God's Covenant With Mankind

 In the last several posts, I have written about forgiveness, and covenants, suzerains and vassals. There was also the post about views on atonement. In this post I hope to put some of these things together to explain something that might help us understand more of how all of these things fit into the plan and purpose of God. A plan and purpose of LOVE.

In the early writings of this blog I talked about a point in time about 20 years into my Christian walk when I watched a video tape of Willie Hinn preaching a sermon called "Mistaken Identity" He preached in in 1987 and I did not watch it until about 1993, but when I did watch it, it transformed my understanding about the Sovereignty of God like nothing ever before. It was like a light went on inside, and everything changed! The grass was greener, the sky was bluer, and my cheeks were getting sore from the smile on my face! I don't want to discuss it in much further detail here, but only to say, one of the main points of the sermon was that God has always had a plan for creation, and even the so called fall in the Garden of Eden by Adam and Eve, was NOT a surprise to God, and in fact I believed then, and still now believe that it was in fact part of the plan and purpose from the God who is love. 

All I have ever heard preached until then was that God created Adam and Eve in the Garden, and He tested their love for Him by giving them instruction to be obedient, and if only they remained obedient, then all of mankind would live in Paradise forever. So then that always left a question in the minds of thinking men and women, (even unsaid so as to not appear to be questioning God perhaps), and that is simply; If God is all knowing, and he created mankind knowing in advance they were going to disobey, and the punishment would mean sending billions of people to an eternal fiery torment in hell, then what kind of tyrant would that make God? And if God did not know the outcome of what Adam would do, then what else does God not know? No wonder those that reject God (and even many Christians) are not sure if they can trust this God, since who knows if He is just going to get angry and punish mankind in His wrath? After all, aren't natural disasters part of God's judgement? (No, not in anyway!)

Oh how mislead and deceived we have been subjected to even by well meaning preachers, with such a distorted view of God. How delighted I was to learn that God is really Omnipotent and not impotent. That God is Sovereign and is Loving and Gracious and Merciful ALL the time! That God has a wonderful plan for creation, and EVERYTHING is included in that plan! Adam's "fall" was NOT a mistake, but indeed a part of the purpose of God from before the foundation of the world. In fact  Genesis 3:22 "Now man has become as one of us, knowing the difference between good and evil...." Wasn't that the point? Aren't we told in Gen. 1:26 "Let us make man in our image and likeness..." 

It was like reading the Bible with open eyes for the first time! What I had learned was that, God's intention was actually, NOT the first man Adam, but the second man Christ! Adam was just the prototype so to speak, and it was all to lead up to when Jesus died and rose again from the dead, He became the LAST ADAM, and the SECOND MAN! Jesus put to death the Adamic race on the cross and began a whole new creation. Thus fulfilling the covenant between God and Adam. (see Rom.5)

Having said that, I will explain what I mean by the term Adamic covenant and how that applies not only to him, but to all mankind as well. While we are not told specifically in Scripture that God was making a covenant with Adam, like is said in other cases such as with Abraham, I see all the makings of a covenant agreement with God and Adam who is the representative head of  all mankind. 

In Gen. 2:15-17 " And the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man saying, of every tree of they garden thou may freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat, for in the day that thou eat thereof, thou shalt surely die." 

Those verses right there is the covenant agreement between the Suzerain God, and the Vassal Adam. The conditions were for Adam not to eat of the tree, or the consequence, (rather than punishment) is that Adam would surely die. 

So then the question has to be asked, Did God know that Adam was going to eat of the tree? Yes, is the answer, and in fact I noticed yesterday, God said, "In the day that you eat thereof" He did not say in case you eat, or if you eat, but rather as much as saying when you eat of that tree and disobey me you will die. God knew Adam was going to eat, and planned it and purposed it and brought it to its fact.

Now you might say to me, How horrid is that! God purposed Adam to fall and bring the world into sin, and punishment and eternal torment for billions of souls.... And I would tell you to just hold on a minute! Who ever said anything like that to you has told you a terrible and wicked lie, that slanders the Name and Nature of God! In fact, we are told in Rev. 13:8 that Jesus is the "Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world..." Before there ever was a problem, God took care of the problem. He did not start something, and not know if He could finish it, or if He would prevail with His plan and purpose! (see Luke14:28-32) How insane is it to think such a thing about God! We attach so many of man's faults to God and think that God thinks like man does, but rather God says to come up higher. His thoughts are not like ours, which does not mean to stay where you are in the lower thought realm, but rather come up higher and begin to think His thoughts!!

And so now, since we see that God knew what Adam was going to do, and that Adam was going to break the covenant. God then takes both sides of the covenant and obligates Himself to the consequence of death! This is why God took on human flesh in the form of Jesus to take Adam's place, as the consequence of the breaking of the covenant agreement. "As in Adam ALL die, so also in Christ shall ALL be made alive..." 1 Cor. 15:22  As one person said, what part of ALL don't you understand the A or the two L's?

And so there is much more to the working out of this process throughout the whole of the Old Testament, which is meant more for a book than a blog post. However suffice it to say, that when the scriptures tell us that "Sacrifice and offerings thou did not desire..." Psalm 40:6, and other similar verses, then it means,as I see it,  that it was not the reason or the ultimate goal God had in mind. Mankind was already sacrificing babies to other gods to appease these gods they worshiped because of their guilt for sin. God in fact was saying, that any sacrifices made to Him was never meant to appease Him, and was not the purpose He had in mind when He instituted the animal sacrifices. These sacrifices were a symbol as a reminder of there is going to be a death take place and the animals was NOT what God had pleasure in and would not relieve their guilt, because the animal sacrifices were only in place until God Himself in the person of His Son Jesus would finally fulfill Adam's portion of his side of the covenant! The book of Hebrews explains this very well.

I am not sure I made myself clear, so I will say it another way. The further man moved East of Eden, the further man separated themselves from the life of God in their own mind. (God was never separated from man! and in fact God got man to head back West with Abraham) The people of God began to follow other gods and make human sacrifices to appease these gods they followed. God instituted animal sacrifices and rituals and laws and procedures for man to follow, to replace their need for a sacrifice of appeasement, until the time would come when that system would end with the final sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

 God was not to be treated like other gods who would desire sacrifice, for the sake of the sacrifice to appease them! The animal sacrifices was NOT God's goal, and it was never meant to appease Him in any way. God was not having them sacrifice for His sake, but for their own sake since they needed to clear their conscience of sin.  In fact in Psalm 50:12 God says through the psalmist "If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is mine and the fullness thereof"! The sacrifices were never meant to be just a ritual to be followed, as if God needed the meat, the sacrifices in the temple were a symbol of the covenant God had with mankind, and a reminder that God would ultimately replace that sacrifice of death with the sacrifice of His own death on the cross! 

"Let us make man in our image and likeness,,," and indeed man showed up in the image and likeness of God, in the person of Jesus the Christ, who then ended any and all other sacrifices by the sacrifice of Himself on the cross in order to complete the conditions of  God's Covenant With Mankind

 

The Blood Of The Covenant

In my younger years I remember hearing it said "Blood is thicker than water." I was told then; and many people still believe; that what the saying means is that blood relationships to family is more important than anyone else like friends or others outside of the family. That the family should stick together through thick and thin, that brothers, (and I have three brothers who we all fought each other) should stick up for each other against all outsiders that would attack any one for any reason. And while that may be a laudable goal, it is not what that saying is about, nor what it means.

The well known saying, blood is thicker than water is actually a shortened version of an old adage that has the opposite meaning. The real saying is" The Blood of the Covenant is Thicker Than the Water of the Womb." Taken in full, the meaning is turned around to mean that when two people have a blood covenant together, then family takes a back seat to the covenant!

. There are several places in the Old Testament that talk about covenants. In fact, the Old and New Testaments are sometimes called the Old and New Covenants. The ones I am wanting to focus on in this blog is the covenants God makes with man. I recently learned more about this subject when I heard a podcast dealing with covenants. The hosts talked about that the two parties in these covenants are called is Suzerain and Vassal, which is more of a feudal system during the middle ages, but it basically comes down to an agreement between two parties, which entails one side being the dominant party (the suzerain) and the lessor party being the vassal. 

 Many times there is a vast difference between the needs of the one party, (the vassal) and the provision of the other party. (the suzerain) and there is often a token or a sign of that agreement. That token, or sign is what proves the vassal has this agreement with the suzerain, and it is something they are careful not to lose. If they lose or break the agreement of the covenant, then the blessing promised is now no longer valid. The suzerain in that case would be free to withdraw their protection from the vassal, and it could go very badly for them after that.

Circumcision is an example of the sign of the covenant God has made with the Children of Israel. It is certainly a sign they could never lose, and one that is a constant reminder of that covenant they have with God. And yet Israel constantly would break the covenant, and would suffer consequences for their action, and yet the covenant remained.

The "Bow" in the sky; or what we call the rainbow, is a sign of the covenant that God made with man, and is a visible reminder of God's promise to never destroy the earth with a flood.

Many of the covenants God makes with man, God knows that man cannot keep their side of the covenant anyway, and so God promises to keep both sides of the covenant, since there is no one greater to swear by, God would swear by Himself, and man gets the benefit without the consequences when they break it, and God takes that consequence upon Himself. 

An example of this takes place with the covenant God made with Abraham which can be found in more detail Here . The idea is that God would then be responsible for keeping both sides of the covenant and Abraham would never lose out on the promises made even if he or hid descendants did not keep the agreement. This covenant is sealed in blood. 

All of this talk about covenants is leading to a greater point I will try to explain in the next post, which when recently some pieces fell together like a puzzle and I saw some amazing connections having to do with what I believe to be a covenant God made with Adam. To me, this clears up a lot of questions people have about the sovereignty of God and His plan for creation. We will see more clearly why the water of the womb, is of less importance than  The Blood Of The Covenant.

You Shall Surely Die

 I have just finished cutting the grass for perhaps the last time this year. I did that after coming back from the airport, having flown with Cindi to another airport for lunch. This is the first time in the air for about six weeks, which is much more time off in succession from flying than in the past ten years. The biggest reason has been bad weather, and of course the plane that I fly as a member of a flying club is in the process of getting a rebuilt engine. However, I do know another pilot who rents me his plane to fly, and so today was a cool, but sunny calm day to get back into the air. 

This morning, before leaving for the airport, I continued re-reading the first book I had read by Brian Zahnd called "Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God". I wanted to read it again, since I have learned an abundance of things since then about Brian and his ministry, (having listened to his podcast sermons posted since 2016 in about 3 or 4 months as well as having read 1/2 dozen of his books) and I have even become familiar with some of the names of other authors he mentions throughout his book. I thought that by reading this book again, I will pick up much more insight than I did the first time. And that will be part of the reason for this post.

One of the major sticking points for me back at the start of the new year, when all of this intense focus on spiritual things for me began; that I talked about in a few previous posts; which has to do with many of these authors view on the atonement. They were united in their insistence that God didn't take His wrath toward us by killing Jesus. In other words, they would argue against the theological viewpoint that God had to sacrifice Jesus on the cross to appease his wrath against man because of their sin. The idea that God is so angry against sinners, that He would wipe them from the earth, except Jesus would step into our place and say He would take man's place in order to calm down a wrathful angry God! The idea that when God would want to destroy man, Jesus would step up and show the Father his nail scarred hands and feet, and then Jesus could appease God's rage against mankind. God forbid indeed! It is also not a legal contract, as is often taught. Jesus acting as a lawyer on behalf of the sinner, in defense against the Father, who wants to condemn them to a fiery torment forever in hell. I have heard these atonement theories taught. It sets up a paradigm that God is wrathful and Jesus saves us from God's wrath.

However, I did not find these author's atonement explanations provided in their books satisfactory either. I spend many weeks frustrated with trying to understand what the reasons they provided for the death of Jesus on the cross. As I was "hearing" it, Jesus died on the cross because man required a sacrifice, and not God. The parable of the prodigal son was provided as a example for when the son came home, the father did not go find a servant to whip them, before he could forgive the son. Which is not the point as I see it. And I was not able to wrap my head around their theology on atonement. It is much more involved than is possible to explain here, and can be better understood by reading it from the author's own words. 

Cindi (my wife) will attest to the fact that I was very frustrated with trying to find the key to understand what their teaching is, that explained why Jesus died, and what part God purposed in this sacrifice. As it seemed to me, they dismissed the whole animal sacrificial system in the Old Testament as man's idea, and not God's. As if God was appeasing man's need for blood, and so God permitted the animal sacrifice, and that God didn't require it. And yet, the whole tabernacle in the wilderness was designed by God to institute animal sacrifices etc for the sins of the people to provide them with a constant reminder of their need for forgiveness and the seriousness of sin.

So what was I missing? I don't get it! Then one day it clicked! All of what they were arguing against, I did not believe anyway! I did not believe that God was taking His wrath against man for their sin and needed to torture His Son on the cross to accomplish His violent vengeance. While I do not doubt it is the mindset of some, it was not mine, and so much of their points did not apply to my atonement theology anyway. I leaned toward the legal atonement being taught, because of some mis-translations  of certain words in Scripture. But then again, I still think that we still do not agree on some points. And it has become even clearer to me what I believe about the death of Jesus on the cross for the forgiveness of sins; which I will explain in the next post; and it all comes back to when God told Adam, "in the day that you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil You Shall Surely Die."