Technorati Tags: being, distinctions, essence, nature, philosophy friday, tweet blog

With that understanding I think it’s easier to see why the writer to the Hebrews uses the passages he does and the way he does even if it still generates a whole mess of questions. For instance, a reading of Hebrews 1:1-5 generates five questions in my mind. First a quick overview:

• Heb 1:1 God spoke via Prophets
• Heb 1:2 God spoke these days via his Son
• Heb 1:3 God’s Son is the radiance of His glory; exact representation of his nature; upholds all things by the word of his power; made purification for sins; sat down at the right hand of the majesty on High
• Heb 1:4 God’s Son became much better than the angels by receiving a more excellent name
• Heb 1:5 Angels never called Son

Now mind, most of the far context has been dealt with in far more detail by David Gooding in his book(amazon) The Unshakeable Kingdom (read online) and DA Carson in a message both drawing heavily from FF Bruce’s commentary so you can look at all of those for some of the more technical questions but here are mine:

• Question 1: What does this all (including the citations of 2 Sam 7 and Psalm 2) have to do with Gospel anyway?
• Question 2: If the Son is the brightness of God’s glory, an exact representation of God’s nature and upholds all things by the word of His power—something only God does—then why does the author downgrade (as it were) his argument by appealing to the fact that He is called “Son”?
• Question 3: what does that argument (being called Son) have to do with the prior point (Brightness of God’s glory, etc) anyway?
• Question 4: Angels have been called Son (you know Genesis 6 and Job 1—which includes Satan); what gives?
• Question 5: Why quote Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7 to prove this at all?

Gooding, Carson and Bruce pull out several points from the use of the passages but I particularly wanted to focus on one matter of tense.

In 2 Samuel 7, God makes David a covenant of a future descendant sitting on David’s throne and reigning in David’s Kingdom. God says that the future descendant would build God’s house but if this descendant sins, God will punish him. We know this winds up happening with Solomon (and not with Christ) but God states that David’s throne will endure forever which looks beyond Solomon who winds up being punished for his own iniquities and eventually dies.

What God says in 2 Samuel 7 is, essentially David’s Real Son (not some other human or even a non-human)  will do what God wants (build God’s house) when God wants and he will be called God’s Son as a title—but (in time) Solomon isn’t the perpetual continuation of David’s promise. Each Davidic King is called God’s Son (“I will be a father to him and he will be my Son”) and this pattern will either continue into eternity or there would eventually come a human son of David who retains the God given title of “Son” eternally.

Shorthand: the promise of God’s naming is made in the future tense, even when considering Solomon.

But that changes in Psalm 2. The Psalm is about the Lord’s Anointed already seated in the mountain of the Lord while the nations already rail against him and the Lord (David was given rest and the Lord promised a future rest to him and his people in 2 Samuel 7). The Lord currently laughs and then the Lord’s anointed speaks in the past tense saying “He said unto my ‘I am your father and you are my son’.” He then proceeds to tell the nations to fear the Son (a Kingly role) and to Worship God (a priestly role).

Anyway, the Anointed One is recalling when God said this to him but in 2 Samuel 7, the one who is called “My Son” isn’t even around yet to receive the title.

Now, I’m not saying that the Psalm is definitely Christ speaking in the past tense but, in light of what I previously wrote about how the writer to the Hebrews reads Scripture, when we hear the tense we should be hearing Christ speaking in that portion. At least the early Christians in Acts read the text that way when they cited the words of the Psalm as part of their prayer.

• Question 5: The writer has to quote 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2 because it makes a bridge between God Doing and David’s Family Doing (something that the prophets expand on, especially when you read Ezekiel 34 – 37) that the promise of the bestowed title of Son is bestowed on a man, a son of David, who has both kingly (rule the people) and priestly (build God’s house and direct worship to God) roles.
• Question 4: Although Angels have been called sons (Job 1) it is only in the sense where they are displaying part of God’s qualities. I wrote about functional sonship before but I think it can be easily summarized as God is both spirit and a consuming fire who ministers to others and angels are ministering spirits and flames. None of them reign or hold dominion. That was something that was explicitly given to the human race (Genesis 1).
• Question 3: The point has much to do with the previous point because the writer displays Christ as doing everything God does—even down to his nature. God creates…so did Christ. God upholds with his power…so did Christ. John 5 makes this point pretty nicely.
• Question 2: The writer makes the connection that the one who perfectly expresses God is the one who has come near as a man. It’s pretty much the whole basis of the argument in Chapter 2 through 5 so as to eventually show that he has suffered, he understands our weaknesses, he went on before us and he has conquered and has completed his work. That’s powerful stuff to have a person (Christ) who represents God perfectly also be the very one who can rule and represent men perfectly.
• Question 1: Well, it pretty much is the Gospel, isn’t it?

As a side point, I think it’s interesting that in a book which is often used to prove the most inane things about what Christ’s humanity necessarily entailed (vomiting, believing error, almost dying from sickness, liking brunette little people) that this point that the one who perfectly represents God (created the world, upholds all things by his word of power, brightness of God’s glory, express image of God) is relegated to his post-resurrection ministry when Isaiah looks forward to this Son being born and finally the Father Himself from Heaven declares, in the start of Christ’s ministry “This is my beloved Son—hear Him!”(Matt 3:17)  He suffered, surely, but he did so as perfectly representing the Father (John 14:9)

I’m not too sure on the thought-flow of this post since my brain is currently fuzzy; I may have made the points without tightening the connections as much as I would like.

Technorati Tags: covenant, david, dispensationalism, inerrancy

I’ve been asked (in private and public) certain questions about the Abrahamic covenant. One question is If Abraham and his seed are to be blessed, and part of this blessing is The Land, then can we safely assume that all physical descendants of Abraham also receive the blessing?  The question examines the promise of God and notes that its importance is in the physical and therefore Isaac (a physical descendant of Abraham) gets equal access to the promises as Ishmael (another physical descendant of Abraham) and by extension Esau (a son of Isaac).

A second question that comes up is if Abraham’s progeny is such because they believe God (by having a similar faith as Abraham— citing Gal 3:7 or Romans 4) then can’t we say that the promises of God aren’t for his physical ancestry at all but rather for his spiritual ancestors?  Inheritance of the promises of God are not predicated on blood but on being a child of promise by employing faith (Gal 4:23) therefore the promises to Abraham are promises to us, the Church. They were promises to the physical descendants only so far as those physical descendants were believers. Since they don’t believe, they are therefore not covenanted.

Both of these views, ignoring what the text says, fall short. I’ll address the second first by examining Isaac and Ishmael, and then repeat the examination with Esau and Jacob.

Paul notes (Gal 4:22) that Abraham had two sons (in that part of the text—Abraham had more) one by a bondwoman and one by a free woman; but Ishmael was born “according to the flesh”.  The question one must ask is what does Paul mean? How was Ishmael’s birth different from Isaac’s? Is Paul’s “flesh” a statement about physicality?

We know that Sarai was physically barren (Gen 11:30) and old (Gen 17:17; 18:11)—she couldn’t have biological children. As far as she knew her physical womb was finished (Gen 16:1;  Rom 4:19). She also knew that this condition was the will of God (Gen 16:2). Since God had told Abram that he (Abram) would have descendants (Gen 15:18) from his own body (Gen 15:5) and said nothing about her having biological descendants, it was safe to assume this was his plan.

So she employed a common Ancient Near East technique of ensuring progeny for the head of household (and by extension herself).

If within two years she (the wife) has not provided him (the husband) with offspring, she will purchase a slave-woman, and after she (the slave) shall have provided him with a child by him, he/she may sell her wherever he/she pleases. —Law of Hammurabi

Abraham would have real intercourse with the actual servant, the actual servant would get physically pregnant and the promises of God would come to be because people brought them to be via common ancient Near East practice.

When God approaches Abraham again, He tells him that the promises would come to Abraham and they would come through Sarah (Gen 17:16) to which Abraham laughs (Gen 17:17) and puts Ishmael as a viable option: “Look at what we did, isn’t that good enough?” God rejects the option and underscores that the Covenant is predicated on his word, and appropriated through believing God (Gen 15:6).

No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.

Now, looking backwards, how was this belief evidenced? Abraham, an old man, would have intercourse to have children—with Hagar was their way, but God’s way was with Sarai. Now, when God tells him that Ishmael wouldn’t be the means of promises, he persists in his faith and has intercourse with Sarah. He doesn’t know how she will have kids but he expects her barren womb will be productive with his own insemination because God said so: Isaac winds up being a child of faith (Gal 3:7).

The difference between Hagar and Sarai is not between having sex with Hagar and not-having sex with Sarai; it is between Man bringing about fulfillment of God’s promises via ingenuity and God’s way of bringing about fulfillment via his creative word and man trusting Him. Both ways employed actual sex, both ways consisted of actual biological progeny, both ways resulted in actual physical births. But only one way was the way God intended to establish his promises to Abram: miraculously, through Sarah, with Abraham’s own body used by faith.

It’s not that Isaac is the spiritual descendant of Abraham by faith (and now so are we); it’s that Isaac comes into being by Abraham believing God’s promises (Rom 4:9) and having sex with Sarah (Rom 4:21).

Now the other group that says the promises of God are purely physical, and therefore applies to both Ishmael and Isaac (and by extension Esau), misses God’s clear words quoted above. Mere physical ancestry to Abraham wasn’t the basis of being an inheritorof the covenant—it had to be physical ancestry through the channels God had authorized.

This is not to say that Ishmael doesn’t receive promises. (1) God  will bless him, (2) and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly,  (3)He shall become the father of twelve princes, and (4) God will make him a great nation (Gen 17:20; Gen 21:18), (6) He will be a wild donkey of a man, (7) his hand will be against everyone, (8) everyone’s hand will be against him, (9) and he will leave to the east of his brothers (Gen 16:12). We see him again at the death of Abraham, burying his father (Gen 25:9), and eventually we see him East of Egypt, going towards Assyria—in defiance of his relatives (Gen 25:13-18).

Jacob’s story underscores the importance of God’s way versus Man’s Way of bringing about the covenantal promises to Abraham. Esau was a twin of Jacob, a son of Isaac, and the firstborn. If anyone had the cultural (note, not physical)right to receive the inheritance of Isaac (and therefore the covenantal promises of God) it would be Esau.

And yet, God states to Rebekah:

Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples will be separated from your body;  And one people shall be stronger than the other;  And the older shall serve the younger.

Now only part of this sorta’ happened in Rebekah’s life time: two people were separated from her body, but never two peoples (plural). Esau (the eldest) never served Jacob (the younger). In fact, Jacob cooked for Esau (a servile task—Gen 25:29), ran from Esau (a losers option), and eventually bowed to Esau (Gen 33).

Receiving the inheritance isn’t even on the basis of believing that you have the inheritance coming.  Esau (and Jacob) really believed the inheritance was Esau’s to sell (Gen 25:31-32); Rebekah really believed that the inheritance belonged to Jacob and not Esau (Gen 27); Esau (and Isaac) really believed (hoped?) that the inheritance was given to Jacob and not Esau (Gen 27:38)

Nor are they both partakers in the same inheritance because of their physical heritage. When asked, Isaac says that the inheritance has been given over to Jacob, but Esau’s promises are:  (1) Esau shall live away from fertile soil, (2) shall live by the sword, (3) shall serve his brother, (4) when Esau is restless he will break his brother’s yoke.

The cultural norm is reversed because God said so before they were born. Rebekah believed it and apparently Isaac did not. Man’s way came to the fore by accepting the cultural norm and even by evoking a nice ceremony of camaraderie to convey the covenant to Esau (Gen 27)—but it fails.  It isn’t some weird magic that’s going on that ensures Jacob receives the covenant and Esau doesn’t—it’s that when Isaac realizes who he blessed, he knows that what God said came to be. God’s word was being brought about and Isaac’s ceremony, cultural norms, and desires could do nothing about changing that (Gen 27:37).

So in conclusion, Abraham’s descendants are not his descendants merely because they have his same faith in God’s promises. Melchizedek seemed to have faith but he’s never listed as a descendant of Abraham (Gen 14:19,20); indeed, Esau may have had the same faith later in life (Gen 33:9) even if during his soup incident he was Godless (Heb 12:16). Nor are Abraham’s descendants those that are merely born from him: something Ishmael, Esau and Midian make clear. The descendants are the progeny which come from Abraham’s loins and on whom God’s promises have been established.

God’s word (the things he says) stands.

Technorati Tags: covenantal, dispensationalism, esau, jacob

I started this series underscoring the importance of words and saying how their conveyed information was to be received by the primary audience to convey real information. This was then recorded for our benefit.

Fine. Everyone thus far agrees.

But Covenant Theology takes what I’ve presented and offers a bird’s eye view of things that is exceedingly different from my own, and frankly, extra-biblical.

When I view something like the Abrahamic Covenant, Covenantal Theologians would say that I’m considering it in a vacuum. Covenantal Theologians would say that the covenants are important, not because of how they stand, but because of what they are attached to: God’s redemptive plan. (Here it may be prudent to look back at the Unifying Principle.)

Before the foundation of the world, God rightly expected perfection. And yet, he knew that Man wouldn’t be perfect and they would fail in their works—since only God is perfect. So, God covenanted with himself to redeem fallen mankind—this was his Covenant of Redemption. To Redeem, he must display his grace by making salvation available for people apart from works while still remaining both just and righteous. The Son of God decided to become a man and work perfectly, suffer and die so that those who believe on Him would be put under his headship and thus all the required to be part of God’s people would be met by God. The Lamb, slain before the foundation of the World, would not only be the means, but the object, of faith that would allow God’s grace to be lavished upon men. This was necessary because men could not save themselves as evidenced by the Covenant of Works established in the Garden: do this Adam, and live, do not do this and die. In the Garden, Adam did fail and doomed all mankind. But Christ, the second Adam makes salvation available to all.

So God reveals his Covenant of Grace after the Covenant of Works. Every covenant, although conditional by making demands, points to the necessity of faith; and yet each Covenant is a revelation of God’s grace and thus directly related to God’s redeemed people: the Church.

The Noahic Covenant makes demands; and yet it reveals a universal aspect of God’s Covenant of Grace. The Abrahamic Covenant makes demands of Abraham; and yet it reveals the particular nature of God’s Covenant of Grace. The Mosaic Covenant makes demands; and yet it reveals God’s requirements as his Covenant people. The Davidic Covenant makes demands; and yet it reveals God’s grace in establishing His Anointed. The New Covenant makes demands; and yet it is tied to Christ who did the work—so believers should therefore keep the covenants and their demands as Christ requires. So instead of circumcision (Abrahamic) the believer baptizes; instead of keeping the Sabbath (Mosaic), the believer keeps the Lord’s Day.

Some Covenant Theologians believe that all the covenants were merely part of the Covenant of Grace with no Covenant of Works attached. Most Covenant Theologians disagree. In essence: the Church has always been (Israel was just the Church in the Old Testament) and the Church will always be. Abraham is just a point in Redemptive History, the History of the Church.

But I see serious problems with this view.

First of all, I don’t find anything in the text about some Covenant of Works or a Covenant of Grace or a Covenant of Redemption. They’re just not there.

Second, they are solely theological constructs that have been generated from soteriological conclusions in the New Testament, and then transported over the Scripture. This puts the authority not on the text but on the conclusion that resides over the text and then being used to drive explanations. Now here someone might offer the counter-example of the Trinity—the same thing isn’t happening here.

Third, they decide a priori that there are no real differences instead of allowing Paul’s comments to speak for themselves.

Fourth, non-Dispensational theologians have agreed and have made other non-Dispensational systems to try to explain the error by showing that CT, in an effort to underscore the unity of Scripture, have reached an untenable conclusion. As such, some groups have proposed a model that makes a much sharper division between Works/Law and Grace even if they have also denied some key elements.

For those reasons, and others not listed because they are dealt with in future posts, I do not examine the broad picture, the birds eye view, with the mythological constructs of covenant theology but rather with what the text in Genesis underscores as important and which the rest of the Old Testament finds the roots in: the Promise to the Patriarchs and their descendants:

This promise to Abraham (and his descendants) is really a package of several promises that are intertwined and shine throughout the Old Testament with their importance. They have definite physical ramifications and definite spiritual ramifications (a blessing to the nations is obviously more than being a boon to the physical needs of the nations—which is why the book of Genesis has the nations both eating and receiving a blessing from the seed of Abraham Israel Himself).

These promises have short term fulfillment (people who curse Abraham are cursed) but there is the permanent aspect of the promise that needs to be put in place. For that to happen, the promises have to bring certain elements into place that will ensure both their fulfillment and their permanency.

So when David receives his covenant, he knows that it isn’t a covenant that comes out of the blue with no history and some nebulous near-term future. He sees that the promise speaks about things many days hence and that it is beyond the way men keep promises (and break them). He realizes that his package of promises is predicated on a historical package of promises thus bringing into being a perpetual aspect of that previous covenant.

In other words, the covenant to David winds up being a blossoming of the Covenant to Abraham, still tied to it (I will make you a nation, Kings will come from you, and you will be a blessing)…:

…yet expanding on it with its own package of promises (the nations will flock to David, He will be the Lord’s anointed, and He will build a House for God—2 Sam 7; 1 Chronicles 17:11-14; 2 Chronicles 6:16; Psalm 2; Psalm 89; Isaiah 4; Isaiah 11) and its own subsequent illumination through the Old Testament hope.

And just as David’s covenant is an expansion of the Abrahamic Covenant, while maintaining key elements to bring it into fruition, the New Covenant comes along and does the same thing. It expands to all the people, it becomes a means of blessing for everyone, it consists of the outpouring of the Spirit of God , it is tied to David and Abraham as it blossoms outward (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:26-27; Joel 2; Psalm 40:8).

Note that each of these covenants contains their own package of promises blossoming from Abraham’s Covenant. If we were to turn these covenants upside down we would see their expansive nature with the Abrahamic Covenant as the base:

And if we were to remove the labels and strip them down to their Covenantal parts (the divine package of promises), we would see the package of promises that each entails is a reflection, illumination and expansions of the covenant to Abraham.

Similarly, if we were to look at them from the top down, we would see that the Covenants keep their middle on the previous covenant, in all cases they always keep the heart of the package of promises from the Abrahamic Covenants. The Covenants expand, surely, but they never (ever) leave behind the core: who the promise was made to, consisting of what progeny, regarding which place, specifying which blessings, indicating which curses, and so forth. They’re always there.

But that’s all bird’s eye view. I’m going to have to take a look at the Mosaic Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, and then the New Covenant to establish that from their context—like the many posts we spent with Abraham.  Before I do all that I do want to examine some questions about Ishmael and Esau.

Technorati Tags: abrahamic covenant, covenant theology, progressive covenants

Ishmael (Gen 16, 21; Gen 37:25-28; 1 Chr 1:28-31)
The Promise: Abraham’s descendants would be blessed. Ishmael is not to be the means of implementing God’s promises, but he is blessed from his attachment to Abraham; Ishmael would be made fruitful, father of a nation, be blessed. Even though Ishmael gets kicked out of the house, God tells Hagar (twice) that her son will have a future history (Gen 16:11-12; Gen 21:18) and goes about recording his successful beginnings by saying He was with him (Gen 21:20). Indeed, he’s called the father of twelve kings, a fact which the Chronicler goes on to record (1 Chr 1:28-31).

Isaac (Gen 24-26)
The Promise: Abraham’s descendants would be blessed; those who curse Abraham would be cursed. Isaac, directly being the Son of Promise reveals a blossoming of the promises of God that it is not to be fulfilled only in physical terms but directly correlated to the establishing word and power of God. God’s covenants would come through direct ancestry and by miraculous orchestration of events and circumstances. Isaac’s wife is taken by Abimelech (mentioned in another post) and Abimelech winds up cursed. Isaac lives in the land most of his life not as a sojourner but as one awaiting the promises of God.

Joseph (Gen 37, 39-45)
The Promise: The Nations would be blessed through Abraham, Abraham’s descendants would be great, Abraham would be a blessing. Joseph’s story is directly connected to Jacob’s story for it is the means that God uses to bring about God’s promises to Abraham in light of the  nations. Joseph, rejected by the sons of Jacob (and sold into the hands of the Sons of Abraham via Ishmael), winds up being the savior of the nations and the savior of the sons of Jacob on account of his position and familial relationship. God plans it that way, a fact that Joseph brings up, while becoming what Noah was to all of creation.

Esau (Gen 28, 33; Num 20; Jud 11; 2 Kings 8; 1 Chron 18:13; 2 Chr 21:10; Jer 49; Oba 1, Mal 1 Luke 23)
The Promise: those who curse the Sons of Abraham would be cursed. This one is interesting. The promise was made that the Elder would serve the Younger, that Esau would bow down to Jacob and yet in Jacob’s lifetime Esau never bowed down to Jacob: indeed, Jacob bows down to Esau! The one time in the history of Edom that there was any bowing down was when the Edomites were made subject to David—but that didn’t last long. Some years later, Jesus would stand before a Son of Esau (Herod the Idumean), reigning in Israel (of all places!) demanding that the Jesus perform tricks. Jesus didn’t respond for the Lord had already spoken to Edom as we recall the many prophecies regarding Edom, how he would be wiped away, how he would be subject to the Younger. Edom as a whole suffers the curse of God while Esau remains quite fine with Jacob.

Jacob/Israel (Gen 27 – 50)
The Promise: The Nations would be blessed through Abraham, the descendants of Abraham would be great. The promises of God are established through Jacob, and yet Jacob’s life is an interplay of cursing that is actually blessing. He cheats his brother out of his inheritance and has to run from the land he was promised, yet he returns richer than before. He gets a bum deal with a wife but that deal winds up being the means God uses to bring to fruition the covenant to Abraham. He has a couple of sons through his favorite wife and winds up  losing Joseph, fully expects to lose Benjamin, and if Joseph wasn’t really Joseph and some random angry Pharaoh assistant, he would have lost Judah too. But in the end he winds up with an even bigger family, being the means of blessing for the nations, being a blessing to all his children, and personally blessing a gentile ruler. Even his son Judah winds up being one to whom the scepter properly belongs, taking a child under his wings (His and Tamar’s) and standing in Benjamin’s place.

The Sons of Israel in Egypt (Exo 1 – 12)
The Promise: Those who curse Abraham would be cursed. Joseph is forgotten, so Exodus says, and the children of Israel are oppressed as they curse the Israelites with slavery. God rescues them performing wonders that are greater than those that were performed with another Pharaoh, two Abimelechs, and one Laben. They are rescued with miraculous signs, God’s provision of salvation, and even rescued through the waters of the Red Sea. The promises to Abraham seemed to blossom before their eyes as they stand at the foot of Sinai and are told that they will find blessing in the Land as long as they keep the covenant to be a kingdom of priests, but would be cursed in the Land if they abused the covenant at Sinai.

The Sons of Israel in the Wilderness (Leviticus; Deuteronomy; Numbers)
The Promise: Those who curse Abraham would be cursed; the seed of Abraham would multiply; they would inherit the Land that God showed to Abraham. The Seed of Abraham are tested in the wilderness but are also oppressed. Edom refuses to let them through and they are cursed. Moab winds up being cursed. Canaan is allowed to momentarily defeat the Israelites as chastisement, but the people of Abraham’s loin are not cut off. For a moment, God says he plans to restart the promises of Abraham by establishing His covenant with Moses—to which Moses refuses saying he would rather die with the rest of the Sons of Israel. In the end, the first generation dies out and it is the second generation that makes it into the land, covenanting with each other to ensure that the Land is conquered.

The Sons of Israel in Canaan (Joshua; Judges; 1 Sam)
The Promise: Those who curse Abraham would be cursed; the descendants would inherit a Land. The Children of Israel are often victorious as they fight in the land. They find curses when they actively reject the covenant they have entered into in Sinai. Joshua ends stating that all the promises to the Forefathers were fulfilled and yet, we see that the entire land is not conquered (Joshua 21:45). What the writer is saying is that every single one of the promises God made was blossoming before his eyes, a sentiment which is repeated (Jos 23:14). And yet in the book of Judges we see the Israelites suffering under the oppression they’ve faced in the past. They wind up oppressed by the Gentiles/Canaanites (Judges 4, 5), the Moabites (Judges 2), the Midianites (Judges 7) and even each other. It’s a pitiful time where they are given over to idolatry—yet their enemies are still repeatedly cursed.

The Nation Receives A King (Gen 38; Ruth; 2 Sam 7; Psalm 2; Psalm 89)
The Promise: The nation would be a Kingdom; the descendants would be a blessing to the nations; those who curse Abraham would be cursed. The nation eventually asks for their own King, ahead of time, which God provides and uses to castigate the people but eventually the promises to Abraham blossom to reveal that a King was part of the plan and David’s house is established carrying forth the Covenant to Abraham. David, surprised, realizes the breadth of this thing where God does better than men while submitting to promises and keeping them in such an extravagantly gracious way.

The Nation is Sacked (Esther; Daniel):
The Promise: The descendants will inherit the Land; God will bless them; God will curse those who curse them; they will be a blessing to the nations. The nation, repeatedly standing in opposition against God’s covenant at Sinai finds the curses in the Land increasing as they curse the Land by refusing to give it it’s Sabbath rest. The Land is eventually sacked first by the Assyrians (in the North) then the Babylonians (in the South) but even while out of their land, Jews (like Daniel or Esther) wind up being a blessing to those around them, being a means of salvation and blessing for their people and holding onto the promises of God to return to the Land. Daniel is so confident about the thing that he reads the prophecies of Jeremiah, does the math (talk about being literal!) and realizes that he should be praying harder. God indeed confirms his prayers and tells him that for now he will “go to sleep” but one day he will come back to his plot—his inheritance.

A New Covenant Promised (Jeremiah, Isaiah, Zechariah, Joel, Ezekiel):
The Promise: The promise to Abraham is an eternal covenant; Abraham will be a blessing to the nations. God tells the Israelites that he will make a new covenant which is not like the covenant that was made at Sinai. The problem with Sinai is that it demanded a lot of action by the recipients to secure the benefits of the covenant—a problem that was not inherent in the promise to Abraham. This Covenant blossoms out from Abraham’s covenant pulling in elements from the Mosaic Covenant in such a way that God personally does the work in the people. The Nations find blessing via Israel, the Spirit of God is poured out because of Israel, the bones are given new life because of God’s outpoured spirit, Israel no longer has to tell her neighbors “Know the Lord” because all will know the Lord, all will have God’s mandates written on their heart because they are empowered by God, and they will find blessing in the land as they offer up their sacrifices in thanksgiving and appreciation in such a way that has never been done before. We discover that this Covenant, tied to the Spirit of God, is tied to the Day of the Lord, tied to the Last Days, tied to the revelation of a prophet-priest and to a king-priest who is the Son of David.

It’s plain as day; the concluding observations are unnecessary. Although God would cast away the Sons of Israel as an adulterous wife (on account of transgressing her covenant with God at Sinai), they still are regarded as his wife on account of the Covenant with Abraham.

I don’t normally do this at the end of a blog post, but I can’t help it: oh the wonder of it! The incalculable riches and wisdom and mercy and love of God! The God who would do above and beyond what any man would expect but gets down at the level of men, not only to make promises but to ensure that those promises come to be by ensuring he keeps to them in time!

This tells me that God has kept his promises to His elect (Isaiah 45:4) and will keep His promises, to the uttermost! That although people (in this case, the Israelites) have seriously screwed up, that God in His goodness and mercy and condescension remains faithful. If they’ve been slaughtered, they haven’t been wiped out; if they were made captives, they haven’t disappeared; if they were punished, it wasn’t to wipe them out; if they have stumbled, it wasn’t to fall. God made promises to Abraham and he has kept them and, if past activity is any measure of activity, he will continue to keep them.

Thank you blessed God for when you speak to me for salvation, you speak clearly and honestly: me, a sinner, that by believing on you and the One whom you have sent I am given eternal life, am seated in heavenly places, will reign with your Son for all eternity, and will be an administrator of some sort—I know that you mean it and am astounded! You have spoken clearly to the fathers—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and you have continued to keep your promises to them with their children! Thank you God because it’s not by my steam, or my strength but by your word that your promises stand! Thank you Lord! Thank you, O’ God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob—and now Rey! Thank you!

Technorati Tags: abraham, esau, ishmael, israelites, jacob, joseph, promises