Wednesday, March 10, 2010

The Abrahamic Covenant

I wish to explore the terms and conditions of the Abrahamic Covenant.  We will be focusing on Genesis 12 through Genesis 17.  Now, there are parts of the history (i.e. Abraham going to Egypt, Lot going to the plain of Jordan, etc.) that we will be skipping because they are not necessarily tied to the Covenant.  I'm not avoiding context since these passages of scripture do not contain God expressing a term of the Covenant.  I will also be referring to Abraham as Abraham (with full understanding his name was change from Abram to Abraham during this time.)

Genesis 12 begins with the Lord telling Abraham that he needs to leave home and go to a land that God has prepared for him.   Then, in verse 2, God tells Abraham that He will make of Abraham a great nation and He will make his name great and that he will be blessing.  Since the context of the verse is dealing with Abraham's becoming a great nation, I conclude that his greatness and blessing will be of global significance.  And, indeed verse 3 says just that.  Through Abraham, all families of the earth would be blessed.  Abraham packs up his wife and his brother, Lot, and they travel to Canaan.  Upon arriving in Canaan, God told Abraham that this land was to be his and his seed's forever.

Let's summarize the Covenant thus far

1.  God promises that Abraham and his seed would be a source of blessing to the world
2.  God promises Abraham and his seed would be a great nation
3.  God promises Abraham a land for his seed forever.

Now, Abraham is a little concerned because up to this point, Abraham had no children.  So, we see God promising seed to Abraham in Genesis 15.  God adds a further promise that Abraham's seed will be numbered as the stars of heaven.  Now, this is where it gets very interesting.  God is about to make this Covenant "legal."  He instructs Abraham to cut animals in half and make an aisle.  In those days, when two people wished to make a contract about something, they would cut animals in half and walk down the aisle while interlocking arms.  It was a blood contract and the implication was that if you didn't keep your end of the deal, you would end up just like the slain animals.  So, God walks down the aisle with Abraham, right?  Wrong.  The grace of God comes in and causes a great sleep to come upon Abraham and God Himself walked down the aisle.  God conditioned this covenant upon Himself.  Therefore, to Abraham, it is now an unconditional covenant.

Abraham has a child with Hagar, his maidservant.  The son's name is Ishmael.  God isn't pleased because he promised the blessing to pass through Abraham's natural seed.  The natural seed would be from Abraham and his wife, Sara.  Abraham, in a moment of unbelief, takes things into his own hands.  But, remember, this covenant is unconditional.  God again displays grace and gives Abraham and Sara a child, Isaac - by which the covenant blessing would pass. 

We get to Genesis 17:7 and God tells Abraham that not only is this covenant for Abraham, but it will be an everlasting covenant to his seed.  The sign of this covenant was circumcision.  (Remember, the Jew requires a sign I Corinthians 1:22).

So, the Abrahamic Covenant is unconditional and everlasting and says that the seed of Abraham would be the source of blessing to the world; a great nation; and possessors of their land, forever.

This covenant is the "grand daddy" of all covenants in the Bible.  All proceeding covenants must flow through this one.  If this covenant is unconditional and everlasting, then no new covenant made between God and Israel can nullify the covenant made with Abraham but only amplify it.  (Galatians 3:17)

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Sons of God: Genesis 6

There are many "untouchable" verses in the Bible - verses that seem to be ignored or difficult to explain or the source of controversy for many years.  This blog isn't about to shy away from these types of verses, in fact, they sound like our kind of verses.  Probably one of the most famous of these verses occurs in Genesis 6.  Just who are the sons of God mentioned here?  Now, once again, we will be looking at the view through the eyes of Dr. C. I. Scofield and making our own observations.

Genesis 6:1-4 reads thusly, "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

Now, it the question comes down to who are the sons of God? and who are the daughters of men?  Now, I'll be quoting from Scofield's Study Bible (1917 ed.).

Some hold that these "sons of God" were the "angels which kept not their first estate" (Jude 6).  It is asserted that the title is in the O. T. exclusively used of angels.  But this is an error (Isa. 43:6).  Angels are spoken of in a sexless way.  No female angels are mentioned in Scripture, and we are expressly told that marriage is unknown among angels (Matthew 22:30).  The uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation has been that verse 2 marks the breaking down of the separation between the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain, and so the failure of the testimony to Jehovah committed to the line of Seth (Genesis 4:26).  For apostasy there is no remedy but judgment (Isa. 1:2-7, 25-25; Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26-31).  and so on.

The first "error" that Scofield wishes to point out is that the title "sons of God" is exclusively used of angels in the Old Testament.  His justification for this is Isaiah 43:6 which says, "I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth".  Ok - where's the title "sons of God"?  I guess he is referring to "my sons" here, but a generic mention of sons and daughters as they relate to God is not the same as defining a specific title such as "sons of God."  So, I'm failing to see the justification to disprove this "error."  Secondly, the term "sons of God" is a special term even in the New Testament.  It refers to those who are saved.  Those who are saved are a special creation of God.  Angels likewise are a special creation of God because they are the first and only of their kind (meaning they didn't "evolve" into something other than angels, in their natural state), specially created by God, and potentially perfect.  You say, that doesn't mean they're "sons of God."  What about Adam?--he was the first and only of their kind (again, in that there isn't multiple human kinds) and was potentially perfect.  Well, read in Luke and it says so-and-so was the son of so-and-so was the son of so-and-so was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38) 

The second justification is that angles are spoken of in a sexless way.  Now, the angel that rolled away the stone of Jesus' tomb is described as masculine (Matthew 28:2-4).  The two angels that came to Sodom in Genesis 19 were "man enough" that the people of the city wanted to commit sin with them.  The 3 angels that appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18 desired to rest and be fed.  Judges 13:21 - Manoah describes the angel as a "he."  The fact of the matter is, every time an angel shows up and it is necessary to speak of it with a gender, it is ALWAYS male.  What makes something male or female?  Is it facial features?  Is it length of hair?  No, it is what their role in reproduction is.  It is illogical to have a "sexless" angel that is a male. 

The third argument is that angels don't marry.  Now, to be fair, the verse says that in the resurrection (a time yet future) they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of God in heaven.  This verse makes no mention of what angels of the devil would do or have done in the past.  So, to solely use this verse as justification for a position in Genesis 6 is problematic.  Also, we all know you don't need the bond of marriage to procreate.  "But, it says that they took wives of all that they chose."  Do you honestly read these verses and come away with the idea that these were God-ordained marriages?  Can a tyrant take unto himself whom he chooses and declare their status, regardless of the law?  Yes!

The fourth argument is that this is the breakdown of the "godly line of Seth" and the "ungodly line of Cain."  When has there ever been a godly line of anyone in the Bible?  Even Jesus' line has an adulterer and murderer in it!  Secondly, if the union of godly and ungodly lines produced giants then, why do not the same unions produce giants today?  Furthermore, it says that giants were in the land and also after that (the flood).  If Cain's daughters were killed in the flood, then what "ungodly" line existed after the flood to produce giants?

Scofield's arguments are not very well thought out.  I believe the Bible is presenting these sons of God as angels.  Let's note a few things.  Allow me to post the verses again:

"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

Every time the term "sons of God" is used in the O. T. it is in reference to angels (Job 1, Job 2, Job 38).  For God to mean something different than angels, He would have to change the meaning without telling us He changed the meaning.  Note verse 3 says that His spirit will not always strive with man, "for that he also is flesh."  Wait, man isn't the only flesh?  Remember, every time an angel shows up, it's a man.  Therefore, yes, man also is flesh.  Now, we know that demons roam free on the earth.  These demons are nothing more than fallen angels.  When Satan was removed from his position in heaven, he took a portion of the angels with him.  Where did these angels go?  We know that not all came with him to earth.  Jude 6 says that some angels are reserved in "everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."  So, what these angels did was so bad that God locked them up immediately.  They do not have free roam on the earth.  And, note Jude 7 (also after that) speaks of Sodom and Gomorrha.  So, they kept not their first estate and left their own habitation.  Ephesians 2:22 says that we are built together for a habitation of God through the spirit.  Our bodies are the abode or the habitation of God.  (Note I Corinthians 6:19-20).  Our first estate is earth.  The angels first estate was heaven.  So, the angels didn't leave their first estate, rather they didn't keep it.  There's a big difference.  If they leave, it is voluntary.  By not keeping it, they forfeited it.  So, does Jude just double up here and use estate and habitation to mean the same thing?  No.  Remember the reference to us - our physical bodies are the habitation of God.  The angels kept not their first estate and left their own physical bodies, inhabited human males, and comingled with the daughters of men.  Also note I Peter 3:18-20.  "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prisons; Which sometime were disobedient when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,..."

What spirits?  The body is for the grave.  Hebrews 1:4 says that angels are spirits.  Men are souls.  "The soul that sinneth, it shall die."  (Ezekiel 18:4 - the context of this passage is physical life/death.  Don't use this passage to say that O. T. believers could lose their salvation.  Physical life is the context!).  These spirits can't be the lost.  They are spiritually dead, but their souls would populate this prison (hell).  But, Peter says "spirits."  Doesn't this dove-tail nicely with Jude 6?!  The same angels "reserved in chains" are the "spirits in prisons." Also note Peter's reference to the days of Noah.  Common theme?  Yes, because "sons of God" in Genesis 6 (the days of Noah) are angels!!

I'll end with this idea.  Remember the giants in the Bible are associated with iron?  Deut. 3:11 - Og had a bedstead of iron.  I Samuel 17:7 says that Goliath's spear was the weight of 600 shekels of iron.  These giants were the product of humans (clay) intermixing with demonic flesh (iron, the "dominant gene").  It is interesting that the feet of Daniel's image (Daniel 2:33) is a mixture of iron and clay.  Am I suggesting that we may see giants again?  Well, Jesus said as it was in the days of Noah and as it was in the days of Lot ("...also after that...") so shall it be with the coming of the Son of Man.

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Looking Forward To The Cross For Salvation?

Ever hear people say something like this: "Just like we look back to the cross for our salvation, people in the Old Testament looked forward to the cross for their salvation."  Do you ever get a verse to back up this claim?  Almost always, you don't.  Why is that?  I think our doctrine sometimes gets cloudy in the murk of traditional clichés and robotic statements.  For example, many that believe that water baptism is for the church, the Body of Christ, often will say that after salvations, you must follow the Lord in believer's baptism (a phrase never found in the Bible, by the way).  What is this insinuating?  Well, it would mean that the Lord is the pattern - that the Lord was lost, got saved, and then was baptized as a public profession of His faith.  This is prime example of just regurgitating what we've heard but never stopping to think about what we are saying.

Did people look forward to the cross in the so-called Old Testament?  I think the Scriptures would help us understand this issue.

People often will quote Galatians where it says that the gospel was preached unto Abraham.  Therefore, just like when they read the word "baptism" and automatically think of water, they read the word "gospel" and automatically think of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.  In fact, Galatians says what the gospel was that Abraham heard.  Galatians 3:8 says that the gospel was preached unto Abraham saying, "In thee shall all nations of the earth be blessed."  Gospel means "good news" - that's all it means.  Therefore, the gospel or good news that Abraham heard and believed was that through him (Israel), the entire world would be blessed.  The Bible says that Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.  Nowhere is it said that Abraham trusted the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for his salvation.

Let's skip ahead to Luke.  Yes, Luke still stands doctrinally under the Old Testament (the Law of Moses).  In Luke 18, Jesus reveals that He is going to have to go the cross and die.  What is the disciple's response?  They didn't believe it!  In fact, Peter rebukes the Lord and tells Him that He is not going to go to the cross.  Now, how could they have been preaching the same gospel if they didn't even believe it?!  Furthermore, after the resurrection, they still didn't believe it.  They wanted proof!  Remember Thomas?!  Even Paul said in I Corinthians that the death of Christ was kept hidden, even from Satan.

Now, some will argue, "but what about the references to the death of Christ (Psalm 22, Isaiah 53) and the resurrection (Psalm 16)?"  Well, first the references to the death of Christ are only that.  We see Isaiah speaking directly about Jews and how this death will relate to them.  Verse 10 tells us the reason - that God was going to accept this as the sin offering for HIS PEOPLE.  Secondly, Peter in Acts 2 explains Psalm 16.  He says the reason for the resurrection has nothing to do with anybody salvation but has everything to do with somebody sitting on a throne in a kingdom.  We do not get any word of the efficacy of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ until Paul reveals it for us and calls it "my Gospel" (Romans 16:25).  This gospel is named, The Gospel of the Grace of God.

There is just not one shred of evidence to support the idea that people were looking forward to the cross for their salvation.  In fact, if they were, by keep making the animal sacrifices for sin?  Why not just rest in the finished work of Christ?

A Brief Look At The Gap Theory

In the 19th Century, Darwin publishes his book Origin of the Species. Biologists, Geologists, Anthropologists claim that, to reconcile God and Science, there needs to be a “gap” of time to allow for evolution. Contemporary of Darwin was a man named Thomas Chalmers. Chalmers was a Scottish Theologian and attended the University of Edinburgh with Darwin. Chalmers set out to try to harmonize so-called Science and the Bible. He felt he succeeded by developing the Gap Theory.

The basis for this theory was the reading of Genesis. He stated that the phrase “was without form and void” is a mistranslation in the KJV. He argued that it would read, “became without form and void.” So note, he had to change the book to teach his theory. The theory becomes popular because now we can prove that God and so-called Science harmonize. There are even some prominent theological authors that ascribe to this theory: George Pember; Clarence Larkin; Merrill Unger; Arthur Pink; and C. I. Schofield who put this theory in his study notes in the book of Genesis. Since his study bible is widely used, we’ll address some of the arguments of the theory from his work.
 
The Gap Theory basically says this:
 
Sometime in the dateless past, God created the original earth (Gen. 1:1). Lucifer was given dominion over the original earth (No verse). This original earth contained a Pre-Adamite Race without souls (No Verse). Lucifer sinned (Isaiah 14:12-13). God floods the original earth in judgment (II Peter 3). Now, billions of years gap the original earth and the present earth. This is where fossils show up; dinosaurs live and die here until God recreates the present earth (Gen. 1:3).

Let’s examine this position, again, taking arguments from Schofield’s notes.

Genesis 1:1; 16 (Schofield’s argument)

1. God “created”…
2. God “made”
a. Sun was created for the original earth
b. Sun made visible after the chaotic earth is flooded
3. However, there is no biblical distinction between created and made. Notes these references and compare them.
a. Genesis 1:26-27
b. Exodus 20:11
c. Colossians 1:15
d. John 1:3

Isaiah 14:12 (Schofield’s Argument)
1. Reference to the fall of Lucifer and the chaotic earth’s judgment
a. No judgment upon earth in this verse
b. Nations are mentioned, but whoops, no nations until after Adam’
2. Ezekiel 28:13-14 – Lucifer’s Position in the Garden
a. In the garden of Eden, Satan was still the “Anointed Cherub”, which is the guardian of the throne of God
b. Therefore, Lucifer couldn’t have fallen before the garden was created, and couldn’t have fallen before Adam because nations didn’t exist until Adam
c. The only logical time Lucifer could have fallen from his position is sometime after the creation of man and woman.

I Cor. 15:21 – the idea of Sin itself refutes the Gap Theory
1. Death is a result of sin (Romans 6:23)
2. Death began with Adam, because of Adam’s sin
a. Gap Theorists will say that Satan sin caused Physical Death and Adam’s Sin caused Spiritual Death
1). However, Jesus is called the Second Adam
2). Romans 5 says Jesus tasted death for us
3). If Adam’s sin caused “spiritual” death, why did Jesus have to die a “physical” death?

Jeremiah 4:23 – This verse is used to show the “without form and void” argument
1. “without form and void”
a. Argument is that the same phraseology is used here as it is used in Genesis
b. Notice that it is a mistranslation in Genesis 1, but when it fits their argument, it is not a mistranslation
c. However, the prophet is looking forward to the Babylonian captivity and not looking back at creation.

Isaiah 45:18 – Another poor attempt and word juggling
1. The argument is that “vain” = void
a. However, vain means without purpose
b. While void means empty
c. The prophet is looking forward to the Tribulation and the Millennium and the context of the whole passage is Israel’s salvation, not creation

Genesis Chapter 1 – How is it written?
1. All but verses 1 and 27 begin with the word “and”
2. Verse 1 obviously starts things off, there is no “and” at the beginning of something
3. Verse 27 is just summarizing verse 26
4. “And” is a conjunction, meaning it connects a previous thought with the latter thought to achieve a continuous time movement. (No Gap)

II Peter 3:4-7 – The “first” Flood
1. How can we be willingly ignorant of a flood we are never told about?
2. “Lucifer’s Flood” is never mentioned in the Bible (which it wouldn’t be since the author of this theory had to change the Bible to teach his theory)
3. The only flood ever mentioned is Noah’s flood, as previously referenced in I Peter
4. Jesus must have forgotten about the Luciferian flood because he only mentions Noah’s flood

II Peter 3:6 – The earth never “perished” in Noah’s Flood as it did in Lucifer’s Flood
a. Genesis 6:10 says the earth was “destroyed” in Noah’s flood

II Peter 3:5 - Earth standing in the water and out of the water to a Gap Theorist
1. Picture this: The earth is bobbing up and down in a sea called the Deep (Genesis 1:2)
b. Lucifer’s sin caused the earth to fall into this “deep” and be drowned or flooded (again, no verse)
2. However, remember that Earth isn’t always a direct reference to this planet
a. Gen. 1:10
1). God calls the dry land, earth
2). Earth standing in the water and out of the water
a). Sounds like the earth today
b). Do Continents stop at the shoreline?
c). Continents extend under the ocean to ridges or plate boundaries (i.e. The Mid-Atlantic Ridge)

The Gap Theory concludes that the present earth is actually the 2nd earth and that the 1st earth perished during the Luciferian flood.

1. Revelation 21:1
a. A new heaven and a new earth are to replace the 1st heaven and the 1st earth
b. But, according to the theory, these were replaced by the present heaven and earth
c. Scripture won’t contradict itself into an irreconcilable error
d. When a theory is made that calls for a change in one verse, it can then contradict other portions of scripture

Genesis 1:28 – what about the word “replenish”?
1. Replenish means to fill again because of the prefix “re”
2. Definition = to fill, in 1611
3. Another example of a definition change
a. “Let” used to mean to prohibit in some cases, now it means to permit.
4. Context of the passage ALWAYS determines the usage of the word

Hopefully you can see that the Gap Theory does not harmonize the Bible with Science because the Gap Theory can’t even harmonize the Bible. What else is interesting is that God’s word contains many references to natural, Scientific principles.

To see just some of these principles, visit http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html#7XI5t69sIFh0

From Abraham to Christ: A Brief Family Tree