Covenant Theology: Promises Not Made to Be Broken - Essay Example

? [Information] [Information] [Information] Covenant Theology: “Promises Not Made to Be Broken” A covenant is, simply put, a promise, a contract, an agreement, an obligation, or a commitment to do something on behalf of or for someone else. A covenant is drawn or drafted verbally and/or in writing, and is made between individuals, an individual and a nation, or two or more nations or tribes. In any event, a covenant agreement does not mean all parties have to agree to it, and it doesn't necessarily mean the entity to whom the promise is made has to do anything to “perfect” the agreement, or make it valid. Special covenants were made during Bible times between God and Adam, God and Noah, God and David, God and Moses, and the most well-known covenant of all, between God and Abraham. The covenant is a promise of things to come in the future, whether short-term, long-term, or eternally, as was the case with Noah's rainbow. Each of the special covenant protections that God made over ancient times is a “lesser covenant” that leads to the Last and Final Covenant, the promise of a Savior who would come to save all mankind for all eternity. In this case, the promise God made to Abraham to make his descendants 'as numerous as the sand of the sea' was fulfilled in the Messiah, the One who made all prior promises complete. To some extent, the Savior can even be a fulfillment of the covenant God made with Noah in the sign of the rainbow. It is believed by some that God will not need to destroy mankind again with a flood, because the peoples of earth are on a sure and steady end-times path to self-destruction. By the ancient scribes, scrolls, and written texts, calendar time starts moving forward on or around the time of the birth of Christ (A.D. - “anno domini,” Latin for “in the year of our Lord.”). Everything before that counts down to the Year One, or counts backward to be beginning of time. With those years, the higher the number, the more ancient the days; in modern history, the lower the calendar year numbers, the more modern the days all the way to our current year 2011. We still see the rainbow in the earth's atmosphere, especially after a silky thin rain, but the first coming of the Christ as promised is also to be accompanied by a second coming, so the rainbow covenant is still relevant in our time. According to many believers of Christian theology, the final promise of the Lord's return and the restoration of earth to its all-encompassing future kingdom glory has yet to happen. Bible scholars refer to the entire Old Testament as the Covenant under Moses. The New Testament is the Covenant under Yeshua, whom we often refer to as “Jesus,” and it is called the Messianic covenant. There are several schools of thought on scriptural prophecy as it relates to covenant theology – where it originates, how it is dispensated or dealt out in modern times, what it really means then and now, and how believers are supposed to take and apply it to everyday life until the second half is fulfilled. Though there are some who say the first coming of the Savior was by water (His birth) and the second by blood (His crucifixion, death, and resurrection); but others say the second dispensation could not have happened yet because we are still living in a sin-sick broken world that will self-destruct in a ball of wars and fire this time. The argument is that if the prophecies that pointed to His birth were fulfilled and literal, how can the prophecies which point to the coming of the Kingdom of God, or the New Jerusalem, be anything but. That is the covenant of the future, the promise that the New Jerusalem and a new world is on the way. Characteristics of a Covenant Relationship Covenant relationships in Bible times had several elements to them, but not all of the elements were included in every agreement. A few of the characteristics of covenant are noted below: (a) Agreement of the terms of the covenant The terms are agreed upon by both parties; however, a covenant does not necessarily bind both or all parties to the agreement, sometimes the other party is not obligated to do anything at all except to receive the blessing or the promise(s) made. (b) Swearing of an oath A sworn oath is the “seal of approval” of the covenant; whether it was verbal “word is bond,” or etched into the pillars or rocks of a place of accord between the entities, the oath then was the same as a sworn oath we take now. God or a god was called upon to bear witness to the agreement as testament to the agreement; but in modern times, we sign and seal a sworn oath by what we call a “notary public,” or a legal official or outside witnesses who sign that the parties who made the agreement actually made it. In those times, if the seal or oath was broken, the god upon whom the oath was sworn was invoked to judge between them and to set the injured party “right.” (c) Offering of a sacrifice A sacrifice, a blood sacrifice, to be exact, was a the seal of the covenant during Bible times. More than the seal of approval by the swearing of the oath, the actual seal was often bound in blood. Blood was serious business during scripture times. When blood commitment or blood oath was made, it meant that even at the cost of the life of the ones in covenant, the agreement would be fulfilled. (d) A witness The witness or witnesses did not need to be a living persons, though that was not out of the question. Witnesses or testaments to the agreement could be something like a pile of stones, or a pillar, or a rock with writing sketched into it, or a herd of animals was even used to bear “witness” to the covenant at the moment. Something might be built or laid down or gathered in a spot or point to show that the agreement was made and to serve as testimony to it. (e) The feast Feasts and gatherings were sometimes prepared in anticipation of an agreement. The food was not partaken of until the covenant was sealed. A feast or festival was like what we would call an 'after-party' today, the celebration of the agreement and its effect on the days to come. Covenant Relationship in the Bible There were major or special covenant relationships between God and certain parties during Bible times. Those covenant agreements all had some whole or particular meaning that was leading up the coming of the Son of God. For example, with Adam: The covenant between God and Adam, as a representative of all mankind, did not require Adam's agreement to fulfill it. The covenant promise was actually judgment and a curse pronounced on the head of the serpent who had caused Eve's transgression. The serpent was thoroughly cursed, but through Adam and Eve's seed, God told the serpent “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head and you will strike his heel.” (Genesis 3:15). The literal interpretation of “offspring” are the descendants of Adam and Eve, the ancestors of the Christ; but the allegorical interpretation is in Christ's death and crucifixion. The crushing of a snake's head, in this indirectly stated covenant promise, is its ultimate and final destruction; the striking of the heel is allegorically related to the harm and damage that will be done to the Christ and to mankind in the meantime. The “enmity” is symbolic of the jealousy and hatred that the serpent will have toward the people of God, during which time he will do everything in his power to destroy them. In the covenant protection clause, the serpent will never be allowed to finish his goals of destroying mankind, but the jealous “hits” and “strikes” along the way will cripple God's people (the “heel” of Christ). A strike at the heel is bruising and painful, it may even receive and spread poison throughout; but the anti-venom is the blood of Christ himself. A crush to the head, however, is a final deadly blow. There is no coming back from that. The promise made to the seed of Adam and Eve in that curse is also a promise made to the serpent: You will be destroyed. As a side note, a mini-covenant was made between God and Cain, after Cain had murdered his brother Abel. Cain was cursed by God and sent away, but Cain feared the same fate that he had dealt to his younger brother, Abel, would meet him out in the wilderness. However, the Lord told him, “Not so...if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over.” In that act was forgiveness and a mark (the seal of a promise that God made to Cain 'in the moment'). The “mark” was put on Cain's head as he ventured out and it was a warning to those who might try to kill him. The third son of Adam and Eve, Seth, was the head lineage that would lead to the birth of the Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. It can be rightly argued that if Cain had not murdered Abel, Abel would have been the Savior's heritage ancestor. Noah: The rainbow is the symbolic covenant made between God and Noah. In this promise or contract, Noah did not have to agree to anything; God swore an affirmative oath of His own to Noah that He would never flood the earth again, while also saying that He was sorry He had done such a thing. The world that came into existence after the flood is known as the post-diluvian (post-flood) world, which was re-populated by Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Shem was the son of Noah from whom the Shemitic (or “semitic”) peoples would come. Moses: During the time of Moses, the commandments, what we refer to as the Ten Commandments, and all of the accompanying laws of the Levitical priests and kings, were rule-specific. They were very detailed and outlined every possible scenario between people and tribes, and what the legal recourse was in case these laws were broken. The rules were taken literally, and there were very few exceptions when it came to punishment for breaking them. The commandments and laws were not a covenant promise, but the promise to come through obedience to these laws was very covenant-related. In Adams' time, God left it up to mankind to interpret the moral rights and wrongs of daily living, much to their detriment; but when He separated out the house of Israel (Jacob's children) from the rest of the world and gave His promises solely to them, there was no room left for self-interpretation of the way things would be in the years to come. Everything was spelled out in vast detail, including remedies and resolutions in case of dispute. David: The Davidic covenant was made directly between God and David. David had a heart to please God by building a house for the Ark of God, or what was known as the 'Ark of the Covenant' that they had carried about in times of war and peace. God Himself inhabited the Ark, and it finally found a resting place, a foundation, amongst the people of David's kingdom. Though God told David not to build a house, or to put walls around it or encase or enclose it, God blessed David because his heart was in the right place to protect it from the elements and from external attack. Because of David's heart, the Lord told that him that He would build David a house instead, and that the lineage of King David would never end. This covenant was fulfilled through his son King Solomon, known to the world as the “wisest king who ever lived.” King Solomon's descendants continued the trail to the birth of the Savior. Side note: There is some documented proof available that Haile Selassie—the Ethiopian emperor who was exiled after Italy took over the country—was a direct Solomonic descendant. Selassie died under suspicious circumstances while exiled. Abraham: The most well-known of all scriptural covenants was the one made between God and Abraham regarding the sons, or the seed, of Abraham. The Abrahamic covenant was a dispensation of grace because of Abraham's willingness to do anything and everything the Lord asked of him, even to blood sacrifice his one and only son, Isaac. Isaac was yet another symbolic gesture of the Savior to come and the greater sacrifice to be made in His crucifixion and death. Because Isaac was not born until Abraham was so far up in age that it was nearly impossible for he and his wife, Sarah, to have children—it was a supreme act of faith that allowed him to know that there was a reason God would give him a son and then challenge him to give up that “only” child on an altar. In the Abrahamic ('Abramic') covenant, God agreed to provide him with (1) a son of he and his wife, Sarah; (2) His Son, the Ultimate Redeemer through his own inheritance; (3) the land of Canaan' and (4) ultimately “descendants so numerous that they could not be numbered...” (as the grains of sand on the seashore). Abraham's permanent endlessness was fulfilled in the birth of Christ, and has yet to be fulfilled in His second appearance on earth. The first coming binds the children of Israel [blood born or natural Israel], the second coming binds the Children of Israel and those who are “engrafted in the vine” (those who have believed in and called on the name of Christ through grace and faith) [spiritual or redeemed Israel]. Natural Israel is not an automatic giving of God's grace; they too, will have to believe in the Son of God, or the Lord and Savior as their Redeemer, or so it is believed. The wars that began in Canaan between Ishmael and Isaac's children, then the children of Isaac's twin sons, Esau/Edom (whom we now know as the “Arabs”) and Jacob (“Israel”) are consistent conflicts and rivalries that go on between these nations. These are rightly interpreted as the “wars and rumors of wars” (Matthew 24) leading to the end of earth as we know it, and the onset of the New Jerusalem. What the eastern world refers to as Jihad, the War of All Wars or “Mother” of All Wars, we have come to know as Armageddon. This final conflict signifies, in prophetic covenant, the beginning of the end and the coming of the Messianic covenant, the Kingdom of God. Covenant Relationship in Modern Times The Geneva Convention is a modern-day type of covenant that is entered into by several nations, which governs treatment of prisoners during times of war. A marriage license is a “covenant” agreement in today's world, as well. The modern dispensation of covenant relationship with God can be based on the literal historical or an allegorical translation of the scriptures. Those who believe in literary interpretations believe there is no “reading between the lines” when it comes to a covenant with God. It is what it is. Those who believe in the allegorical translation believe that it is okay to try and figure out what God does not tell us or state directly. The golden rule of interpretation is “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.” The Law versus Grace The Old Testament is the Mosaic covenant. There are strict religious fundamentalists who do not believe that the Prophet (teacher) Christ was actually also the prophetic Son of God. As far as they are concerned, the Messiah has not arrived yet. The New Testament is the Messianic covenant, which was fulfilled as promised in the birth and life of Jesus Christ, the Messiah. Messianic covenanters believe that Jesus ('Yeshua') was a prophet, teacher, and rabbi, as well as the very Son of God Himself – the deliverance and delivery and deliverer of the promise of God to send a Savior to redeem all of humanity. Hebrews 12:24 says “And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.” Literalists would ask the question that if thousands of prophecies regarding the coming of Christ were fulfilled, why would prophecies regarding His second coming not be literal as well? As Mediator of the 'New Covenant' (the new dispensation of grace) they no longer under the constraining restricting laws of Moses of the Old Covenant. Those who believe in Him are under cover of freedom and grace without need of adherence to grueling taskmaster laws. This is portrayed as the difference between a slave and a free man. Those who adhere to the laws are slave, and those who are covered under the blood of Christ, the Lamb, are free. The sprinkling of the blood of the Ultimate Sacrifice, the Lamb of God, has but one interpretation accordingly—that all that needed to be done or ever will be done is fulfilled in Him. This does not mean that Christ's fulfillment of the law means it is okay to break them; but simplistically put, it means that the manner of the law (the rule of order) which put people under a yoke, a burden, bondage resembling “slavery” was no longer in effect. Why? In the modern dispensation of grace, the salvation or peace of God can no longer be earned or “worked out” – neither by the slaughtering of an animal for blood sacrifice in exchange for punishment of sin, or even in the giving of something in exchange for something else as a result of theft or conversion. There is but one consideration in the modern dispensation of covenant relationship with God, and that is to believe in the one and only Son of God; scripturally, this is the 'answer and the only way'. Conclusion In a nutshell, covenant theologists apply 'normal' (strict and literal) interpretations to scripture, and dispensational theologists apply 'normal' interpretations to historical scripture and allegorical references to everything else. Modern dispensationalists say that covenant theologists place believers under Old Testament law. The final question is: Who takes the Bible at face value, and who makes it fit into a theological system of order? The covenant theologist would say the Bible prohibits the eating of swine, hawk, eagle, and raven (Lev. 11:7, 13-19); but the dispensationalist would say this Levitical (Mosaic) law is allegorical of unclean lusts for food, injustice, robbery, and greed. It is rumored that Paul, a convert, and Peter, a disciple who had actually walked with Jesus, had vehement arguments about covenant and dispensation, leading them to parts ways on matters of theology. Others say that Peter and Paul, though they disagreed on legal matters like whether or not “saved” men had to be circumcised, they remained friends throughout their separate journeys. In a sense, both men were right because Peter's ministry was aimed mostly at uncoverted “blood-born jews” who knew nothing of the ministry of the Lord and Savior; and Paul's ministry was mostly directed at unsaved Gentiles, heathens and pagans who were not of the house of Israel, who knew nothing at all of the God of Israel or the coming Kingdom. However, where they crossed wires was in cross-ministering, where Paul spoke with those “of the circumcision” and told them they were no longer under the Old Covenant, or the restrictive Law of Moses, through the saving grace of the Lord; and where Peter spoke with the Gentiles “not of the circumcision,” telling them they still were required “by law” to be circumcised. This was but one example of where Peter and Paul differed when it came to the covenant of God. Literally and figuratively, it is not a “bad” thing for a saved man to also be circumcised, but as Paul said, it is no longer “required.” It is a matter of the spirit and heart of the conscience, rather than the letter of Mosaic covenant law, what a person should or should not do. Nowadays, not many people want to tender forth theological arguments about scriptural matters that we can all interpret any way we see fit. Those who are known as “Bible Debaters” (Covenant Eschatologists) want to delve farther into the meaning of dispensationalism versus covenant truth and bring several hundred notions or beliefs into the discussion; notions that are, at best, very translucent—but never transparent, or thoroughly leak-proof. Works Cited The Holy Bible, New International Version. Biblica, Inc. Copyright© 2011. [Print and electronic]. Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A.R.; Brown, David. Introduction to Genesis 17. Commentary: Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. (1871). 23 Aug. 2011 > Souvay, Charles. Ark of the Covenant. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company. (1907). 23 Aug. 2011 > Brooks, Jack. Covenant Theology and Biblical Prophecy. Endtimes.org. 23 Aug. 2011 > Nyberg, Bob. Dispensationalism 101:Contrasting Dispensationalism & Covenant Theology. New Tribes Mission. 23 Aug. 2011 > Nyberg, Bob. Covenant Theology Versus Dispensationalism A Matter of Law versus Grace. New Tribes Mission. 23 Aug. 2011. > Read More