral tradition (the story was passed down by word of mouth) and later on thrown in there by copyists. Isn’t it quite obvious, though? There is no smooth transition in and out of this story. As a matter of fact, some people say the transition is smoother without this story in it. The writing style, both the vocabulary and grammar, does not fit the rest of the book. For example, this is the only time the term “teachers of the Law” (“scribes” in more literal translations) is used in the whole book (yes, quizzers, “teachers of the Law” is key for the year). Another example is that this is the only time Jesus is called “Teacher” (Greek word didaskale), whereas the rest of the book calls him “Rabbi.”

So the passage is not written by John, but is it still Scripture? Is it still inspired, infalliable, inerrant, authoritative revelation breathed by God, which makes it Scripture? I would say yes. Why? As John will later tell us in John 21:25, Jesus did many other things that are not in the 4 Gospels, so much that there is not enough books in the world to write it all down. To put in my words, it would be easier putting the internet in a book than it would be to put every word and deed of Jesus in a book. But the biggest and greatest proof is that whether or not the passage belongs in the Bible is if it agrees or disagrees with the overall theology of the Bible. We know what books are psedupigraphal (fake Bible books) because their theology does not agree with biblical theology at all. John 7:53-8:11 certainly does not promote any theology that is against the Bible. The words and actions of Jesus are line with the character of Jesus. Same could be said for the Pharisees. In fact, going back to Jesus, the reader can find in John 8 alone preaching from Jesus that would defend his words and actions in John 8:1-11. For example, in John 8:15, Jesus says He passes judgment on no one. I conclude that this story is a true account of Jesus and does belong in the Bible. Even if John didn’t write it, we can say for certain God authored it. So let’s take a look at it.

The action of the story begins when the Pharisees and teachers of the law bring Jesus a woman caught in adultery. Adultery, in the most general sense, is a sexual sin. I define it in the most general sense because John uses the word “adultery” in most general sense in John 8. It could be premarital sex (having sex with someone before marriage), extramarital sex (having sex while married with someone who is not your spouse), homosexuality (having sex with someone of the same sex), incest (having sex with a family member or relative), bestiality (having sex with an animal), prostitution (having sex as a business, and being paid for it), or even rape (having sex with someone against their will). All these are strictly forbidden by the Law (see Leviticus 18 & 20) as adultery. While John isn’t specific on the adultery, one thing he is specific on is the Pharisees’ and teachers of the law’s wording. The Pharisees and teachers of the Law say that the woman was “caught in the act.” Isn’t that disturbing? Imagine the Pharisees and teachers of the law going around, going house to house, and checking to see if all couples having sex have a marriage license. Once they caught someone, they dragged that person out to a trial.

Using this adulterous woman as a visual aid, the Pharisees and teachers of the Law ask Jesus what her fate should be. Should the woman be stoned, as the Law says, or not? As John 8:6 reveals, this question is merely meant to trap Jesus. It seems like a simple “yes” or “no question, but there is no right answer. If Jesus says “no,” He is breaking the Jewish Law, for indeed, the Law of Moses did say adulterers need to be stoned to death (see Lev. 20:10 and Deut. 22:22-24). If Jesus said “yes,” He is breaking the Roman Law, for the Romans would allow occupied people groups to carry out their own trials, but would forbid occupied people to carry out executions; they had to go to the Romans for permission. The Pharisees and teachers of the law set Jesus up to make him look like a bad teacher or even make him look like a sinner. Yet the Pharisees and teachers of the Law aren’t as pure as they think they are. They had made mistakes themselves. First, the Law of Moses (once again, both the Lev. 20:10 and Deut. 22:22-24 passages) declare both the man and the woman are to be stoned, not just the woman. The Pharisees and teachers of the law needed to bring forth the man as well. Second, according to the Law, for a proper trial to happen, the trial must be performed by a proper judge. By the 1st century, judges were commonly from the Sanhedrin. Although the Christian reader knows Jesus is the real, true judge because He is God, in the human mind and in human terms, Jesus could not be the judge because He was not in the Sanhedrin. So the fact is the Pharisees and teachers of the law were breaking the Law by setting up this question, thus sinning.

Of course Jesus knows this is a trap so instead of stating an answer, Jesus bends to the ground and draws on the ground. John doesn’t say what he wrote, so many people have guessed what He was writing. The most common one I hear was Jesus was writing down the names of the people there, followed by all the sins they have committed. Some even go a step further and say Jesus was writing down all the names of those who committed adultery themselves, as well as their adulterous acts. Along with the previous thought, some scholars have suggested Jesus was literally acting out Jeremiah 17:13, where the names of those who have fallen away are written in the dust. Perhaps Jesus was writing down the names of the people who did not believe in Him, showing them to be as guilty as the woman was. Some have suggested Jesus was writing down one of the Laws that spoke out against false witnesses or false testimony, such as the 9th commandment or Exodus 23:1,7. Others think that Jesus was following a Roman custom, in which it was a requirement for the conviction to be written out during the trial. There’s even a few crazy guesses. For example, Jesus was merely doodling or Jesus was drawing 2 sets of tablets on the ground to remind the Jews that the Israelites sinned, causing Moses to break the tablets. Whatever it was, it was enough to rattle the people watching, especially the Pharisees and the teachers of the law. It causes the people in the crowd to walk away, in the order of oldest to youngest. Why? Once again, the Bible does not say, and a whole array of reasons could be given. Again, the point is that it the drawing/writing shook the people up so bad, they walked away.

In the middle of the drawing, Jesus interrupts himself to say, “If one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Simply put, I see Jesus throwing the question back at the accusers. This is why the most popular interpretation of the drawing on the ground is the most common. Jesus had exposed that all the people there were sinners. Jesus exposed all the people there deserved to be stoned to death because they were sinners. Paul will state this clearly to Christians in his book which we call Romans. Take a look in Romans 3:23 and 6:23a and put the 2 verses together to make a fine doctrine. “For all have sinned” + “for the wages of sin is death” = We all deserve to die because of our sins. Jesus showed the Pharisees, the teachers of the law, and everyone else watching that they deserved to be on death row as much as they were. On the same note, Jesus is demonstrating that they have as much a right to accuse and condemn the adulterous woman of sin as the adulterous woman has the right to accuse and condemn them. A lot of people would say Jesus is making a bold and powerful statement against the death penalty, and I would agree. No one should be executed for a crime because all deserve to be executed for their sins. But I think there’s a strong message here, a message about judging people and condemning people. No person should judge a person (the person himself/herself, not their acts), nor should a person condemn a person (judge them as guilty beyond hope of redemption). Why? We all have sinned, so we all deserve to be judged and condemned. Yet a sinless Jesus, who had the right to judge and condemn us, forgave us, so we should forgive as well. I hope you can see and understand that, and if you can’t wait until the end of the story in verse 11, and you’ll definitely be able to see it.

The crowd thins out until only Jesus and the adulterous woman is left. Jesus shows her all her accusers have gone away, even asking if there is anyone left to condemn her or stone her. I imagine the woman looking around and giving her simple answer: “No, sir.” Jesus replies that he does not condemn her either, but he sends her away, commanding her, “Go now and leave your life of sin.” Now I hope you understand what I was saying. The last person standing with the adulterous woman was the man who was without sin and could throw the first stone with a clear conscience. Yet He did not. He chose to forgave her. If the sinless man, who could condemn, chose to forgive, shouldn’t the sinners who are trying to walk in His footsteps also do the same?

The best example that really hits home is another example of adulterous women. It is the pregnant teenager and the single mom. The Church still struggles with this question every day. They set themselves up with the same question that the Pharisees and teachers of the law tried to set Jesus up with: Do we condemn the sin, and thus possibly condemn the sinner with the sin? Or do we instead ignore the sin, but instead support and help? Christians, whether it be in the church, Christian schools/colleges, Christian ministries, or any other Christian organizations, get stuck in a rut trying to answer this question. If Christians cast out the mother, they might appear as mean, rude and heartless to someone in need, and legalistic as well. But if Christians help the mother, they might look like they are ok with the unwed pregnancy, which in turn would make them look like hypocrites. What should Christians do? I don’t think there’s an easy answer, but John 8:1-11 does shed some light on it that would help. Condemnation of the sinner is a definite no-no. The pregnant teenager or single mother is not to be treated like a hopeless sinner, and neither is her child. Neither the mother nor the child are to be treated like lesser humans. Instead of condemnation, forgiveness needs to be given. Even if the mother does not ask for forgiveness, it still needs to be given. It can be given in support and care. What does need to be done is confession and repentance of sins. Jesus did not dismiss the woman’s sin as if it was nothing. He told her to leave her life of sin. This does not need to be some kind of public spectacle for everyone to watch. It just needs to be taken care of with the woman who committed the adultery. There needs to be an evident change in the woman’s lifestyle. This can be a little more conditional. If she still continues a life of adultery and gets pregnant again, then maybe that support and care should be withdrawn. But not to the point where there is no hope of redemption and reconciliation. Christians must struggle daily to find a way to love the sinner and still hate the sin. God does not tolerate sin, and neither should Christians. But God does love and forgive the sinners, and Christians should do likewise.

Alright, that’s the end of the questionable story and the end of the questionable “hot button” topic. Let’s get to the rest of the chapter and look at what we know is true Scripture, and look at what the topic of this chapter is. Indeed, there are 2 “I AM” statements in John 8. Lo and behold, one of those statements are in John 8:12, once the reader gets past the first 11 verses of the last story. It’s interesting to think that if that story really wasn’t in John, John 8:1 would be have the been the “I AM” statement. An “I AM” statement would be definitely the right way to start off this chapter. So let’s look at it

John 8:12-
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

Some people will say that talking about Jesus as the light of the world is a smooth transition from the adulterous woman story because the adulterous woman story is showing how Jesus is the light of the world. I’m not sure if I see this, so I’m going to skip that. Actually, for John chapter 8, I am not going to spend a lot of time talking about Jesus as the light of the world because I actually believe John 9 will be better for it. But I will cover what the verse says about itself.

This isn’t the first time Jesus is called light in John. As early as John 1:4-9, John called Jesus The True Light. In John 1:4-9, John proclaimed The True Light gives light and life, the True Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness does not understand The True Light. In the greater scheme of the Bible, light is constantly used as a metaphor for God, most specifically in reference to His holiness. On the opposite end, the sinful and evil world is described as being in darkness. After all, darkness is the opposite of light, and the opposite of holy God is a sinful and evil mankind. A specific Old Testament example would be Isaiah 9:2, where Isaiah describes the sinners heading for death as “people in darkness” and those with God are ones with light. Jesus brings this idea into the New Testament. The “people in darkness” are those without Jesus, who are also sinners heading for death. Those who believe in Jesus are the ones with light. They will have life, as Isaiah 9:2 and John 1:4-9 tell us. If any Jew knew Isaiah by memory, it’s quite possible Isaiah 9:2 came to mind when Jesus said John 8:12. Also many Jews called God “the giver of light,” going back to Genesis 1:3. For Jesus to proclaim Himself as the source of life, He was calling himself God. Other specific examples of Old Testament metaphors of light would be Psalm 27:1 and Isaiah 58:8. In both verses, light symbolizes God bringing salvation. When Jesus called Himself “the light of the world,” he was calling Himself the source of God’s salvation. (I also want to note many people have tried to connect Jesus as the “light of the world” using typology of things in Old Testament, such as the candelabra in tabernacle/temple, the pillar of fire and the Feast of Lights, but these tend to be allegorical views that ignore the practicality and the original context.)

Now I will admit, this verse does seem to be a little out of context. From verse 13 to verse 30, there’s not going to much talk about light or how Jesus is the light of the world. It’s more going to talk about the testimony Jesus has. Now it’s not Christ’s fault that this happens. The Pharisees take Him off track my challenging His testimony. Jesus does not ignore these challenges, but confronts them. I’m not going to talk about this too much because we’ve already covered it in John 1 and John 5, but I will skim over it and hit new parts.

The Pharisees challenge the testimony of Jesus because their interpretation of Deuteronomy 17:6 said that a self-testimony or a testimony of one person was not good enough. Some scholars believe the Pharisees are trying to throw back Christ’s words at Him (see John 5:31) Once again, Jesus is forced to defend himself. First, Jesus calls the Pharisees out for their judgment of Him. Jesus legitimately uses the fallacy so many 21st century teenagers commit in the right context: “You don’t know me, so don’t judge me.” Second, Jesus claims that He does have someone to second His motion: the Father. Once again, we see a clear image of trinity, and once again, it’s in the light of judgment. It’s as simple as this: the judgments of Jesus are the same judgments God the Father would make. Thus, the Father testifies for the Son, and the Son testifies for the Father. Jesus demonstrates that this fulfills the Law’s requirement of needing at least 2 witnesses, as found in Deuteronomy. When the Pharisees question Jesus on who His Father is, in verse 19, Jesus merely says that they don’t know Him because if they knew Jesus, they would know His Father. To know Jesus is to know God, and to know God is to know Jesus. In John 8:14-19, John demonstrates to reader the trinity, more specifically the relation between the Father and Son, which indirectly shows us Jesus is God the Son.

In John 8:21-22, Jesus once again proclaims to everyone with hearing range that He is going to a place they cannot go to. The Jews are still stumped on this. Last time we left the Jews in John 7, their guess was Jesus was going to the Gentiles areas of the Roman Empire, such as Greece. Their current guess is that Jesus is going to commit suicide. (This is really ironic because after Christ’s death, which skeptics have joked as a “suicide mission,” God did spread the Word to the Gentiles.) Jesus does try to correct the view, using more heavenly metaphor, such as “above the earth.” Even the Jewish culture and customs understood heaven to be above. Jesus turns their misconception about Jesus committing suicide. It’s almost as if Jesus is saying that those who do not believe in Jesus are “committing suicide” because they are killing themselves with their sin.

Let’s jump down to John 8:31 because from John 8:31, Jesus will start talking about a subject that will set him up for His next “I AM” statement, which is near the end of the chapter (which is ironic since John 8:31 is close to the halfway point of the chapter). After the end of the first half of John 8, many Jews came to believe in Jesus through His preaching. So Jesus goes on to preach the next step for these new believers to become disciples. They are to keep believing in Christ’s words, which are the truth, so they can be free. When the Jews hear this, they raise objections. They claim that since they are children of Abraham, they have always been free and never been enslaved. It’s funny to think they these men were scholarly because they have easily forgotten that the children of Abraham time after time were enslaved and were not free. The most obvious example would be the Israelites were slaves to Egyptians for 400 years. During the times of the Judges, many times a people group would invade the land and take control of it for a few years. Even if the Jews didn’t count the Judges, they had to count being exiled to Babylon for 70 years, and even after that, they did not have political sovereignty, as they would always be occupied by the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans. So how could the Jews claim they were free? Well, for once, the Jews agreed with Jesus that freedom is a spiritual thing. The Jews did believe they were spiritual free, meaning they were children of God, not slaves of God. Why? Abraham was their father, and the Jews considered Abraham a child of God. If Abraham is a child of God, then Abraham’s descendants are children of God. Jesus does not agree with this.

Jesus attempts to open the Jews’ eyes. Clearly, the Jews cannot see that they are slaves to sin. In fact, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. The Jews did not see themselves as sinners, so they don’t see themselves as slaves to sin. Jesus has to show them they are sinners, so He can open their eyes to their present slavery. In verse 35, Jesus uses common knowledge of the slavery system back in the 1st century AD. In the 1st century AD, slaves were not considered part of the family unit, so they did not benefit from the same benefits family did, including the final will of the father of the children and master of the slaves. Jesus calls himself the Son because if the son of the family set a slave free, the slave was indeed free. Since Jesus is the Son, he can indeed set people free of their sin.

The Jews keep insisting, as seen in verse 39, that they are sons of Abraham (and now the song “Father Abraham” is stuck in your head: “Father Abraham, had many sons, many sons had Father Abraham…”). It reveals a sad reality among the Jews. For salvation, the Jews were banking on themselves as being children of Abraham. Their thinking was along the lines of “If God wants to keep His promise to Abraham, He has to save us. If he didn’t, He would be breaking His promise to Abraham.” What really makes this sad is that this was the same thinking of the Jews before they got swept off into exile: “God won’t punish us and send us into exile because we’re the descendants of Abraham, and He promised Abraham his descendants would get the land.” Like I said, the Jews were really banking on God saving them because they were Abraham’s descendants. No wonder the Jews felt threatened when Jesus brought this thinking into question when he declared that a true believer would follow Christ’s words.

Doesn’t this sound familiar in the 21st century? Today, we’re not banking on being Abraham’s descendants, but like the Jews, we’re banking on the actions of someone in the past. The Jews were banking on Abraham’s past actions. Some Christians today bank on Christ’s past actions, mainly His death and resurrection. The Christians bank on Christ’s actions so much that, like the Jews of the 1st century, they don’t think obedience is necessary. They think that all they have to do is “believe.” To them, “believe” just means to accept a doctrinal statement as their own. So for them, to be saved means to just take on the Christian doctrinal statement as a personal beliefs statement, and they are saved. Jesus would correct these Christians just as much as He corrected the Jews. What did Jesus say was the qualifications of being a disciple of Jesus. In John 8:31 (NIV), Jesus says it’s “hold to my teaching.” More literal translations say, “abide in my teaching” or “continue in My Word.” More dynamic equivalencies and paraphrases say “continue to obey.” The point they are trying to get across is that this “believe,” used over 90 times in John, is not simply accepting a doctrinal statement. It’s living out what Jesus taught. After reading this, I no longer evangelize saying “believe in Jesus” but rather “follow Jesus” because that encompasses practices as well as doctrine. I pray that you Christians out there are not merely “believing” in Jesus, but following Jesus.

Jesus points out a big flaw the Jews have in John 8:40. Jesus comments that a true child of Abraham would follow in Abraham’s footsteps, such as believing in God and obeying God. The Jews were doing neither, and so they did not have the same justifying faith. The Jews might have been the biological descendants of Abraham, but in no means were they spiritual descendants of Abraham. Jesus also points out that Abraham would have never killed a messenger from God, yet the Jews were trying to kill Jesus, the Son of God. Thus, the Jews cannot be children of Abraham, but children of sin and children of the devil. (Another quick note. The majority view is that the “father” in John 8:41 is the Devil. A minority view is that the “father” in John 8:41 is the forefathers of the Jews that killed the prophets. While the majority view makes more sense in the immediate context, I do think the minority view holds some water.) Yet the Jews end verse 41 by saying that they are not illegitimate children, but children of God. I find it funny that the Jews are now waffling. They first insist they are children of Abraham, and now they insist they are children of God. But then again, maybe they see “children of Abraham” and “children of God” as interchangeable.

If I could sum up Christ’s reply in John 8:42-47 in one sentence, it would be “No, you’re not.” Jesus explains this by setting up a sharp contrast between God and the Devil. More specifically, he talks about the truth and lies. This well sums up a common theological theme in John 8. God speaks only the truth, but the devil’s native langue is lies. The Son of God (Jesus) also speaks the truth, but the children of the Devil (the Jews in their sin) speak lies. Thus, when they talk to one another, it’s like 2 people of 2 different languages speaking to each other. They can’t comprehend what the other one is saying. Therefore, the Jews do not understand Jesus, and they do not believe. Instead, like the Devil, they want Jesus dead.

Since Jesus called the sinful Jews children of the Devil, now the accusations from the Jews are going to fly. First, they call him a Samaritan. Is Jesus a Samaritan? No. But remember the Jews see the Samaritans as “half breeds” and “half human.” Calling Jesus a Samaritan is calling him a lesser human. That one is out there, so I’m going to leave that one be. I want to spend more time on the Jews’ accusation of Jesus as “demon-possessed. Not only do they do it twice in this chapter alone, but 4 times in John alone (7:20, 8:48, 8:52, 10:20)! This one sticks out to me because it is turning the tables on Jesus. They are now trying to call Jesus the Son of the Devil, or the Spawn of Satan. John 8:53b sums up it when they ask, “Who do you think you are?”

Yet Jesus keeps going back to God the Father for His testimony. Jesus says He knows the Father, while the Jews do not. Jesus reminds the Jews He is out to honor and glorify the Father, not Himself. He does so by keeping the Father’s Word, which is also His Word. Now Jesus is getting bold. He calls out the Jews for dishonoring Him, because dishonoring Him means dishonoring the Father. He accuses the Jews of lying because they claim to follow God, but they are not. Jesus then reveals that Abraham looked forward to seeing “[Christ’s] day,” saw “[Christ’s] day” and was glad and rejoiced. To understand what Jesus is saying, we got to understand the Abrahamic Covenant. God promised Abraham salvation through the Messiah, who would come in His family line. When the Messiah fully brought salvation to His descendants, that day would the “Day of the Lord.” Now we can say for certain that Abraham, in his old age, did get to see a son born to him and did get to see that son enter adulthood. Most scholars believe this is what Jesus meant when He said Abraham saw “[Christ’s] day.” There is a Jewish tradition, however, that states near the end of Abraham’s life, God gave Abraham a vision which allowed Abraham to see everything played out, to see His seed, to see the Messiah, and to see the Day of the Lord. If that is true, then indeed Abraham saw Jesus and Jesus saw Abraham. Whether or not that is true, we all know Jesus did indeed see Abraham because Jesus is God and God saw Abraham, knew Abraham and worked with Abraham. But once again, the Jews faced the problem of taking things too literally. They saw a man in His 30s proclaim He saw a man who lived about 2,000 years before their time. How can this be? The Jews set Jesus up perfectly for His next “I AM.” Let’s read it together.

John 8:58-
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

Some translations, make this shorter, like “Before Abraham was, I am!” or “Before Abraham, I am!” but either way, this statement is meant to be short and impacting. It indeed was, for look at the reaction! Jesus might as well said, “Before Abraham, YHWH!” for that’s what He was claiming. This can be taken quite literally. The Jews knew the name of their God was “I AM,” as recorded in Exodus 3:14 (In fact, the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the New Testament, translates the “I am” in Exodus 3:14 as the same “I am” in John 8:58). Jesus was using the same name God gave Himself to name Himself. We can also go deeper into this. Jesus was claiming He existed before Abraham, during the time of Abraham, and after Abraham, all the way up to the current time (and further!). By doing so, He was claiming He was greater than their forefather Abraham, one of highest (if not the highest) human figure in the Jewish religion. To make this claim, Jesus had to claim to be God. Jesus was claiming for Himself the same eternal attributes as God Himself, so Jesus must be God.

Like I said, you know that’s what Jesus was claiming by their reaction. The believed Jesus was committing blasphemy. Blasphemy is claiming that you (or it could be another human) are God or you (or another human) is the messiah. Blasphemy was a serious crime, as the punishment was death. When they heard Jesus claim to be God, they were ready to pick up stones and stone him. Remember I said above that the Jews could not perform an execution without Rome’s permission. Yet these people were so offended by the claims of Jesus, they would have stoned him and accepted whatever consequence the Romans gave them. Yet they could not. Jesus can hide in the thick crowd and slip away. Many times through his Gospel account, John will accredit this to God’s Will keeping Him safe, for God has planned for the right time for Jesus to give His life, and only then would an execution happen.

So there it is. In 1 chapter we saw 2 “I AM” statements, bringing us up to 3 “I AM” statements. Yet we were only able to fully flush out 1 of the statements, the other one was just there. Well have no fear, for the next chapter in John will give us a better picture on that “I AM” statement. I hope in this chapter you saw how an “I AM” statement reveals Jesus to be God, and I hope the next chapter will do the same.

Covenants (Part 2): Christians & Jews, Church and Israel

In continuing with my last post, my views on how the covenants progressed shape how I view how Israel in the church play in those covenants with God. Some say the church is the new Israel. Others say Israel is number one, and the church is number 2. Still others say Israel and the church are separate but equal. Those in the Old Covenant do their thing, those in the New Covenant follow that. Yet others say with time, the roles switch from Israel to church to Israel. This is my beliefs.

Let's start with the Adamic Covenant. Why? Two things: First it is the original announcement of the Messiah (Genesis 3:15). Second, I remind you that the covenant was for humanking. The second part goes the Noahic Covenant was well: the Noahic is for Noah and his descendants, and since his descendants are all humankind today, it is also for all humans. It's almost like renewing the Adamic Covenant to Noah after the "second creation," if you will. So following that logic, God brought salvation from the flood to Noah, and from Noah the Savior will come, who will bring salvation of sins.

Now onto the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant establishes Abraham's descendants, who will become Israel, God's people. But remember, God still has all humanity in mind for salvation. It will be through Israel that this Messiah will come from. But the Messiah will bring salvation to all man, not just Israel.

I want to focus on a lot of the Mosaic Covenant. This covenant between God and Israel is conditional, but the unconditional promises of the Abrahamic Covenant still have to be fulfilled. So how will this work out? When Israel sins and falls away from God, they will be punished, enslaved and taken captive, but they will not be totally destroyed. The remnant kept alive can get rid of the curse by simply confessing sin, repenting, and seeking forgiveness. Then will come God's restoration of the promises. This will become Israel's perk of being God's people. Time after time they will sin and fall from God's Law. They anger God and God leaves them. Then they cry out to God, and God saves them. This becomes the "Israel cycle" seen through Judges, the Samuels, the Kings, and the Chronicles. Why does this happen?

It is the result of 2 covenants progressively being fulfilled togather, one unconditonal and the other conditional. The unconditional keeps the nation people-wise, but the conditional is what makes Israel a nation land-wise. Yet this only applies for Israel and not other nations. Consider Assyria and its capital Nineveh. Assyria can be a blessed nation if they bless Israel, but they don't. They become idolatrous and lead Israel into idolatry. So God saends Jonah to call them to repentence. They do repent, and God spares them. But afterward, they fall back into sin. Does God once again call them repentence? No. He sends Nahum to pronounce judgment. After Nahum's word, Assyria is no more. Israel, being God's chosen, gets to experience grace and mercy with several second chances. God's covenants with Israel are truly covenants of grace. The other nations have only one shot.

Back to the Messiah. The Messiah is once again promised in the Mosaic Covenant. In Deuteronomy 18:15-19, as Moses is running out of time, he says God will raise up among the Israelites a prophet like Moses. They must lsiten to this prophet, for if they don't, they will be cut off from the people, God's Covenant, and God Himself. This prophet is the messiah, who we will later know as Jesus.

In the Davidic Covenant, the messiah is identified as a descendant of David, the king of Israel/Judah (Jeremiah 31 & Ezekiel 37). So if you're keeping track of titles, it's Savior, messiah, prophet, king. As stated earlier, the Davidic Covenant is unconditional. No matter what any king does, there will always be a kingly ruler available. But since David and his descendants are Israelites, they are under the conditional Mosaic Covenant. So what does this mean? If a king falls away, or leads a nation away, the kingship will be taken away from that king. But there is always a candidate ready, even if they are not king. Take Zerubabbel, for example. He was in the kingly line (Matthew 1:13), but because of the sins of his fathers, the Persians were in control. Yet Zerubabbel became the governor of formally known Israel. In short, while David's household may fail, in the end, it will be rebuilt, as Amos says (Amos 9:11).

The promises of the Messiah in the Old Covenats are fulfilled in Jesus, the Son of God (even the Old Testament states the Messiah is divine!). This is the offspring of Eve that will strike the serpent's (Satan's) heel and crush gis head. This is the Judah-king promised to Abraham and David. This is the prophet Moses foretold. Jesus fills all those roles. So it is the Messiah who is to start the new covenant. Naturally. Yet Christ's message is not received by all, His opposers execute Him. Death does not stop Him. Three days later He rises from the dead. During His last days on the earth, He founded the church, and asked for Peter to lead until His return.

My argument is that the church does not officially begin until Acts 2, when the Holy Spirits comes on the first believers. This the start of the church age. In the beginning, the church is all JEwish. The cloest thing to now-Jewish are Greek prosletyes, but they are circumcized and [Mosaic] Law-abiding. It is not until Acts 10 do Gentiles come into the picture. This opens the door for Paul to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, as God states in Acts 9. Now a church is on the scene made up of both Jews and Gentiles. The church is clearly a product, and maybe even the audience, of the New Covenant. Just like Israel was the recipiant of the Old Covenants, so the church is the recipiant of the New Covenant. Does this cause inconsistancy in the covenants?

The first thing I want to state, if I haven't enough, is that all the Covenants, both the Old and New Testament ones, are both for the Jews and the Gentiles. Both the Jews and Gentiles would receive salvation. Both the Jews and the Gentiles would receive blessing. While Israel is God's chosen people and the center of the Old Testament, I believe it is incorrect to say it is Israel soley and push out the foreign nations.

Remember what Moses said about the Prophet God will send like Moses? The people must accept him. Anyone who rejects Him will be cut off. This means the Israelites/Jews were not playing "The Messiah Game" (The Dating Game with the Messiah). It's not like God said to Israel, "Alright, I'm going to start sending one messiah after another. If you like him, keep him. But you don't like him, get rid of him and we'll go on to the next canidate." No. Israel did not have a choice. God chose the Messiah. This is one of the things I do believe is predestined. Jesus, God's Son, was predestined to be the Messiah to save the world. Since Israel had no choice, they must follow Him. If they don't, they have no part will be condemned with their sin. Thus, I believe that any Jew that rejects Jesus rejects God's Covenants, reject God, and reject salvation. The Jews of the 1st century (as well as the 1st century Roman Gentiles) who are responsible for Christ's death, are condemned. This is backed up in the narrative called "The Sign of Jonah" (Matthew 12:39-41, Luke 11:29-32). In this narrative, Jesus says this generation (1st century Jews) will be condemned (and by sinful Gentiles, too!) because they did not adhere to the message of the one greater than Jonah, who is Jesus. They had to accept the Messiah Christ Jesus, or they will be condemned.

So first, I believe it is wrong to say Israel and the church are two separate camps. Why? For starters, it gives froom for Pluralism. You can get saved by a relationship with Jesus OR be following the Law and offering sacrifices. This is contradictiong to John 14:6 and Acts 4:12, which says Jesus is the only way and the only one who can give salvation. Also, this idea renders evangelizing to Jews useless. What's the point of telling the Jews how to get saved when they will be saved anyway? Yet we see Paul going to the synagogues with the gospel (hold on to the thought; I will use it again on my correct view of the debate). This must mean the Jews need to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. So pretty much this makes a Jewish Christian redundant, and then would mean church only makes sense if you're a Gentile. This doesn't make sense since the church in its earliest stage is all Jewish.

Second, it is wrong to say that Israel has been replaced by another nation. No nation is the "new Israel," not even nations "founded on Christian ideals." I'm not 100% where this idea comes from. All I can think up is that God chose Israel based on obedience to God's Law. I think it's just national pride seeking God's favor in national and international decisions. Simply why not, this idea is unbiblical. Nowhere in Scriptures does it mention God choosing a new nation for His people.

Along with that notion, it is wrong to say that the church completely replaces Israel. If that were true, this would mean God has abandoned His promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, David, and all the Israelites. This also allows lots of room for anti-semetism. It is not in the Bible, not even in the New Testament, do we read God abandoning Israel and the Jews. Like I said earlier, the apostles evangelize to Jews first, seen both in Acts and the epistles. The end times in Revelation (arguably) focus more on Israel than on the church. Jesus Himself spends more time with the Jews in Israel than to the Gentiles. Heck, Samaritans get more attention than the Gentiles. So it's not church replacing. I declare replacement theory a heresy (see Romans 11).

But at the same, it cannot be said Israel is above the church or above any nation, especially modern-day Israel. I say the last part because there is a difference between Israelis (those living in the land owned by the modern state of Israel) and the Israelites (descendants of Israel/Jacob, who are also called Jews or Hebrews). While primary outreach is to Israel, there is much outreach to the Gentiles. The second half of Acts is focused on Gentiles coming to Christ. (As a matter of fact, most of the time when Jews are mentioned, they are the opposition!) The New Testament also denies the idea that Christians must become Jews first. In the end, in Revelation, we see people from all tribes, all languages, and all nations in heaven, not just Israel. Pretty much, I want to sum this all up by saying that with the New Covenant, God no longer sees nations, especially in the Jew/Gentile divide. In the context of New Covenant, it is an individual matter. God sees the personal choices of individuals decidin whether or not to have a relationship with Jesus Christ. Yes, it is true with Mosaic and Davidic Coveannts, salvation was by nation. Now in the New Covenant, salvation is an individual decision. The only other way is God sees the communal fellowship of the church. It is God's kingdom, but not to be compared by the kingdom of this world.

After I told you what I don't believe, now onto telling you what I do believe. I can't say a single word or phrase to describe my views. This is why I had to be more precise by describing what I don't believe. The best way I can try to describe is to describe it in a more general term: God's people. Both the church and Israel is God's chosen people. They are both from the start chosen to receive redemptive salvation, whether it be Jew or Gentile. Once more, I will repeat it both Israel and the church are God's people. Yet it is not equal. While Israel and the church are God's chosen people, the church is greater than Isreael. why? The Christian Chrch is in the New Covenant, the Jewish Israel, is still following Old Coveannts, and the New Covenant is greater than the Old Covenant. But make sure you understand when I say the church is "greater" Israel, I in no way mean that God has rejected Israel, God hates Israel, God had replaced Israel, or God looks down on Israel. None of these are true. They are still His chosen people. It is just that the church has chosen the better, the greater. A good illustration to this is John the Baptist. Of him Jesus says he was the greatest of the Old Coveants, but the weakest in the New Covenant is greater than him.

So where does this leave Israel and the Jews? To start with basics, Jews was the foretold messiah. The promised redeeer to all peoples, and the promised king for the Jews. The Jews are the first ones to receive the gospel. We see this in the Gospels with Jesus, the Acts with the apostles, and in the epistles with Paul. Even in the 21st century, there are missions focusees specifically for outreach to the Jews. When presented the gospel, they have the choice of accepting Jesus as the promised Christ or rejecting Him. Idealistically, the Jew will receive Jesus as their messiah. He goes from Jew to Christian, and "upgrades" from a member of Israel to a member of the church. As a member of the church, he is equal to his gentile brothers and sisters. But the Jew who rejects Jesus will then be rejected by Jesus. Without Jesus, they have no part in the covenant. Let me propose that the Jewish convert to Chistian has more in common with the Gentile Christian than a Jewish person who is not a Messianic Jew. That is because the Christian Jew and Christian Gentile are now part of a new "nation", the kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God consist of those who make Jesus, the Son of God, their king. A Jew must make Jesus Messiah and king to be part of the kingdom.

There's a couple sections I want to look at to prove my point. First, Luke 4:24-27. To set the picture a bit, Jesus is preaching is his home town Nazareth, and the audience is looking down on him. Jesus starts out by saying "No prophet is accepted in his hometown." Christ then gives two examples to prove His point: Elijah and Elisha. Elijah helped a widow in Zarephath, a town in Sidon, instead of helping any of the widows in Israel. Elijah helped Naaman, a commander of the Syrian army, instead of bring healing to an Israelite with leprosy. Now the main point here is that a prophet usually has to leave his hometown for his ministry to be accepted, but I think Jesus is bringing up another point in here. God does not choose who to help based on nationality. The reader sees the prophets ministering to Gentiles over the Israelites in this section. They must have had faith for the miracles to happen there (Matt. 13:58 states that lack of faith can lead to lack of miracles). So that concludes God chooses to look at people by faith over their nationality. The Israelites back in the time of Elijah and Elisha, including the widows and lepers, were probably idolatrous just like their king. But Naaman and the widow at Zarepheth must have shown some kind of faith for the prophets to work.

Another demonstration of my beliefs is the narrative of the Syro-phoencian woman. This story is found in Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30. Jesus is in the vicinity of Sidon and Tyre, when a local women comes to him, and cries out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession" (Matt. 15:22). It is interesting alone that the Greek woman calls Jesus by a title referring to Christ's role in the Davidic Covenant, something a Jew would be familiar with. Christ's actions might strike the reader as odd. He seems to be ignoring the woman. Only Matthew records Jesus uttering, "I was sent only for the lost sheep of Israel" (Matt. 15:24), referring to the Jews. Some believe what Jesus is doing here is testing the woman to see if she simply gives up or keeps persisting. Others think Jesus is reminding the woman that is mission on earth is not healer, but to bring the promised salvation to the Jews. Another opinion says Jesus is telling the woman he must help the Jews before helping her. This continues the story. Jesus says to the woman, “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs" (Mark 7:27). The idea of "first" here is ordinal. Jews get first dibs. Jesus uses the imagry of dogs begging at the table, as some as our house pet dogs might do. Why would a parent make a meal for their children, only to give it to the dogs? That would be downright wrong. In the same way, it would be wrong to tell the Jews the whole Old Testament their Savior was coming, only to give his undivided attention to the Gentiles. It would be wrong to give the blessings to the Gentiles which the Jews have been waiting for. The cool thing is that the woman counters Jesus with the same illustration: “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table” (Matt. 15:27). Pretty much, the woman says that while the master should feed the child the bread, the dogs should be allowed to pick up what the children drop. If the master is Jesus, the children is Israel, the dogs are the Gentiles, and the bread is the blessings, let's draw up a literal picture. Jesus says to the woman that is wrong for Him to go to the Gentiles to give them blessings when it was meant for Him to bless the Jews all along. The woman would reply that if Israel rejects Jesus, it's not wrong for the Gentiles to pick up the blessings they are throwing out. Jesus seems to like her answer, as the woman returns home, to find her daughte healed. The Greek woman speaks truth. God does go to the Jews first, for he promised them blessings from the start, including forgiveness of sins. But if the Jews reject Jesus, the promised Savior, it is free game for the Gentiles. Paul reacts similiarly in Acts 18:6. When the Jews become abusive towards about the gospel he is preaching, Paul gives up on preaching to the Jews and from then on, speaks only to the Gentiles.

The Syro-Phoenecian woman is not the only Gentile who seeks Christ's healing powers. There is also a Roman centurion who also needs Jesus for His healing power. The centurion's servant is sick and about to die. Jesus begins on a trek to lay hands on the servant, but on the journey, He is stopped by a messenger with a message from the centurion. The centurion says he doesn't deserve to have Jesus under his roof, but understands that Christ's words alone can heal the servant, so all Jesus has to do is say the word, and the servant will be healed. Jesus replies, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith" (Matt. 8:10). Now the Matthew account of this story gives more that Jesus says. In verse 11, Jesus continues, "I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 8:11). Let's start back at verse 10. Jesus remarks that of all the people that he has run into on this earth, the one with the greatest faith is not a Jew, but a Gentile. Jesus prefers the Gentile with faith over the unfaithful Jew. Now onto verse 11. Remember that Matthew's Gospel is written to a Jewish audience. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are well know to the Jews as the patriarchs of Israel. To dine with them would be considered being a part of their blessing. The phrase "from the east and the west [and north and south (Luke 13:29,30)]" simply could be said, "from all over." This means outside Israel. Jesus is saying in the end the Gentiles will join the Jews in the promised salvation and blessings. The Gentiles will be those who have the faith like the Roman centurion. In conclusion, the great faith is what catches God's attention for salvation and blessings, not nationality.

Romans chapter 11 is a really intersting chapter on the subject. First, starting in verse 1, Paul make it clear that God has not rejected Israel. Skipping down to verse 11, Paul repeats that Israel has not fallen out of the picture. This is where it gets interesting. Paul's explanation for Gentiles receiving salvation is to make Israel jealous. One commentary I read suggested that if a Jew walked into a church service, he should be jealous that he doesn't have what the Christian has. Back to Paul in Romans, he admits that some of the Jews has fallen away. Interesting enough, Paul says the Jews falling away opened a window for the Gentiles receiving salvation. Paul uses two allusions: a batch of dough and branches. The first image is the batch of dough. Just when two batches of dough are mixed together to become one, when the unholy is mixed with the holy, it becomes holy as well. The second picture is with branches, but also roots and wild shoots. The wild shoot is the Gentiles. The natural branches are the Jews. The roots are traditionally the patriarchs (and the Abrahamic Covenant), but I can see it being Christ, the root of our salvation. The Gentile Christians have been grafted in with the believing Jews in place of the Jews who do not believe. Both the believing Jews are Christian Gentiles are coming from the same roots, the same source. The common denominator is faith (Rom. 11:20). The ones who belong with God are those with faith, the same faith that credited Abraham with righteousness (Gen 15:6). Paul makes it clear to the Gentiles that they have a reason to be prideful. For if God will not give Israel a second chance, the Gentiles will most definitely not get a second chance. Thus, naturally, the branches cut off can be grafted back in.

So the main question: what happens to God's people in the eschaton? Since I refuse to acknowledge or take a stance on the rapture (that's a whole different subject), I am aware this leaves a whole bunch of possibilities. Christians may live through all, some or none of the tribulation. In any case, we see this draw back to Israel. Has God abandoned the church? No. Being the greater one, the church has been dealt with and sealed, possibly in the form of the rapture. As for Israel, they get a second chance. Like I have shown before with the combination of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenant, Israel always gets a second chance. This will be their last second chance. By the time the tribulation comes, there will be no more Gentiles coming to the Lord. As the world comes to an end, God will make one last call to the Jews. Still, it is a call for Israel to have faith in Christ. They will not get saved by following sacrifices or obeying laws, but faith in Jesus. They will have all the way up to the Great White Throne judgment to make the decision to have faith in Christ. Thos Jews who still reject Jesus will be judged and condemned, but those who accept Him as messiah will become part of the kingdom of God.

Covenants (Part 1): I am a progressive dispensational premillennialist

This blog and the next (and possibly one more after that) is about the covenants. The origin of the blog on the subject starting all my theology classes at LBC, especially Church and the Future class. Even the subject came across in Early Church class because the whole Jews and Gentiles issue. A lot of ideas and theories were presented to me. I've realized a lot of it has to deal with God's movement through history. So I decided to sort through them on my own and see what I think. So I journaled on it, and made conclusions. When I came home for the summer, and heard my pastor was preaching a series called, "The New Covenant is Better" I took the time to listen and get ideas for further edits and revisions. So now I believe I am ready to give a full out study to reveal what I believe. And I've found out I'm a progressive dispensational premillennialist. Follow along as I explain my views of the covenants.

Before I get into any covenants, let's talk about covenants in general. We don't talk about covenants often today; the closest we got to covenants are contracts. But covenants are constantly made in Bible times. They were made between two or more kings/cities, as treaties for after war, but also during peace times. Archaeologists doing excavations on Hittite cities have found these ancient covenants and have provided an understanding for how covenants worked. First, covenants named the parties involved. Secondly stated in a covenant is the reason for the covenant, which could state the winners and losers of a war, or be the result of a business proposal. Third, each party would state his responsibilities. Fourth would say what each party gets in return. Next, blessings and curses are written down. Blessings for whoever follows it, and curses for the one who doesn't follow up his end of the bargain. And just as we have a third party signature on contracts, the end of their covenants would have witnesses, usually their gods. This has really help scholars expand their understanding when it comes to the covenants in the Bible between God and His people. We're not going to go into too much depth with it, but skim the surface.

The first covenant in the Bible is the EDENIC/ADAMIC COVENANT (Genesis 1:26-30, 2:15-17, 3:15-17). Now there is disagreement on this. Some say the Edenic and Adamic Covenant are two separate covenants, other say the Edenic and Adamic Covenant are one and the same, and yet others say that it is one covenant in two parts. I believe the third option: this is the same covenant, just in different parts. If this is already confusing, I am also going to say that this covenant is both conditional and unconditional. Before you accuse me of being postmodern, let me explain myself. Both sides of the covenant are God to Adam, but really it's not just Adam, but mankind in general. Remember, "adam" is simply the Hebrew word for "man." God is making a covenant with man here. Why is God making this covenant? God just has just finished making man in His own image. Seeing that man is good, he establishes a covenant with him. On God's side, God gives man seed, land, and blessing. God makes man in His image (1:26,27). On God's side, God makes man ruler over the earth. He is to spread over it by multiplying and also subduing it. Also, God provides food for man by giving him every green plant as food (1:29,30). Man has his responsibilities, too. On his side, man is to work and take care of the garden (2:15). He must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (2:17). The first one man will easily obey because he is innocent, and without the sinful nature, is fully obedient to God. So the only condition in this covenant is "you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" (2:17a). The curse is clearly stated, "for when you eat of it, you will surely die" (2:17b). But as we know from the narrative, they couldn't even do that. They fell short of God's glory (Romans 3:23). Genesis 3:1-12 tells the story of how man fell. The Fall is the distinctive point where the covenant changes, from Edenic to Adamic, as some might say. The one condition of the covenant is broken. Now instead of blessings, there are curses. Man's work now becomes labor. Woman's childbearing is painful. Also, woman must submit to man, setting up a patriarchal world. So why do I say this covenant as a whole is both unconditional and conditional? Go back to the original blessings. Does man rule over the earth? I say yes. While some might say now Satan or sin is charge of the world, I see man being dominant over the animals. Does man still subdue the earth? While the ground produces thorns and thistles, man can ultimately make it produce fruits, vegetables and grains. So yes. Is man is going to multiply and reproduce? While the female has to undergo childbearing pains, yes, she will still reproduce. Does man still have God's image? While it is broken and blemished, yes, the New Testament recognizes man still carrying God's image, even up to that time (1 Cor. 11:7, Eph. 2:4, Col. 3:10, James 3:9). My point is that all the blessings God gives man at his creation are still in effect. So we see it's unconditional. So where's the conditional part? Count how many times I said "while" in this paragraph. I did state that all blessings on God's part are still there, but I also noted that things were now different. No longer was it the easy road. Things weren't simply provided. Man had to work for it. This is why the post-fall covenants are called "Covenant of works." Man has to work. Man's responsibilities become greater. Not only does he have to work, but sacrifices are needed, as one can see in Genesis 4. But more importantly, is the curse God states with breaking the condition: "you will surely die." I read somewhere the original Hebrew phrase uses a double death, and that's exactly what Adam and Eve experienced. Not only were they no longer immortal but physically going to die one day, they now were going to experience a spiritual death, which is separation from God. But most importantly, even more importantly than the curse from the fall, is the Proto-Gospel in Genesis 3:15. By eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they chose to leave God's covenant with hthem, but God still promised a way back in. Even with the Edenic/Adamic Covenant "rewritten," God still gives promises, a promise of a way back in. This is unconditional.


The NOAHIC COVENANT (Genesis 8:21-9:17) renewed the Edenic/Adamic under Noah, since God had destroyed the rest of humankind with the flood. The covenant is between God and Noah, but just like before, Noah is representing mankind as a whole. The covenant also extends to animals (9:9,12,15) Why does God establish this covenant? When Noah comes out of the ark, he makes a sacrifice to the Lord. The Lord smells the pleasing aroma of the burnt offerings. The offerings serve as a "reminder" (like God forgets) that his covenant with Adam and manking is unconditional, no matter how bad man's sin would get. It was crucial for God to provide salvation for Noah, or else the Lord would be breaking His covenant to Adam/mankind by not sending a Savior before being destruction to the world. So since God brought Noah out of the destruction of the flood and into the ark for salvation from the floodwaters, God starts new with Noah and his family, and start a covenant. The promises to Noah are the same to Adam. Noah will be numerous descandants (seed), will fill the earth (land), and be fruitful (blessing. Compare Genesis 9:1,7 to 1:28). Also, just like in the Adamic Covenant, the Noahic covenant shows what mankind can eat. In the Adamic Covenant, it is every green plant, but in the Noahic Covenant, animals are added to the list of foods (compare Genesis 1:29,30 to Genesis 9:3. Now in the Adamic Covenant, man is given dominion over the animals. In the Noahic Covenant, this isn't explicitly stated, but it is kind of hinted with the animals having "the fear and dread" of man. In a way, Noah somewhat becomes a new Adam, as he is given the same blessings as Adam was given (notice I said "in a way" and "somewhat." Don't take this allusion too far, because Romans says that Jesus Christ is the New Adam). The better way to put it is that the Adamic Covenant is now re-focused on Noah. But the for both of them, the focus is on mankind. This makes sense because with Noah and his family being the only survivors of the flood, every human on earth is a descendant of Noah. Another addition to the covenant is God's promise not to destroy the earth with waters of a flood (9:11-15). The rainbow is the sign of this covenant (9:12-16). On the side of man's responsibilities, man is to respect life and be held accountable for life, especially for loss of life (9:4-6). Maybe God had in mind that the first big sin that happened after the Fall was Cain killing his brother Abel. Yet even with these commands, the covenant is unconditonal. Even if man is murderous and sinful, he will continue to have seed, land and blessing.

10 generations and 3 chapters later, God gives the ABRAHAMIC COVENANT (Genesis 12:1-3, 15:1-19, 17:1-27. The reader even has a hint of it in Genesis 18:17-19 with God's monologue with Himself/the trinity.) I believe these numerous mentions of the covenant were God's reminder of His plan for Abraham as God moved Abraham from place to place. This covenant is the early establishment of Israel. God promises Abraham numerous descendants (seed), who will become a great nation (land). This nation will ble blessed by God and other nations who want to be blessed (blessing). Those who bless Abraham get blessed; those who curse Abraham get cursed. And even in some odd instances, God blesses Abraham and curses the nation (see Abraham and Pharaoh in Gen. 12:10-20). But if you think about this covenant and the story about Abraham, you realize that by the time Abraham dies, it is not fully fulfilled. The only land Abraham receives is his burial plot, which is very little compared to what God promised him (compare Gen. 15:18-21). The only descendants he has is his one son Isaac and his two grandsons Esau and Jacob (Abraham died while Jacob and Esau were teenagers, about 15), since Ishmael and Keturah's sons were sent away and had no part in the inheritance. Abraham sees very little of the covenant fulfilled; it will all be fulfilled in the future. Despite popular belief, the Abrahamic Covenant was not just for Israel. It was meant for all nations. God planned to bless all nations. Israel, Abraham's descendants, were the means of that blessing. So while at those sections, the coveant is made between God and Abraham, but it is set up to have all nations involved. The best example would Lot's descendants, which would become the Ammnonites and Moabites. In Genesis 18, we see God interceding for Lot. Without that intercession, Lot would have never been saved. God saved Lot on request of Abraham. Since Abraham is related to Lot, Lot's descendants, the Moabites and Ammonites, get a small taste of the covenant, as long as they are faithful to God. Why did God choose Abraham? Maybe because in a polytheistic world (Islamic tradition says that Abraham's father Terah worshipped many pagan gods), God knew that Abraham would be monotheistic. Possibly because God knew Abraham would follow in perfect obedience, not questionning God. The reader sees that throughout the whole Abraham narrative. Or maybe it was because in His foreknowledge, God knew Abraham would chose God, follow by faith, and obey God's laws, commands, degrees, and requirements. I believe all are possibilities. But I believe most importantly that God chose Abraham, and Abraham chose. Whatever the reason, I also think one of the main roles was because God had moved Abraham to a new place, and wanted to lead and guide him through this with a covenant. You can see this in Genesis 15, when God says, "I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans..." This brings us to the state of conditionality. Traditionally, this covenant has been declared unconditional. Those who say that use the imagry of God walking alone through the offerings- while typically both parties walk through, only God walks through. But the evidence saying that it is conditional outweighrs it. In Genesis 12:1, God tells Abraham to "Leave and go." If Abraham stays put, God cannot give Abraham the land God will show him. Genesis 17 is an important chapter for this. In verse 1, God commands Abraham to walk before him and be blameless. Verse 9 has God stating the important of keeping the covenant. Chapter 17 goes on to talk about circumcision, which sets up an if/then clause. If you want to be in the covenant, you must be circumcized. If you don't get circumcised, you're out of the covenant. Conditions. You also see Abraham making sacrifices throughtout the narrative. Later on, when God talks to Isaac in Genesis 26:4,5, God says, " I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, (WHY?) because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws.” So I conclude (and I apologize if this sounds postmodern again) that this covenant is also both conditional and unconditional. I would even go as far as say the covenant starts out conditional, but ends unconditonal. Abraham has conditions, passes, and thus the covenant is permanent forever more. Abraham's descendants will get the seed, land and blessing. And like I said, the other nations are involved in this covenant, and for them, it is fully conditional. Nations that are for Abraham's descendats are blessed, but nations against Abraham will be cursed. This covenant is renewed to Isaac and Jacob, Abraham's heir son and gradson respectively. Isaac and Jacob do not get new covenants, but just renewed Abrahamic covenant. Same conditions, same promises, same blessings, same curses (Gen. 26:2-5, Gen. 28:10-22). The Abrahamic Covenant is referred by Paul in Galatians 3 and Romans 4. As both of them state, the main condition is faith. For example, Paul points out that Abraham was declared righteous by any act of circumcision. So it's not by act he is made righteous, but his credited faith.

After leading the Israelites out of Egypt, as foretold to Abraham (Gen. 15:13-16), God establishes the MOSAIC COVENANT to Israel via Moses. It is found scattered all throughout Exodus (ch. 3, 6:1-8, ch. 19-24, ch. 34), is renewed with every new generation (as seen in Deuteronomy and Joshua, and is referenced in the New Testament (i.e. Matt. 5, Gal. 3, and the whole book of Hebrews). The parties involved are God and the nation of Israel. This covenant gets more specific. The Gentiles are not involved in this covenant (Deut. 4:8, Eph. 2:12). But in keeping with the Abrahamic Covenant, Israel was to be a light to the Gentiles, an example of what the people of God were to be like (Exodus 19:6). Also, any Gentile could get in on the covenant if they were circumcised and followed the Mosaic Law. The exclusivity of this covenant is also apparent in the reason. Many times in the Old Testament, God presents Himself as "I am the Lord Your God, who brought you out of Egypt..." Pretty much, God is saying to the Israelites, "I saved you, so I believe you own me. Let's work out a mutual relationship." Once again, God promises seed, land (Exodus 23:29) and blessing. Furthermore, the promise of the messiah is found in this covenant, where God says He will send a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15-19). They must listen to this prophet, for if they don't, they will be cut off from God's people. This will come back into play later on in my next blog. All this is promised, but with a big IF. This covenant is majorly conditional. On Israel's side, they receive the 10 Commandments followed by other laws explaining the 10 commandments (what is work, what is murder, what is adultery, etc.) totalling 613 (so the Jews say. yup, they counted). Most scholars divide this into apoditic law (Dos and Do Nots) and caustic laws (if/then). If Israel wants land, seed and blessing, they must be obedient to the Law. Sinning against the Law can be paid with sacrificial blood. Disobedience will lead to the opposite of the promises. Israel receives curses (opposite of blessing), its people will die (opposite of seed), and they will be cut off from the land (opposite of land). Yet because the Mosaic Covenant is still under the Abrahamic Covenant, God will no totally disown Israel. At anytime, if they repent and turn to God, they will be forgiven and everything will be restored. Just like in the Abrahamic Covenant, nation can also receive God's blessing if they bless the nation of Israel. Any nation in its way will be cursed. The Israelites agree to the term and conditions (Exodus 24:7), even though the next time Moses goes up Sinai, Israel breaks the Law by building a golden calf (Exodus 32). Yet by the end of the book, the people repent, and they work something out with God. This prepares the cycle the reader will see going as he reads the whole Old Testament.

In 2 Samuel 7, God sets up with David the DAVIDIC COVENANT. The Davidic Covenant is usually portrayed as a kingly covenant. This covenant gets in more specific, as this is strictly God with David and his descendants. One family line from one tribe. 2 Samuel 7 also reveals why David gets this covenant. 2 Samuel 7:7-8 is God reminding David that He took David out of the weakest clan, the weakest family, and the youngest of the family to lift him up to king. That is why a covenant is being established. This covenant first promises David will have a great name (2 Sam. 7:9) and also land for the people (2 Sam. 7:10). This is the land and the blessing seen in the previous covenant. Now the seed. The covenant promises David that a son will always be on the throne. These kingly sons God adopts as His own son, leading to the Ultimate Son, the Messiah. This tends to lead people to believe that this is an Israel/Judah (even though David's descendants are always kings of Judah, God promises in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 37 that Israel and Judah will be reuinted) only covenant. I disagree. Why is that? The Davidic Covenant promises the Messiah will come from David's line. This messah from David's dynasty will be the Savior of the world, promised all the way back in Adamic Covenant. This covenant is unconditional. No matter what David's descendants do do, David will always have descendants (seed) on the throne, and the ultimate king will come from Him (although the descendant might face the wrath of the Mosaic Covenant). On top of land, seed, and blessings, David gets house, throne and kingdom (2 Sam. 7:16).

That leads us to the NEW COVENANT. To fully look at the New Covenant, we got to split it into different parts. Now someone might thinkg New Covenant = New Testament. This is not fully true. Turn to Jeremiah 31:31-34 in your Bibles. It simply starts, " 'The time is coming,' declares the Lord, 'when I will make a New Covenant...'". Already, the mention of a New Covenant is there before the New Testament is there. Let's skip ahead to the 5th line in Jeremiah 31:32 to find out why this covenant is being made. It reads "because thy broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them." If you're no too familiar with the book of Jeremiah, let me paint the scene. Judah's sin has become too great, and the Lord has pronounced judgment on the nation. They will go into exile. The Lord calls his prophet Jeremiah to announce the judgment. This judgment is the result of breaking the Mosaic Covenant. Judah had fallen into idolatry, and their last 3 kings were corrupt. The Mosaic Covenant had failed, but not because of God. God had been very faithful to keep His promises. It was Israel who could not be faithful to the covenant. Thus, they had to face the curses. Reading Israel's history, the reader can tell the people are incapable of keeping the covenant. There's got to be a better one. That is why God is preparing a covenant that is "not like the covenants I made with their forefathers" because sinful man is just not capable of following the Law. So what's this new law like? Verses 33 and 34 tell the reader. It is not one of merely knowing laws of what to do and what not do do. The Law will be in their hearts, and so will God be. The big change is going from commanding the people to follow laws, to helping the people follow laws by changing them. This change will bring forgiveness of sins, a forgiveness so strong that God forgets the sin. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is an important setup for the New Testament. In fact, this passage is referenced in the New Testament in Romans 11:27, 2 Corinthians 6:16, Hebrews 8:8-12 and Hebrews 10:16-17.

Ezekiel also gets to hear about this New Covenant from the Lord. In Ezekiel 37:15-28, God lays out the New Covenant. First, starting with Ezekiel 37:15-23, God starts by reuniting Judah with the rest of the tribes of Israel to make them one people again, just like I said in the Davidic Covenant. Speaking of Davidic Covenant, verse 24 says David will be king over them. Is it really David? No, he is dead and buried. This is the Messiah, promised through David's line. Going back to verses 15-23, even thought it is the New Covenant, God is still promising the land, seed and blessing promised to Abraham. (vs. 22,26). But the other half of this passage is the same as in Jeremiah. God will be with them and forgive them all their idolotrous sins. Once again, we see this oneness with God and the people. No longer separation with a curtain. No longer the middle man of priests and prophets between God and man. Now it's one on one.

The New Covenant was established by God's Son Jesus Christ. So naturally the first thing to do is defend Jesus Christ's authority on establishing the New Covenant by showing how He fulfilled the Old Covenants. Jesus fulfilled the Adamic Covenant. First, he fulfilled it by being human just as much as He was God. He also fulfilled it by fulfilling Genesis 3:15 by the work on the cross. He fulfilled the Noahic Covenant by being a descendant of Noah, making Jesus a common relative to us all, because we all are related to Noah. He fulfilled the Abrahamic Covenant by being a descendant of Abraham, the promised One. He fulfilled the Davidic Covenant by being the son of David, the promised king. The New Testament starts out with Matthew 1:1, stating that Jesus is the sons of Abraham and David, fulfilling the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenant. He is the promised seed in all those covenants: the promised king, the promised Savior. Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant by perfectly obeying it and not sinning. He also perfectly obeyed it by being the perfect sacrifice for our sins, representing all the sacrifices in Leviticus. Jesus fulfilled all the the covenants.

On the night our Lord was betrayed, which lead to His "trial," crucifixion execution, and resurrection, Jesus made the NEW COVENANT (Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:17-20). This New Covenant promises a restored relationship with God to those who put their faith in Him, just like Abraham did. We are promised blessings, too. We are promised land. Jesus said in John 14:2,3 that He is preparing a place for His followers up in heaven. Galatians informs us we will be co-heirs with Christ. That leadus to another blessings. Those who receive Christ become children of God (John 1:12). We become the promised seed: the children of God. The ultimate blessing we get is forgiveness of sins, just like Jeremiah and Ezekiel prophecied. Since sin is the separator between God and man, Christ's blood sacrifice, removing the stain of sin, allows to be in the presence of God. Another promise is the Counseleor, the Holy Spirit (John 14). When the Holy Spirit descends in Acts 2, the New Covenant goes into effect immediately. This covenant is from God, but the "to" part specifies no one specific. It can be Jews or Gentiles. In fact, the new people of God is the Jews and Gentiles coming together to form the church, the body of Christ. This covenant is unconditional on acts and works, but conditional on faith. God calls those who choose receive the gift of his salvation. They are the people who confess and repent of their sins and sinful desires, and have a belief in the words and works of Jesus Christ, which can be seen in their thoughts, speech and actions.

As a progressive, dispensationalist, I see not 6 independent covenants, but 6 interdependent covenants. The next covenant adds to, updates, and fulfills the previous covenants. Under the New Covenant, we fulfill all the Old Covenants. How so? We fulfill the Adamic Covenants by being descendants of Adam. We are Adam's fruitful seed We fulfill the Noahic Covenant by being descendats of Noah. We are Noah's fruitful seed. So how did we fulfill the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic Covenant, especially if we are Gentiles? Galatians chapter 3 links it together. We fulfill those 3 covenants because we are in Christ, and Christ fulfilled those 3 covenants. Therefore, we indirectly enter the covenants.