mightychurch.com

Hi Dave,
 
I’ve been looking at some of the eschatology stuff posted on Christian forums dot com
 
Good work with this:
   

An Amil summary of what I DO think Revelation is about

————————————————————————————————————————

Hi all,
I’ve been so busy stating what I don’t think Revelation is about that many probably think I’m just a trouble stirrer. Instead, let me share what I do think Revelation is about, in a big-picture sort of way.

p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; } I am a Covenant Theology A-Millennialist.

I see John as unpacking Old Testament imagery and prophecy as he interprets the suffering of the 7 churches under Rome. As John does so he uses vivid imagery to describe Rome, some of which he borrows from the Old Testament, such as when he combines Daniel’s 4 beasts into one beast. John also unpacks and translates Daniel’s mysterious scroll that was sealed as all about Jesus and the Kingdom of God going out into all the nations. But basically, John interprets Daniel and other prophets for the church of John’s own day! Any attempt to try and interpret Revelation as our future timeline is missing the point. It’s about them, and it’s about then.

It’s primarily describing the hideous persecution God’s people were about to undergo, which would probably have been very confusing for Jewish Christians. They would have been wondering how Jesus could let His people suffer if Jesus really was the Messiah! All those ‘national security’ ideals could still have been floating around.  The question John is trying to answer is where is the Messiah when God’s people are being persecuted?

John is explaining the gospel. He is also explaining the victory of the church is that it reigns through suffering. It tells of spiritual victory in Christ in a ‘now and not yet’ way. It tells of eschatological tension, in that EVERYTHING we expect to see on the Last Day was in part accomplished on the cross, with its final fulfilment still to come. So Jesus death and resurrection judged Sin, the World and the Devil, and even defeated death in His resurrection. We even see the old order of creation pass away in the destruction of Jesus old body, and catch a glimpse of the New Order of creation in Jesus resurrection body!

We see the 3 great roles of Christ fulfilled in the Cross, as He is our ultimate Prophet Priest and King. Jesus was the final Word of God, who died for our Sin once and for all and became our great High Priest, and rose to establish a larger, fuller Kingdom made up of all Jews and Gentiles that believe Jesus died for their sins.

In this we see all those great Covenant promises to Abraham fulfilled. We see God’s people living God’s way in God’s land. We see the Kingdom of God exploding out of Israel into all the world, living according to the love and grace of Christ the Messiah, taking the whole world as their new land and home. Yet we also see it not yet finished. We see God’s people suffering, God’s people still struggling with sin, and God’s people not yet fully at home in the New Heavens and New Earth. And John describes it all in apocalyptic picture language, basically describing the gospel in Old Testament prophetic language, and even throwing in some of his own images to describe Rome and the suffering the 7 churches are about to experience.

Finally, it is about us. For as John tells the 7 churches to patiently endure, he also warns us. We must endure as well, because there will be ‘beasts’. Any time the State rises against God’s people we will suffer. The 20th century saw more martyrdom than all the previous 19 centuries. If ANY century had candidates for ‘the anti-Christ’ it was the 20th. But we are still here. Revelation is not a future timetable. We are not to guess at it. That game always fails, and embarrasses the church every time it does. But Revelation is a warning. Because even though it is not an actual timetable, it is a general description. Even in the Western world with democracy and the right to practice our faith, we will still suffer misunderstand, hatred, and prejudice. We will still feel the temptation to trust in the 666 — the false trinity and false security of the World’s authorities, the World’s economy and the World’s way of doing things. We will be tempted to worship money, not God. In this particular example and many others Revelation still warns us today, if we have the ears to hear.

   
An Amil summary of what I DO think Revelation is about
 
I would like to see it tied in a bit closely with the text.  For example, how is it explaining the gospel?  How does it show Christ as prophet priest and king?
 
Good section on how you see the Abrahamic promises are fulfilled.  I would see in addition to this Deut 30 and Romans 11, and also passages like Hos 11:8 - actually all of Hosea, as pointing to future conversion (to Christ) of many Jews. 
     
I would also like to see how you see Satan as bound in this present age (Rev 20:2).
 
Good last paragraph.  I like the way you make it relevant to living as faithful Christians today.  A-mil eschatology can seem a bit empty on this - but it isn’t really, if you recognise it as taking seriously Christ’s rule now.
 
Cheers,
Ros

I kind of disagree… any a-mil eschatology must have significance for Christians today, otherwise no one would think it worth believing. It’s an easy position to hold in this way.

The pre-mil position can be harder to justify because it means that we must believe and study things which we don’t actually think are currently significant. It goes against how we’ve been taught to value all scripture, and against basic BT which says we should look for relevant everywhere. This doesn’t mean it’s not true… just harder. But Peter said that even the OT prophet’s didn’t understand what they were writing, try as they did to study and understand it all. The OT prophets wrote for our benefit. Could it be that the NT prophets are also writing for the benefit of still future Christians? I don’t know.

Mm. Maybe it depends on how you look at it, or whether one has really studied it (as you do) or just absorbed the dominant gestalt of one’s particular Christian circle (as many do.)
 
I didn’t say it didn’t have significance, but that it’s good that Dave made the effort to unpack the signifcance.
 
A-mil can look like this:  Stuff happens, then one day far off, Jesus blow the whistle, game over, the Christians all go to heaven, and the rest to hell.  Not a lot of relevance or continuity there.
 
This may well be more the fault of one’s natural sinful rebellious tendency to push Jesus aside than inherent flaws in the theology.
 
Do pre-mils think these things are not currently significant?  That’s not been my experience, even with pre-mils who aren’t watching signs that supposedly predict the end is just around the corner.
 
      .....
 
Sorry to hear about the people you know who were flooded, Dannii.

This is another of those questions: how is it just for God to later add conditions to something he had made unconditional?

The thing I don’t get about this line of argument is that all the promises to Abraham WERE kept. He did become the father of a great nation. God did create “Gods people living God’s way in God’s land, which would bless the world”. It happened. What I want to know is when this became an eternal promise, and how non Covenant Theologians see it being fulfilled eternally. For even a literal temple being rebuilt in a literal Rev 20 Millennium isn’t *eternal*!

God promised in Genesis 13:14-17 to give Abram all of the land he could see and was walking through, forever.

14 The LORD said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, “Look around from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west. 15 All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring[a] forever. 16 I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. 17 Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you.”

OK, so what we need to keep in mind is how Isaiah eventually translates the hope of security of being ‘God’s people in God’s land’ to images of Mt Zion as the meeting place between heaven and earth, and as the eschatological fulfilment of the security of Israel.

What does the book of Hebrews do to Mt Zion, the temple, indeed, the whole notion of Jesus as Prophet, Priest, and King? Hebrews spiritualises all those promises, from the Sabbath actually being about entering God’s rest in God’s land in heaven, through to the temple and Mt Zion now being about spiritual realities in Christ. As long as us Christians continue exploding outwards over the surface of the earth, shooting out of Israel and moving missionaries to the ends of this planet, we are showing that we reign on this planet. We are the sons and daughters of Abraham, and narrowing in on specific promises about a tiny speck of land compared to the vast promises of eternal security in a New Heavens and New Earth really is missing the gospel promise.

Dannii Willis - 14 January 2011 02:18 PM

I kind of disagree… any a-mil eschatology must have significance for Christians today, otherwise no one would think it worth believing. It’s an easy position to hold in this way.

The pre-mil position can be harder to justify because it means that we must believe and study things which we don’t actually think are currently significant. It goes against how we’ve been taught to value all scripture, and against basic BT which says we should look for relevant everywhere. This doesn’t mean it’s not true… just harder. But Peter said that even the OT prophet’s didn’t understand what they were writing, try as they did to study and understand it all. The OT prophets wrote for our benefit. Could it be that the NT prophets are also writing for the benefit of still future Christians? I don’t know.

I totally agree! If Revelation is some future timetable, then what good has it been for the church for the last 2000 years?

Ros Burgess - 14 January 2011 09:20 AM

Good section on how you see the Abrahamic promises are fulfilled.  I would see in addition to this Deut 30 and Romans 11, and also passages like Hos 11:8 - actually all of Hosea, as pointing to future conversion (to Christ) of many Jews.

I’m a bit rusty on Hosea. Maybe the prophet considered his vision of God’s people, generally, being given new hearts? Was it like that? Because when OT prophets are speaking of God’s working in his people a new my guess is that they were quite fuzzy on the details. They spoke in big-picture language much like John’s in Revelation. EG: Isaiah seems to speak a lot of Mt Zion, with weird language about Mt Zion being the premier — or highest — mountain in the region (when it is not!) and having rivers of freshwater and life flowing out to the nations.

Mt Zion is going to bless the world. Now my guess is — and I hope I’m not being a heretic here — that Isaiah was fuzzy on how that would actually occur. He just knew it would, somehow.

     
I would also like to see how you see Satan as bound in this present age (Rev 20:2).

Paul Barnett highlights that Satan in Revelation is being presented as both very active in pursuing and killing God’s people, but that there are limits. EG: As natural disasters and various seals, trumpets, bowls, and other agencies of ‘general nastiness’ are being poured out on the earth, they are only given permission to harm a fraction of the people. (Even if it is the metaphorical fraction of ‘a third of the plants, trees, and people’) etc.

So Satan in some scenes is incredibly active in pursing God’s people, but also limited. The Dragon tries to kill the Christ child but fails, The dragon inspires the Roman Caesars to persecute God’s people but we are kept safe in heaven as martyrs or marked out as safe on the earth — it depends on which passage you are studying but Satan is presented as attacking furiously, but all under the limits of God’s control.

After all, why are we told the letter is addressed to the 7 churches, by the ‘7 spirits’ of God, and that Jesus has 7 eyes and 7 horns? The letter is addressed to ALL churches across ALL time, and Jesus has perfect wisdom and power, and so even the bad things that are dished out are dished out in 7’s… in God’s perfect control. In God’s limits. So the picture of Satan being active but limited runs through the book really. In Rev 20, it seems to be the saints sending the gospel out into new lands that limits Satan’s kingdom.

The thing I don’t get about this line of argument is that all the promises to Abraham WERE kept.

The whole promised land was never theirs…

As to the “forever"s and “eternal"s, well those are English words but the Bible was of course written in Hebrew. The way we use these words extends the time the cover into the after life. I don’t know if the Hebrew words also extended into the afterlife (especially as the Biblical view of the afterlife was probably only barely there.) My guess is that these words covered the time of the earth. What they certainly do not mean is a short insignificant time after which there would be thousands of years of the Jews not controlling the promised land in any way, or only barely controlling a small portion of it.

What does the book of Hebrews do to Mt Zion, the temple, indeed, the whole notion of Jesus as Prophet, Priest, and King? Hebrews spiritualises all those promises, from the Sabbath actually being about entering God’s rest in God’s land in heaven, through to the temple and Mt Zion now being about spiritual realities in Christ.

I don’t think I’d agree with that. I think Hebrews uses the OT as a source of examples, perhaps for typology, perhaps as allegory, but I don’t think it details the ways OT prophecy has/will be fulfilled. Taking “rest” as an example, note that Heb 4:3 says that God’s rest was there since he made the world. The sabbath is not fulfilled in heaven, it doesn’t lead to the eternal rest, but it is an example or metaphor. The exodus is a metaphor for salvation, just as those who died in the exodus were a metaphor for those Jews who the writer of Hebrews was imploring not to abandon the gospel.

and narrowing in on specific promises about a tiny speck of land compared to the vast promises of eternal security in a New Heavens and New Earth really is missing the gospel promise.

If we’re focusing on the gospel of course it would be wrong to go back to those promises. But we’re not focusing on the gospel in this forum thread, we’re talking about how to read and understand the whole Bible, including that confusing bit at the end, and those all important bits right at the beginning. The fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham are not as important to us as his fulfillment to cleanse us of our sin and to be reconciled, but that doesn’t mean they totally unimportant.

Also, just because the speck of land is tiny doesn’t mean the promises about it are! It would be interesting to do a numerical count of how many times each aspect of Abraham’s covenant is mentioned later in the Bible.

I totally agree! If Revelation is some future timetable, then what good has it been for the church for the last 2000 years?

I suggest in the same way the OT prophets were useful before the events they foretold occurred and they were understood.

So Satan in some scenes is incredibly active in pursing God’s people, but also limited.

Yes, Satan has power in some aspects, but in others he is bound. Rev 20:3 however says which specific aspect of his power is stopped: deceiving the nations. It is in that particular aspect that I think the a-mil perspective doesn’t make sense, because nothing in the rest of the NT suggests he is no longer deceiving people.

In Rev 20, it seems to be the saints sending the gospel out into new lands that limits Satan’s kingdom.

How do you get that from the text?

The name Hosea means salvation - a variant on Jesus / Joshua.  Hosea is a Christ type.
   
The story is, the prophet Hosea was told by God to ‘take to yourself an adulterous wife and children of unfaithfulness, because the land is guilty of the vilest adultery in departing from the LORD.’  (1.2) So he marries a woman called Gomer, who is unfaithful. 
   
It seems Gomer subsequently leaves and sinks to the level of slavery, because in 3.1-3.2, the Lord tells Hosea to take her back - ‘Love her as the Lord loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes’, and Hosea buys her back for ‘fifteen shekels of silver and about a homer and a lethek of barley’.  It’s a clear picture of Christ’s purchase and redemption of sinners to be his people.
   
It’s also a vivid portrayal of God’s jealous love.  I can’t claim this is a watertight legal case for whether God really promised this or that.  It’s the vibe.  God’s love is an everlasting love and he doesn’t just give people up.
 
Edit to add from Romans 11:
 

11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way[e] all Israel will be saved. As it is written:  
“The deliverer will come from Zion;
  he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this is[f] my covenant with them
  when I take away their sins.”[g]

28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

     
Paul seems to believe there will be a future turning to Christ among his own people.  (I’m not relying here on the ‘all Israel will be saved’ - there ‘all Israel’ means Jews and gentiles united in Christ.)  Was it just wishful thinking because of his own natural partiality?  Is this particular bit of scripture not quite inspired?

I’m with you on Hosea Ros, nice summary. Thanks for the refresher… it’s all coming back to me. (I seem to be getting more mental blanks as I get older ;-)

Now, Dannii my young whipper-snapper mate with the linguistics degree. :-)

(Man, if I were granted a ‘groundhog day’ life do-over, I’d probably study linguistics as well as philosophy and ancient history).

  In Rev 20, it seems to be the saints sending the gospel out into new lands that limits Satan’s kingdom.

How do you get that from the text?

Not me — Dr Paul Barnett.

John places images next to each other in juxtaposition. Here we have Satan bound, then we have faithful Christian martyrs safely in heaven, reigning with Christ. The whole book is written to Christians about to suffer extreme Roman persecution. Dr Barnett seems to be saying that the faithful witness of these saints is what binds Satan as the Kingdom of God marches forward. I guess it is one of those ‘context’ things that people familiar with the writing of the times get a handle for.

Revelation 20
The Thousand Years
1 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

So much for Rev 20. Make of that what you will.

But I really think you have to re-read Hebrews… there’s a very strong case there for abolishing any remnants of the Old Testament covenants and seeing them as vastly UPGRADED!

Hebrews 8
The High Priest of a New Covenant
1 Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.

3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”
6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8 But God found fault with the people and said:

  “The days are coming, declares the Lord,
  when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
  and with the house of Judah.

(Dannii… is that us or not? Do us Gentile Australian Christians have the ‘new Covenant’ or not?)

9 It will not be like the covenant
  I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
  to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
  and I turned away from them,
  declares the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will establish with the house of Israel
  after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
  and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
  and they will be my people.

(For we are a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God…)

11 No longer will they teach their neighbors,
  or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
  from the least of them to the greatest.

(All true Christians know the Lord — what a privilege).

12 For I will forgive their wickedness
  and will remember their sins no more.”[c]

13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

(So I take it that this, with all the times the Apostles address the church as Israel or as the 12 tribes — see James 1 — means that we are indeed the new temple of God that he is building, and that the covenant with Abraham has been ‘Christianised’ or ‘spiritualised’ or, as I prefer, UPGRADED!)

1.
Re the binding of Satan.  I’ve seen an argument that it’s a specific type: so he is kept from deceiving the nations.  This qualification is then interpreted that now the nations or gentiles will receive the gospel, in contrast to the situation before Christ’s victory on the cross.  This seems to me plausible, as mythbusters would say.  But it’s important to address this question of Satan being bound, because it’s a real deal-breaker for many people.
   
2.
I always thought Revelation is primarily about the return of Christ?  I see no compelling reason to think otherwise.  That’s why I’d like to see Dave’s explanation (quoted at #76) related more closely to the text.

Hi Ros,
I guess first of all Revelation is a letter to the whole church. John chooses 7 specific churches with specific issues, but the fact that he addresses the ‘7 churches’ and then shows the Holy Spirit as the 7-fold spirit and Jesus as having 7 eyes and 7 horns tells us that John is writing very figuratively — as in Genesis 1 figuratively — about this being about universal, perfect truths. It’s for all Christians at all times. This is why I have trouble reading Revelation as a ‘Last Days’ futurist timetable — how has it helped the church for 2000 years if that is the case?

There are also indications that these things were about to happen.

Revelation 1
1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

Then it is about the gospel — and us as the new Kingdom of God — going out into all nations.

  To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests  to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.

And just as in the gospel we are reminded again and again of the eschaton, of the end of all things being placed under Christ and His judgement, so in Revelation we have scattered references to God’s judgement throughout the book, even in chapter 1.

7 “Look, he is coming with the clouds,”
  and “every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him”;
  and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.”[c]
  So shall it be! Amen.

Then we get back to John, and realise he is relating to those who are suffering as he is already in exile because of the gospel — Patmos was a prison island.

9 I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

Now skipping along to Chapter 5 we see that old sealed up scroll of Daniel — the great mystery of the ages — still sealed. And it makes John weep!

1 Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals. 2 And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. 4 I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. 5 Then one of the elders said to me,  “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”

This is the mysterious answer to all the beasts and kingdoms that Daniel sees in his visions in Daniel 12.

The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, “It will be for a time, times and half a time. When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.”
8 I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, “My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?”
9 He replied, “Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.

I always missed just how enormous the unsealing of this mysterious scroll really was. It is the ANSWER to the end of the ages, the fulfilment of all those mysteries Daniel was shown. And what is the answer? None other than the gospel going out into all the world and — surprisingly and shockingly — into all nations.

“You are worthy to take the scroll
  and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
  and with your blood you purchased for God
  members of every tribe and language and people and nation.
10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
  and they will reign on the earth.”   

But then as the rest of Revelation unpacks it, we reign in our suffering, in our persecution for daring to share the truth, and even in our martyrdom. The moment the first seal comes out the 4 horsemen ride forth as tyrants that bring with them war and economic hardship and famine and death. The goal of the tyrant to makes war seems to be in the 5th seal, the persecution of God’s people. And the bad news John has is that martyrdom is not going to be over soon!

9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10 They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” 11 Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants and brothers and sisters were killed just as they had been.   

The great mystery of the ages, Daniel’s scroll, is explained as the gospel going into all nations with suffering and persecution.

But even as the execution of God’s people is mentioned, we get the 6th scroll which gives us a fast-forward or preview of Judgement Day.

  12 I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, 13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. 14 The sky receded like a scroll, rolling up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.

15 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16 They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us[e] from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17 For the great day of their[f] wrath has come, and who can withstand it?”

Then Paul Barnett breaks down the middle-chunk of Revelation into 4 themes.

The rough plot:

7 Seals depicting TYRANNY; Rev 6-7
7 trumpets depicting CHAOS IN CREATION 8-11
7 signs depicting PERSECUTION OF BELIEVERS 12-14
7 plagues depicting DESTRUCTION OF THE EARTH 15-16

We see images of Rome dressed up in code as ‘Babylon’, and we even get the 666 of Nero Caesar, which in the Hebrew version of his name adds up to 666.  (Hebrew apparently numbers much like Roman numerals).

So while there might be actual examples of Roman persecution of these believers, including the legendary ‘anti-Christ’ of Nero, all Christians in all times will face opposition and persecution. This is a series of universal encouragements to stay faithful.

The number 7 here means “God’s perfection” or “God’s perfect control over”. Just as Jesus had 7 eyes and 7 horns, expressing his perfect knowledge and perfect strength and power over all, this letter rallies us to remember God’s perfect control over history. The recurring number 7 through all these rather horrible passages tells us that even when things look bleak, God is still in control. He is the King. He reigns over history. It will be OK.

And then finally John moves into Rev 19 which finishes with a Judgement Day sequence in which ALL God’s enemies are defeated — leaving no enemies of God to rebel again in Rev 20. Someone reading this as a literal timetable of the future would need some of God’s enemies left for the Christians to reign over during the Millennium, and then to rebel at the end of the Millennium in Rev 20. But in Rev 19 they are all wiped out! Everyone! This is just another example where it is clear John is repeating his themes from different angels. He goes over and over the same themes, using different imagery to describe different themes. Rev 19 focuses on the heavenly warrior — Jesus — who just ENDS it when He finally takes the battlefield. It’s an anti-climax. There is no battle here. It is all over before it has even started.

Rev 20 focuses on the safety of the martyred saints in heaven until the Last Day when the Lord will finally end all rebellion. Again, Rev 20 finishes with an anti-climactic battle where all the enemies of God are presented as Gog and Magog assembled, ready for a fight… and they are just burnt up. Gone. Over.

So the message of Revelation is that these Last Days we live in, and have done so for 2000 years, will be hard yakka. We must be patient, and trust in our Lord. Because even if we are murdered for our faith, that is better than to be on the wrong side of this battle!

Thanks Dave, that’s helpful.  I think I’ll need to do some more study of the texts now I have a better perspective on the different ways they are viewed.
 
One point though - when I say I thought Revelation was basically about the return of Christ, that doesn’t necessarily mean I’d expect it to lay down a timetable, just that it seemed to be the essential subject.

One point though - when I say I thought Revelation was basically about the return of Christ, that doesn’t necessarily mean I’d expect it to lay down a timetable, just that it seemed to be the essential subject.

Agreed!

I really like Paul Barnett’s “Apocalypse Now and then”. It starts of with 4 chapters about how to read Revelation in the first place, and these are very helpful. And then his commentary on it is intentionally so short and easy to read that he even suggests using it for family devotions. His commentary is where I picked up the ‘4 themes’ middle chunk of Revelation. Paul, being a historian as well as theologian, makes sense of the Roman events at the time and background in which John was writing to, and then applies it to all Christians in all times in some fairly dramatic ways. I’ve found it quite disturbing. Am I really keen enough for Christ that I’m prepared to lay down my life for him, should the need arise? What about my children? ouch!

But I really think you have to re-read Hebrews… there’s a very strong case there for abolishing any remnants of the Old Testament covenants and seeing them as vastly UPGRADED!

...

(So I take it that this, with all the times the Apostles address the church as Israel or as the 12 tribes — see James 1 — means that we are indeed the new temple of God that he is building, and that the covenant with Abraham has been ‘Christianised’ or ‘spiritualised’ or, as I prefer, UPGRADED!)

No no no, absolutely not!

The only “old” covenant was the Sinai covenant. Nothing in Hebrews suggests that Noah’s, Abraham’s, Phinehas’ or David’s covenants were ever abolished, Christianised, spiritualised or upgraded!

I guess first of all Revelation is a letter to the whole church. John chooses 7 specific churches with specific issues, but the fact that he addresses the ‘7 churches’ and then shows the Holy Spirit as the 7-fold spirit and Jesus as having 7 eyes and 7 horns tells us that John is writing very figuratively — as in Genesis 1 figuratively — about this being about universal, perfect truths. It’s for all Christians at all times.

Not that I disagree, but how do you know the meaning of these “7” symbols?

Dannii Willis - 18 January 2011 04:05 PM

No no no, absolutely not!

The only “old” covenant was the Sinai covenant. Nothing in Hebrews suggests that Noah’s, Abraham’s, Phinehas’ or David’s covenants were ever abolished, Christianised, spiritualised or upgraded!

Abrahamic promises:
God’s people (requires Priest for sacrifice to MAKE them God’s people)
living God’s way (requires prophet to communicate God’s way of life)
in God’s land (requires King for national security)
will bless the world.

Jesus is our ultimate High Priest, Prophet, and King.

Or look at it this way. Isaiah takes the themes of “God’s people living God’s way in God’s land” and translates them into themes around Mt Zion and Jerusalem as God’s holy city, through which he will bless the world.

Hebrews then takes these themes and makes them about Christ. Isaiah translates all Israel’s eschatological hopes in terms of Mt Zion and Jerusalem, and then Romans, Hebrews, and even Revelation translate these themes as about Christ.

I don’t know what the problem is? What am I not aware of Dannii? Can you show me why Hebrews is wrong to speak of the whole OT message as THE old Covenant now fulfilled and upgraded in Christ?

Abraham’s promises were far more than people, rule and land. That’s not even a Biblical way of thinking about it (though it can still be helpful.) I disagree about his promises needing priest prophet and king too. What in Genesis suggests that?

Can you show me where Hebrews speaks of the whole OT message as the old covenant now fulfilled and upgraded in Christ?

Abraham’s promises were far more than people, rule and land. That’s not even a Biblical way of thinking about it (though it can still be helpful.)

Then what were they about? Free Pizza? If you’re going to say that the Goldsworthy model is ‘not even a biblical way of thinking about it’ I’d like some justification, not just assertion, arguments with data and facts and counter-arguments, not just a bold telling off!

I disagree about his promises needing priest prophet and king too. What in Genesis suggests that?

Genesis doesn’t. It becomes clearer as the biblical story unfolds. I was doing ‘big picture’ eschatology across the bible.

Can you show me where Hebrews speaks of the whole OT message as the old covenant now fulfilled and upgraded in Christ?

Why bother? You’ll just say ‘No it isn’t’. I’m done Dannii — you’re not refuting points I make with logical, reasoned, fact filled debate. You’re just asserting otherwise and asking me to do it all again. That’s simply unfair. Unless you can be bothered to actually address the points I make as I make them, I’m done.

Try addressing the following, I’ve rephrased some points above.

The only “old” covenant was the Sinai covenant. Nothing in Hebrews suggests that Noah’s, Abraham’s, Phinehas’ or David’s covenants were ever abolished, Christianised, spiritualised or upgraded!

How would you sum up the eschatological hopes of Isaiah? What are the top few images and themes around which Isaiah writes? How does Isaiah translate ALL the hopes and dreams of Israel into symbolism? What symbols does he choose?

Then read Hebrews and tell me Hebrews doesn’t spiritualise the whole OT eschatological hope!

But not only that, who are God’s people now? Who is the ‘holy nation, a royal priesthood, a people belonging to God’? Is that us, or ‘them’? Are Christians in God’s kingdom — both Jew and Gentile — or are non-Christian Jews? I’m talking about the whole *thrust* of the NT now.

You also earlier said…

The whole promised land was never theirs… 

Under what promise was this? Where is it so spelled out that you see it as unfulfilled? What *conditions* where placed on Israel at the time?

Lastly, I don’t know how a Christian can say this.

The only “old” covenant was the Sinai covenant. Nothing in Hebrews
suggests that Noah’s, Abraham’s, Phinehas’ or David’s covenants were
ever abolished, Christianised, spiritualised or upgraded

Hmm, maybe we can leave the promise to Noah about not flooding the world again aside, even though Queensland’s floods have been pretty amazing. But I REALLY don’t know how you can be a Christian and say Abraham’s covenant hasn’t been upgraded, let alone David’s covenant. Who are God’s people? Where does Hebrews say the ‘land’ is? What is the temple? What does the whole NT say about the Kingship of Christ? What about Acts 2 and Peter’s sermon about Jesus?

I’m too tired and cranky… I think I’ll call it quits tonight.

Then what were they about? Free Pizza? If you’re going to say that the Goldsworthy model is ‘not even a biblical way of thinking about it’ I’d like some justification, not just assertion, arguments with data and facts and counter-arguments, not just a bold telling off!

Sorry, I didn’t make myself clear and you took it another way. I meant that it’s unbiblical in the same way the trinity is - neither are explicitly mentioned. Now while the trinity is a good comprehensive doctrine, people+place+rule is simplistic, incomplete and possibly puts the emphasis on the slightly wrong things, IMO.

Genesis doesn’t. It becomes clearer as the biblical story unfolds. I was doing ‘big picture’ eschatology across the bible.

I believe that the progressive revelation shows these things as God’s contingency plans: the people were unwilling or unable to sacrifice on their on behalfs (as Job and many others did) and to study the scriptures as they should have, so he made the priesthood to perform those sacrifices, while also teaching the people. The people were unwilling to listen to God’s word, so he called the prophets to warn and rebuke them. The people were unwilling to trust God for the defense and demanded a king, so he gave them kings, kings who sometimes then represented the people before God faithfully, but most of the time didn’t. If the people had been obedient none of those would be required by Abraham’s covenant. (Now they also all point to Jesus, but that is to be expected - God in his great mercy gives his people many blessings, which as they model true obedience are of course shadows of Jesus himself.)

Why bother? You’ll just say ‘No it isn’t’. I’m done Dannii — you’re not refuting points I make with logical, reasoned, fact filled debate. You’re just asserting otherwise and asking me to do it all again. That’s simply unfair. Unless you can be bothered to actually address the points I make as I make them, I’m done.

Okay, perhaps sometimes I have been quick to respond without much substance. But I’ll counter by saying you’re presenting only systematics - with no exegetical work. The big picture is important, but the details must match it. I feel like you never address the details. Or if you are trying, can you take it a bit slower because I can’t make the connections you can.

How would you sum up the eschatological hopes of Isaiah? What are the top few images and themes around which Isaiah writes? How does Isaiah translate ALL the hopes and dreams of Israel into symbolism? What symbols does he choose?

To be honest I don’t know Isaiah well enough to answer. I’m reading through Jeremiah now, maybe once I’ve finished I’ll start on Isaiah again.

But not only that, who are God’s people now? Who is the ‘holy nation, a royal priesthood, a people belonging to God’? Is that us, or ‘them’? Are Christians in God’s kingdom — both Jew and Gentile — or are non-Christian Jews? I’m talking about the whole *thrust* of the NT now.

Well this is the whole debate. The identity and characteristics of God’s people. It’s what all these eschatological issues are over, as well as things like baptism. You have firmly decided your position, but I’m still trying to work it out sorry.

I will say that I believe no one who has heard the gospel presented in a way they can comprehend but rejects it will gain eternal life. But I also believe that God keeps all his promises and covenants. As the OT covenants on the whole don’t concern the after-life I don’t see irreconcilable conflicts within my position. But I also understand that if you believe in the CoG, that covenants get transformed and upgraded, then you would see problems.

Under what promise was this? Where is it so spelled out that you see it as unfulfilled? What *conditions* where placed on Israel at the time?

As far as I know they never owned the Gaza strip, which is clearly within the boundaries set by God in Gen 15, as well as the many times it states the boundaries later on.

Hmm, maybe we can leave the promise to Noah about not flooding the world again aside, even though Queensland’s floods have been pretty amazing. But I REALLY don’t know how you can be a Christian and say Abraham’s covenant hasn’t been upgraded, let alone David’s covenant. Who are God’s people? Where does Hebrews say the ‘land’ is? What is the temple? What does the whole NT say about the Kingship of Christ? What about Acts 2 and Peter’s sermon about Jesus?

Noah’s covenant is a great problem for CTs in my mind, because it makes the whole one covenant -> one people of God concept bogus. The problem is that the covenant was made with the animals too! Can they too come under the new covenant? Anyways…

If I made a contract with Lankshear designs to make a website for me, and then made a second contract with them, would that void the first? Upgrade it? Transform it? No, unless at the same time we cancelled the first contract, which could only be done according to the terms of the first contract. We actually see this with the Sinai covenant: when Moses smashed the tables of the ten commandments that symbolised that the covenant they made just a little over a month earlier had been broken. Then later in 34:10ff God remade the covenant with them again. A generation later he made a new covenant with their children. I haven’t look at the specific details yet (I plan to), but I suspect the two covenants in Exodus are effectively only for a generation, while Deuteronomy is a perpetual covenant which will be passed on to the Israelites’ children.

With Abraham’s first Gen 15 covenant there are no grounds for voiding the covenant, no terms which would allow it to be changed. His second covenant of Gen 17 gives terms by which some of Abraham’s descendants might be excluded from the covenant, but none that would allow for the result/blessings of the covenant to be changed. (There is some debate here about whether there are two covenants, or whether they are one with the terms given in stages. I’m not sure myself.) Now it is possible God could have been tricksy with his language and Abraham never had a clue about what God had really promised him, but that wouldn’t even pass in our legal system. The point of making promises, contracts and covenants is that the recipients can understand them. If God had never intended Abraham to understand that the promised land was only a very temporary gift he should have stuck to random acts of kindness. Or, said what he meant in a way that communicated.

With 2 Sam 7 I can’t see how anything needs upgrading! The promise is that David’s dynasty would never end, and Jesus is the direct literal biological fulfillment of that.

I’m too tired and cranky… I think I’ll call it quits tonight.

Sorry for getting on your nerves…

Sorry for better or worse I didn’t go t bed! Angry bear writing. ;-)

With 2 Sam 7 I can’t see how anything needs upgrading! The promise is that David’s dynasty would never end, and Jesus is the direct literal biological fulfillment of that.

What does the NT make of the Davidic promises? What does Acts 2 make of it? I asked you before.

But you have given me something to think about in Genesis 15. I’ll have to sleep and then read up on that.

Honestly, there’s a lot of OT prophets I’m not that familiar with. I got quite a shock when I started to see Isaiah transforming the OT eschatological hopes of safety in the promised land to safety in a New Jerusalem and safety in the ‘cosmic mountain’ of Mt Zion. The ‘cosmic mountain’ is an enormous concept in the ancient world! Huge! It is where heaven and earth meet. It is a pagan mythology much like the ‘cloud rider’ (or much like the ‘water divider’ of Genesis 1, but let’s not start that up again! ;-)

So Isaiah is transforming the hopes and expectations of Israel into more fantastic ‘Mt Zion’ promises, where this mountain will rise to be the premier mountain of the earth, and will have 4 streams of living fresh water which will refresh the earth.

Jesus called himself living water when he spoke to a Samaritan woman who had mentioned worshipping God ‘on the mountain’. See the connections? If we are going to be consistent with how we read OT promises, do we have to see a promise to literally raise up Mt Zion to be this earth shakingly humungous mountain with rivers that will water the whole earth? Or was Jesus onto something when he called HIMSELF living water? Then Hebrews and Revelation take the New Jerusalem / Mt Zion imagery and run WILD with it.

So I’m thinking of reading through “A search for Order” by William Dumbrell, another huge Moore / Covenant Theology Amil theologian. Search for Order runs through the entire bible, quickly sketching the major themes of whole books in a few pages. He follows the biblical eschatology as he follows the biblical theology; the unfolding plan of God and how this affects the unfolding eschatology for God’s people. And after quickly glancing through his work on Isaiah, I’m NEVER going to be able to look at Isaiah OR Hebrews in the same way again.

More from the NIV study bible notes.
The table ‘Major Covenants in the Old Testament’ which I have already quoted re the Gen 15 covenant at post #71 -

The NIV Study Bible states it as a Royal Grant type of covenant (cf Sinai, which is Suzerain-vassal) Made with ‘righteous’ (v6) Abram and his descendants (v16).  It further describes it as ‘an unconditional divine promise to fulfil the grant of the land; a self-maledictory oath symbolically enacted it’ (v17)

 
- has a section on ‘Major Types of Foyal Covenants/Treaties in the Ancient Near East’ (Royal Grant, Parity, Suzerain-vassal).
 

Royal Grant (unconditional)
A king’s grant (of land or some other benefit) to a loyal servant for faithful or exceptional service.  The grant was normally perpetual and unconditional, but the servant’s heirs benefited from it only as they continued their father’s loyalty and service.  (Cf 1 Sa 8:14; 22:7; 27:6; Est 8:1)

 
Now this (heirs benefiting only if loyal) is not explicit in Gen 15, but perhaps would be culturally understood by Abraham and others of the time.
 
Can we find Biblical evidence of such a notion?
 
Try Ezekiel 33:23-26

23 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 24 “Son of man, the people living in those ruins in the land of Israel are saying, ‘Abraham was only one man, yet he possessed the land. But we are many; surely the land has been given to us as our possession.’ 25 Therefore say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Since you eat meat with the blood still in it and look to your idols and shed blood, should you then possess the land? 26 You rely on your sword, you do detestable things, and each of you defiles his neighbor’s wife. Should you then possess the land?’

   
This certainly explains why unfaithful Israel should be dispossessed, but would or should such dispossession be permanent?  It’s not clear; my hunch on the matter is, in light of God’s faithfulness, if identifiable descendants of Abraham returned to the Lord (which in our age, is through Christ), they would have a case to plead before God to restore title.

Yes! Nice post.
What I would add for Dannii is that the land is not the only metaphor for the security of national Israel — there is also Jerusalem, Mt Zion, and the Temple. So while you have correctly focussed on the legal side of the Covenant Contract here, there is also the symbolic transformation of all these themes. I think we are meant to pick up that the Land, Jerusalem, Mt Zion and the Temple are no longer themes for national Israel. They are ours!

For example, in Isaiah the focus for Israel moves from national Israel to salvation. This is for a believing remnant. Belief is the criteria for salvation! And where does this salvation lead us? To a divine rule from a lager-than-life Mt Zion.

Hebrews 12 picks up this eschatological hope from Isaiah.

22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

So while there is a place for asking about the ‘legalities’ of God’s ‘contracts’ with Abraham, we must avoid ignoring the rest of the bible in an autistic focus on the contracts. This builds a wall against new information. This ignores the overall thrust of the bible, and forbids the very real answers to questions about Abraham from coming from other quarters. We must be open to the grand sweep of Israel’s hope changing and transforming. We must be ready for what God has in store for his people, which might be larger than anything they hoped for! So as we read through the changes from Sinai into the Land and then into exile, we have to move with the journey. God is faithful, but is He ‘upgrading’ promises?

Isaiah moves from focussing on just the ‘land’ to some kind of heavenly Mount Zion. We have to be aware of what God is doing and where He is heading. We can’t just bury all that in the basement and lock the door, while we sit upstairs and focus on the CONTRACTS — only the CONTRACTS. Who wants to be a lawyer anyway? We don’t have a contract, but a treasure map, and the treasure is eternal life and deeds to becoming heirs of the King!

What does the NT make of the Davidic promises? What does Acts 2 make of it? I asked you before.

I’m not too sure what you’re asking about in Acts 2. It seems fairly straight forward - Peter is using the resurrection to show that Jesus is the messiah, and the final fulfillment of David’s covenant, because Jesus’s resurrection shows his everlasting life, which of course means David’s dynasty is also everlasting.

So Isaiah is transforming the hopes and expectations of Israel into more fantastic ‘Mt Zion’ promises, where this mountain will rise to be the premier mountain of the earth, and will have 4 streams of living fresh water which will refresh the earth.

Jesus called himself living water when he spoke to a Samaritan woman who had mentioned worshipping God ‘on the mountain’. See the connections? If we are going to be consistent with how we read OT promises, do we have to see a promise to literally raise up Mt Zion to be this earth shakingly humungous mountain with rivers that will water the whole earth? Or was Jesus onto something when he called HIMSELF living water? Then Hebrews and Revelation take the New Jerusalem / Mt Zion imagery and run WILD with it.

These images occur a lot in Ezekiel too, which is where I part with some who insist they must be literal. I think they are far too clearly symbolic.

Now this (heirs benefiting only if loyal) is not explicit in Gen 15, but perhaps would be culturally understood by Abraham and others of the time.

Thanks Ros, that was very helpful. If it was that only faithful heirs would inherit the promises and that was implicit in Gen 15 and explicit in Gen 17 that could solve this conflict.

What I would add for Dannii is that the land is not the only metaphor for the security of national Israel — there is also Jerusalem, Mt Zion, and the Temple. So while you have correctly focussed on the legal side of the Covenant Contract here, there is also the symbolic transformation of all these themes. I think we are meant to pick up that the Land, Jerusalem, Mt Zion and the Temple are no longer themes for national Israel. They are ours!

Yes definitely!

But just because the themes of something are extended and developed and then later given to another people does not mean that that first thing was. The first successful Aboriginal land rights claims were a huge inspiration and encouragement to many of the Aboriginal people, but other communities couldn’t just claim their lands as well. Until the national Native Title Act each case was legally independent. Similarly although us gentiles can share many of the Jews themes we don’t then qualify for their legal standing before God. Before Christ the only legal standing gentile nations had was under Noah’s covenant - which didn’t say a lot. Now since Christ we have a new covenant and a new legal standing, but it’s not the same as the Jews. Even though we share the same God, the same faith and the same themes, we have different promises than Abraham and the Israelites that followed him.

So while there is a place for asking about the ‘legalities’ of God’s ‘contracts’ with Abraham, we must avoid ignoring the rest of the bible in an autistic focus on the contracts. This builds a wall against new information. This ignores the overall thrust of the bible, and forbids the very real answers to questions about Abraham from coming from other quarters. We must be open to the grand sweep of Israel’s hope changing and transforming. We must be ready for what God has in store for his people, which might be larger than anything they hoped for! So as we read through the changes from Sinai into the Land and then into exile, we have to move with the journey. God is faithful, but is He ‘upgrading’ promises?

Isaiah moves from focussing on just the ‘land’ to some kind of heavenly Mount Zion. We have to be aware of what God is doing and where He is heading. We can’t just bury all that in the basement and lock the door, while we sit upstairs and focus on the CONTRACTS — only the CONTRACTS. Who wants to be a lawyer anyway? We don’t have a contract, but a treasure map, and the treasure is eternal life and deeds to becoming heirs of the King!

I get what you’re saying, but I’m also hesitant. We must be careful not to become too narrow minded about anything, because the Bible covers a huge amount of content.

That said, I think that structurally and thematically the dominant concept in the Bible is the covenant. The history books are all about the people of these covenants. The prophets all look back to the covenants, in particular Deuteronomy, and quote from it in their warnings, judgements and blessings. The prophets essentially say nothing new - everything they say is in Deut 27-30. God is faithful, as well as generous. He makes new promises and covenants because the option to upgrade isn’t in the terms of the covenants he made before.

We do have a contract, the new covenant! We have more than just promises, but covenants and oaths. Hebrews 6:13-20 says that God made these covenants and oaths with us to assure us he’ll do what he says, so that by both the initial promise and the second confirmation when God swears by himself, we will be confident. A single promise given once should have been enough, but we are weak people, and so when God stoops down to our level it is a very big encouragement.

God made a legal agreement with me when I first trusted him to take my sin, forgive me and be reconciled to me, and I’ll never let go of that agreement. Without that agreement we are like many other religions, for example Islam, where we do not know what God will do on judgement day and can merely hope that he will be uncharacteristically merciful. The new covenant assures me that despite what I do, or what anyone else does, either good or bad, despite how angry God feels or how regretful he is that he even made me, he will keep up his end of the bargain and forgive me. It’s why in Ephesians 1:13-14 the spirit is given: God lives within each person that has become a member of the new covenant, and his continuing indwelling of us is our guarantee that he’ll keep the covenant. We have true assurance of faith because the spirit is in us. No one who has truly been reconciled to God can evict the spirit and void their inheritance - even if they could somehow convince themselves that God isn’t even real. The covenant, the guarantee - they’re unbreakable!

The covenant is the most wonderful concept for grace. God signed our new covenant with blood, literally, and now nothing in the universe can break that legal agreement.

I appreciate that at times other themes are much more prominent than the covenant. But I still think it’s the Bible’s dominant one, for good reason.

Similarly although us gentiles can share many of the Jews themes we don’t then qualify for their legal standing before God.

According to Romans, we don’t want to! According to Romans anyone that is outside is automatically under the curse of the law, and that is not a place we want to be.

Now since Christ we have a new covenant and a new legal standing, but it’s not the same as the Jews.

Of course not, the Jewish Covenant is fulfilled in ours and then abolished. That’s the plain reading of Hebrews.

He makes new promises and covenants because the option to upgrade isn’t in the terms of the covenants he made before.

Sorry but can you verify this with Scripture? Who said they were NEW promises if the prophets starts to sketch out some of the details? Doesn’t the NT say that God planned the way of salvation from before the foundations of the earth?

God made a legal agreement with me when I first trusted him to take my sin, forgive me and be reconciled to me, and I’ll never let go of that agreement. Without that agreement we are like many other religions, for example Islam, where we do not know what God will do on judgement day and can merely hope that he will be uncharacteristically merciful. The new covenant assures me that despite what I do, or what anyone else does, either good or bad, despite how angry God feels or how regretful he is that he even made me, he will keep up his end of the bargain and forgive me. It’s why in Ephesians 1:13-14 the spirit is given: God lives within each person that has become a member of the new covenant, and his continuing indwelling of us is our guarantee that he’ll keep the covenant. We have true assurance of faith because the spirit is in us. No one who has truly been reconciled to God can evict the spirit and void their inheritance - even if they could somehow convince themselves that God isn’t even real. The covenant, the guarantee - they’re unbreakable!

I agree with everything you’ve said here. I just wanted to comment that it is ringing some bells. Something is nagging me, some correlation that I can’t quite put into words properly. It’s about something like the valley of dry bones prophesy and the stuff fulfilled in Acts showing the Davidic promise / contract to be fulfilled in Jesus. I don’t have all the links yet, but it seems to me that the closer I look the more ‘Covenants**’ in the OT are fulfilled in the NT. Remember our chat about Phineas where I thought Hebrews was clear that the very notion of Priesthood was fulfilled in Christ? That it’s not just “Levitical” priests could be fulfilled in Jesus, but the whole *point* of Priesthood itself — fulfilled in Jesus. To suggest that Phineas might still have some sort of residual Priestly function sounds like heresy to me — does it mean Jesus death was somehow lacking? Do we need to crucify him all over again? It just doesn’t work. The only real sacrifice was Jesus death on the cross, for all the faithful believers in the family of God, both Old Testament and New.

** Aren’t all the Covenants part of the one big promise God made to Eve that one of her great descendants would be the serpent slayer!?

Of course not, the Jewish Covenant is fulfilled in ours and then abolished. That’s the plain reading of Hebrews.

The Jews had several covenants…

Just to be clear, here’s my reading of Hebrews:

1-2: Jesus is better than the angels and better than humans. Not really related to covenants.
3: Jesus is better than Moses, basically because his kingdom is bigger than Israel
4:1-13: Here we’re getting somewhere. The sabbath rest - the sign of the sinai covenant - still exists for those in Jesus, and is used to warn the Christians against falling away
4:14-5-10: Jesus is the great high priest, superior to Aaron
5:11-6:12: Don’t fall away
6:13-6:20: my favourite passage
7: Again, Jesus is the superior priest
8: Jesus is high priest of the NEW covenant, which replaces the OLD covenant, which Aaron was priest over
9:1-10:18: Details on the new covenant
10:19-11:40: Don’t fall away / faith
12: God’s discipline, including the “heavenly Jerusalem”
13: concluding comments

The writer goes about it in many ways, and effective shows that the new covenant is superior to the old covenant. But that is specifically the Sinai covenant. The other covenants are generally not in view and their content not discussed.

Sorry but can you verify this with Scripture? Who said they were NEW promises if the prophets starts to sketch out some of the details? Doesn’t the NT say that God planned the way of salvation from before the foundations of the earth?

A couple might talk about marriage but until the question is popped and the ring’s on the finger they’re not engaged. So just because God had it planned from the beginning and had even dropped a few hints doesn’t mean that the covenants existed before God made them.

And a lot of the promises were given many times, and some of the covenants sort of codified promises which were pre-existing (This is the case with Genesis 15, and also I think with Phinehas.) This is the point of Hebrews 6:13ff: God made oaths (and covenants) to confirm the promises he had made before. It’s not as though his promises are any less trustworthy than his covenants, but I think the Bible invites us to treat the rare covenants with special attention, and does just that itself.

But sometimes new promises were also made. There was a time when God had never promised to give Abraham Canaan.

My point was that each covenant has its own purpose and its own rules. The Sinai covenant was for defining a new political nation, how its people would live and what would happen if they disobeyed they God. It has a great many terms, including blessings if they were obedient, curses if they were not, but with the promise to preserve a remnant regardless. What wasn’t included though were terms which would allow for the political nation to be disbanded and reformed into a spiritual group with people from all nations etc. I guess God could have included terms for that, just like how most company constitutions included rules for how it should disincorporate itself, but he didn’t.  When companies merge you must follow their constitution rules, and so did God when creating the church. Deuteronomy has no terms that would allow for what God wanted to do so he had to make a new entity.

Remember our chat about Phineas where I thought Hebrews was clear that the very notion of Priesthood was fulfilled in Christ? That it’s not just “Levitical” priests could be fulfilled in Jesus, but the whole *point* of Priesthood itself — fulfilled in Jesus. To suggest that Phineas might still have some sort of residual Priestly function sounds like heresy to me — does it mean Jesus death was somehow lacking? Do we need to crucify him all over again? It just doesn’t work. The only real sacrifice was Jesus death on the cross, for all the faithful believers in the family of God, both Old Testament and New.

Although the sacrifices was a very prominent part of the priest’s role, there were other parts too. Proclaiming and explaining God’s word was another thing the priests had to do, which of course is still very important even after calvary. So if there is still any place for Phinehas’ covenant I would expect his descendants to be teachers.

Dannii Willis - 23 January 2011 08:06 PM

A couple might talk about marriage but until the question is popped and the ring’s on the finger they’re not engaged. So just because God had it planned from the beginning and had even dropped a few hints doesn’t mean that the covenants existed before God made them.

Yes, but this analogy works far better for me. I see the Old Covenant as the engagement and the New Covenant as the actual marriage – fulfilment of the promise. Marriages are exclusive and jealous, and rightly so. By trying to insist that there are still older ‘engagement promises unfulfilled’ it is almost as if you are trying to smuggle in another person into the marriage.

“Sorry honey, you know I love you but right now I’ve got to go and spend some time and energy fulfilling exclusive promises I made to this other girl!”

It’s insulting to both! Jewish people of God saw themselves as the distinctive people of God — there was no other God and no other Covenant. Christians now see it the same way, as Jewish and Gentile Christians form the united Kingdom of God.

But there is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved! This is the deal. There is no other.

My point was that each covenant has its own purpose and its own rules.

Each covenant has its own special context, but ultimately they all point us towards Jesus. Anything short of that gets messy real fast, like trying to make a place for Phineas when Jesus is our great high priest. Your answer for Phineas above has no OT biblical warrant, as he was a PRIEST. Spiritualising it into some form of teaching role is fine by me as it fits right in with the ‘priesthood of all believers’ doctrine. But I would just ask you to acknowledge that this is what you were doing, because — obviously — we can have Phineas competing with Jesus as High Priest!

In a similar vein I get the vibe that almost every other promise is fulfilled in Jesus. God’s people living God’s way in God’s land is fulfilled, ESPECIALLY when we study the way Isaiah and Ezekiel translate the eschatological hopes of national Israel into what can only be called idealised visions of an ‘heavenly’ or super-Mt Zion. I had a brief look at Ezekiel the other day, and he’s got a similar sequence to Isaiah. Ezekiels 3rd main vision sequence from Chapters 40 to 48 run on themes of an idealised temple and Mt Zion, and God entering it from the East, and spiritual waters and the trees of life… all themes we see spiritualised in Jesus. (Waters of life, will not just worship on this ‘mountain’ but in spirit and truth, bread of life, temple destroyed and rebuilt in 3 days, etc).

In this vein of fulfilled prophecy, I’d ask you to consider what the Sabbath has to do with God’s people living God’s way in God’s LAND in Hebrews 4.