The Implications of Divine Covering

We’ve been chatting amongst ourselves in the community about divine covering. One of our members had a vision that responded to our shared impression that something substantial had changed in the Spirit Realm over the past couple of weeks. The vision dealt with covering and uncovering. On the one hand, the Lord specifically promised to cover His covenant people. Peace with Him includes that until He gives you a Word indicating otherwise.

On the other hand, He tends to cover others for His often inscrutable purposes. I have said I believe the Lord is raising up Trump to bring an end to the US as we know it. You would expect that the man would be covered until his mission is complete.

So, it’s not merely surviving an assassination attempt, but Trump is off the hook on his handling of secret documents — case dismissed. If the rest of the bogus cases against him come apart, or simply don’t accomplish anything, it would be safe to consider him at least provisionally covered for this time.

No, he’s not out of the woods completely, but everything is coming apart in the desperate effort to get him convicted and sentenced before the election. Sloppy it may be, but his protection is working, in more ways than one.

By the same token, it will mean an uncovering for some of his enemies. That would explain how Biden and friends can no longer hide his senility. The mainstream is now desperate to get rid of him, while his supporters are fighting tooth and nail to keep him in place.

And I would expect that, once Trump starts making progress toward winning the next election, the likes of Antifa will riot again, but it won’t accomplish much. That doesn’t mean it won’t get hairy in a few places around the US — we should expect serious violence to erupt from the opposition. But in the end, it won’t change anything.

That’s if you believe Trump’s got covering for the time being. Polarization has been increasing for years, but it’s now going to bear fruit.

This is the year of big entertainment.

Posted in prophecy | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Salvation Is Not in Your Head

Radix Fidem doctrine: The key issue is personal loyalty to Christ. What you may or may not know about Him, and what you believe about the Bible and its contents, will not send you to Heaven or Hell. This is not a question of what’s in your head, but what’s in your heart.

The Holy Spirit leads and empowers; He enlightens you — not to facts, but to moral truth. Facts and mundane intellectual truth are not His language. Yes, this is a real conflict, not mere rhetoric. The whole issue of getting the facts straight, as a primary concern, arises from our fallen natures. The inherent demand of the flesh is to pull divine revelation down to a level where it can be challenged by mere human reasoning.

No, you don’t leave your reason and common sense at the door when you enter the Covenant. You take it to the Cross and nail it up. Reason and common sense must be ruled by the Spirit.

We could say that the full issue of divine revelation is summed up in feudal submission to the Creator, and to the utter necessity of committing oneself to His glory. That is the sole point of revelation. Yes, if you can get that right, the rest we can work on later. The gateway is not what you know, but whom you serve.

Satan can spew orthodoxy without conviction and make it a lie. Orthodox thoughts and ideas are within his grasp; they are part of his domain. Divine moral character is out of his reach. Salvation is a relationship with our Creator and Lord, not a matter of having correct information.

Just as a parent can be patient with their own children’s fantasies, God will lead us to a functional knowledge of Him. There is no such thing as objective propositional truth. The underlying assumption from the mists of the ancient past has always been that we humans could not consciously know ultimate truth on our level, only that we were held responsible for our personal commitment.

This is what will carry you through the tribulation. Your orthodoxy and biblical knowledge can help keep your faith on track, but they cannot give you the strength of commitment you must have to face persecution and sorrow. What’s in your head will not save you, only what’s in your heart.

Posted in eldercraft | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Salvation Is Not in Your Head

Content or Compassion?

Do you understand the concept of diplomacy?

The Law of Christ is that we love each other as He loved us. In Ephesians 4:15, the proper grammatical expression in English is about how you live, not just what you say. It means clinging to the truth of the gospel message, and you do it with compassion, sacrificial love. But that certainly includes the common English translation of “speaking the truth in love”.

Truth is a Person, the Person of Christ. He is the living the truth. This is a non-western concept. In the West, truth becomes a thing, an impersonal body of propositions and logic. Thanks to the influence of people like Plato and Aristotle, it becomes a separate deity of sorts to which all things are held accountable. It stands on its own, and you’ll find most non-believers reflexively try to measure the gospel against their conception of objective truth.

Indeed, I seldom use the term “truth” when referring to the gospel of Christ because it’s almost like speaking the wrong language. It carries all the wrong baggage and it comes across as arrogance. If I offer them intellectual content, they have an intellectual defense. If I offer them the love of Jesus, they can’t so easily brush it aside. It places me in a different place in their lives, giving me an opening to testify. I must be the gospel, the Law of Christ. It’s my duty to incarnate Him in the way I come across to everyone.

I can’t count how many times I saw some fool present their version of the gospel truth with such bitterness and hatred that I knew Satan was celebrating. Most of the people I’ve watched trying to use some cutesy little outline they learned in “soul winning class” came across totally without compassion because they were too focused on the verbal content and not trying to reach the heart of the listener.

What may not register to some writers is that same focus on content instead of compassion does come across wrong in how you write. You’ve heard it before: “They don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.” If all you care about is getting the gospel facts laid out, you might as well be lying.

I’ve run across it on every forum and blog comment section, people who have their facts straight but the tone registers as bitter and hateful. Their justification is, “Well, it’s the truth!” No, it’s not, because you have made it into a lie. You aren’t living the gospel in sacrificial love.

Tell it in love.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Content or Compassion?

NT Doctrine — 2 Timothy 4

In the previous chapter, Paul referred to his otherworldly focus that carried him through persecutions. He belonged to Heaven, not this world. No human agency could take his life until the Lord was ready. Paul was eager to go, but ready to stay until he had completed his mission for the Father’s glory. Thus, he was ready to endure anything that life could throw at him until it was finished.

That mission was the gospel. He urged Timothy to press the message as the ultimate priority of life. It was the message that included facing persecution and not caring too much for this world. He refers to audiences seeking to have their “ears scratched” like most domesticated animals. For that very reason, it’s easy to quote this passage out of context.

The Judaizers and Gnostics shared one trait: an expectation that they could teach some path to conquer this world, not to overcome it. They promoted a way to gain some secret advantage over other people, as if winning this world was worth anything. Paul taught about how to escape its grip. People love hearing how wonderful they are; they love hearing how their human powers of reasoning could make them rulers. Paul taught about how to be ruled by the Holy Spirit.

The gospel was not an easy message, but by God’s divine power, the soul can be opened to receive it. Paul was ready to end his life in one final sacrifice for his Lord. He shared some personal notes about those who abandoned him, those who served alongside in other places, and whom he would like to see again before it was over, to include Timothy. He also mentions one particular enemy. There are other personal notes.

Nothing could harm his eternal inheritance. He faced his demise with joy and confidence.

Posted in bible | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on NT Doctrine — 2 Timothy 4

Response to Eschatology Notes

Some folks got hold of me privately with questions and comments.

The explanation of Daniel 9 that I offered was not meant to be definitive. I’m not entirely happy with the results myself, and there are other plausible explanations. You need to study it yourself and let it guide how you walk in your own convictions. I made two main points: (1) Daniel learned that the nightmare was just getting started and (2) apparently nobody in the NT thought it was a critical messianic prophecy.

And one little side note: In Gabriel’s words, the seventy weeks were “decreed” (determined) but the rebuilding of Jerusalem was simply a “word” (“permit” in that context) — two different terms. The decree came from God, but the permit is ambiguous. I take it to mean the Persian permit Ezra brought back in 457 BC. Feel free to pick a different answer.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Response to Eschatology Notes

Eschatology Notes 04

Final comment on Daniel 9: Nowhere in the NT is this prophecy quoted directly. This is something conspicuous by its absence, in that no one mentions it as messianic prophecy. Jesus mentions the “abomination of desolation” which is found a couple of places in Daniel, but it’s not specific enough. This tends to support my contention that the primary point of the passage in Daniel 9 is to disabuse him of the notion that Israel would ever return to her former glories.

So, we cannot call it a part of the classically recognized messianic prophecies as identified by scholars. However, on a popular level, late Second Temple rabbinical commentaries on Daniel’s prophecy seemed to agree that it indicated a Messiah coming, typically with a timing roughly when Jesus ministered. This is why Bible teachers assert that there was a very good reason so many Jews were expecting the Messiah when Jesus appeared.

However, here’s something noteworthy in thinking about Hebrew numerology — Heiser points out that in Luke 1, if you count the days from the moment Zachariah is informed he would have a son, to the time Jesus was dedicated in the Temple, that was 490 days, a literal seventy weeks. Note that it’s also the same angel Gabriel who spoke to Daniel and to Zachariah, and they were both praying. Heiser mentions other parallels.

I haven’t changed my convictions regarding Revelation or Matthew 24-25, so there’s no point in rehashing those here. My commentaries are available from the Radix Fidem library. Heiser lists the other passages that mention Jesus’ return. The main point is whether you collate and harmonize them or insist that they discuss two different events, a rapture and a return. It requires a nit-picking grammatical legalism to see two separate events, which is a standard feature of evangelical biblical exegesis in the first place.

Heiser also points out how Galatians 3 shoots a big hole in any doctrine that assumes Israel and the Church continue in parallel. That passage says outright that the New Covenant replaces the Old, that those who follow Christ are true heirs of the promises to Abraham. This is something we emphasize in our teaching. The national covenant died on the Cross.

Finally, the other major issue is whether you believe that Solomon’s domain (1 Kings 4:21-24) fulfilled the promise to Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 15:6-7), since both use the exact same landmarks. While we believe it no longer matters, just for the record, Solomon got all the land Abraham was promised. There is no unfinished business on that issue. God’s promise was fulfilled.

That’s enough eschatology. Jesus is coming back and we will all be surprised by some aspect of His return.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Eschatology: Daniel 9

I’m going to plunge right into the passage Heiser considers most difficult: Daniel 9:24-27. He doesn’t even mention the approach I used in my published commentary. You can look it up, but I didn’t try to nail down too many specifics for the simple reason that it would miss the point.

The context is Daniel praying about the end of the Exile. He knows that the 70 years Jeremiah prophesied is finished. He’s praying about a restoration of the city of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the Covenant. He’s already dealt with Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of the statue and the future empires, as well as his own vision of the four beasts representing the rulers over his own nation. Then he has a vision of the goat and ram. He’s already spoken with Gabriel before. Now he’s praying for his own nation.

His emphasis is on repentance. Keep in mind that Daniel knows the Covenant and is quite clear on the symbols of humble obedience to things that have been neglected. The whole point of this message here in chapter 9 is that the Lord will restore the remnant of the nation, but in the long run, it will not turn out as Daniel expects. The nation will never get back to the ancient glories. It will continue into apostasy until the city and temple are destroyed a final time. However, the returning remnant will get the symbols of righteousness right for a time, at least. The city and temple are coming back.

That much I wrote in my commentary. I’ve since done some research, and I want to call attention to this rather long study on identifying the key element of the “decree to rebuild” — it was 457 BC, not the more popular notion of 538 BC.

Let’s parse the passage at issue using the NET translation:

Seventy weeks have been determined
concerning your people and your holy city…

Gabriel begins by establishing a frame of reference. There is no specific Hebrew word for “week” so the actual term is simply “seven” and the thrust is not “weeks” but Sabbaths. This is a key warning in the Law and Prophets, a theme that keeps coming back. The nation was exiled so that the land could have its Sabbaths, Sabbaticals and Jubilees that had been missed for a very long time.

Further, notice the interplay of seventy years of exile versus seventy weeks of years (Sabbaticals). There are 7×70 years for what follows.

…to put an end to rebellion,
to bring sin to completion,
to atone for iniquity,
to bring in perpetual righteousness…

Daniel wants this more than anything. He is praying that his nation can return to the ancient glories, the good times when they were righteous. This is Hebrew hyperbole; don’t force legalism or an excessively literal reading of this language. Gabriel is pointing to the genuine humility of Daniel’s repentance on his nation’s behalf.

…to seal up the prophetic vision…

The Hebrew language here refers to authentication of the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Placing a seal on something means it’s the real deal.

…and to anoint the most holy place.

This is an obvious reference to rebuilding and restoring the Temple and ritual offerings, of having once again the Presence of God in His appointed place in the Promised Land.

So know and understand:
From the issuing of the command to restore and rebuild
Jerusalem…

This is the point of the linked long article above. The Decree of Cyrus mentions the temple, but does not include the city. It mattered in Medo-Persian imperial law; without mention of the city, only the temple was allowed on the site. It’s been the considered opinion of some scholars that Ezra received a commission for his second visit, and that we can deduce from his actions that the commission included rebuilding the city and renovating the temple, but not the walls. We can’t know the exact date of that commission, but we do know when Ezra went back to implement things.

Given the narrative in Ezra, we know that he struggled to reestablish the full ritual calendar regarding the Second Temple. On his second visit in 457 BC, he would have waited until the official beginning of the year on Tishri 1, 457 BC. The whole point of Gabriel’s choice of terminology points to this very thing — restoring the ritual calendar as a symbol of full restoration of the Covenant life.

…until and anointed one, a prince arrives…

Heiser notes the huge debate over whether this is Jesus or some other. I take the position that this refers to Jesus as the Messiah, though I acknowledge that the Hebrew term “messiah” is generic for “anointed one”, having been applied to other figures both Israeli and pagan (Cyrus is called a messiah in one place).

…there will be a period of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.

Heiser also notes that the Masoretic Text inserts a grammatical break between the seven weeks and the sixty-two, meaning that the interval between the decree to build the city and the arrival of the anointed prince is only seven weeks, and that the sixty-two then follows with the city continuously built up. I’m going to go with the majority view that this is not the correct reading. The city will be rebuilt; that’s one thing. The issue to commence building the city is the starting point, and the arrival of the Messiah is the completion of 7+62 weeks.

The point of mentioning the first seven weeks is all about that first Jubilee that Ezra’s reforms will see implemented as part of the full ritual calendar restoration. The full ritual calendar had not been observed properly for a long time before the Babylonian siege, nor during the Exile or the Return up to that time. Observing a proper Jubilee was like a test for removing the defilement of all those failed observances.

If we accept the concept of starting with Ezra’s commission to rebuild the city in 457 BC, that puts the end of the sixty-nine weeks (483 years) right about the time Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan. That’s close enough for Hebrew prophecy.

It will again be built, with the plaza and moat,
but in stressful times.

This affirms a portion of what Daniel had been praying for. The Second Temple will be built and eventually the city will have a nice plaza and wall and defensive trench. Side note: We deduce that someone during Ezra’s service in Jerusalem attempted to rebuild the city wall in Jerusalem and it was destroyed by Persian troops because it was not included in the commission Ezra had received. The wall was eventually permitted under Nehemiah in 444 BC.

Now after the sixty-two weeks,
an anointed one will be cut off and having nothing.

That is, sometime after the full sixty-nine weeks, in which at least one proper Jubilee will be observed, things will go downhill. The honest truth is the Hebrew for us is quite ambiguous regarding “an anointed one will be cut off”. The rest of the prophecy is murky on purpose, and modern folks read way too much into this.

What would it have meant for Daniel, given what he has already been shown in previous prophetic messages? What is Daniel expecting here? That’s the whole point of the passage, and any desperate search for specific clues that match later events would be missing that point altogether — the kingship will be vacated, implying that the nation will forever cease to exist independently.

The balance of this passage is all about how God acts out of sight from the political obsessions of humans, not so much about specific timing and events. What follows is detached from the seventy weeks of years.

As for the city and the sanctuary,
the people of the coming prince will destroy them.
But his end will come speedily like a flood.
Until the end of the war that has been decreed
there will be destruction.

Basic fact — some political power is coming that will destroy the Temple and City. Gabriel is telling him: Don’t get hung up on that, Daniel. We can read all kinds of future events into this through various levels of literalism and symbolism, but the whole point is that the Temple and City are not the big deal Daniel makes of it. It doesn’t matter who does what.

He will confirm a covenant with many for one week.
But in the middle of that week
he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt.
On the wing of abominations will come one who destroys,
until the decreed end is poured out on the one who destroys.

It’s funny how most scholars and theologians recognize that this final week is detached from the sixty-nine in terms of continuity, but then they won’t recognize the fluidity of the wording otherwise. The continuity is in the flow, not the calendar. Daniel would have understood that; seventy weeks were decreed, but not all in one lump.

The only point to mentioning a half-week is the symbol for tribulation = 3.5 years, 42 months, 1260 days. Daniel would have seen that immediately.

This is typology: Antiochus Epiphanes committed a desolation of abomination in the Temple in 167 BC, and his life ended shortly thereafter. Rome also committed an abomination of desolation on the Temple leading up to the revolt and siege in 70 AD. Both the Emperor Vespasian, and his son Titus who commanded the forces, died rather quickly from harsh ailments. The critical element (“abomination”) in those two events was the idolatry — defiling the Temple with pagan rituals. We can say the Israelis learned that anti-idolatry lesson from the Exile, but they substituted a subtle self-idolatry for the more obvious ritual idolatry.

Finally, Jesus is the counter-type of this image. He also brought an end to the ritual sacrifices in the Temple by offering Himself as the final Lamb of God. He then opened the Temple up to all nations, and turned His followers into living temples of the Holy Spirit. Instead of false images and false gods, we are meant to be the true image of the only God. This matters in understanding the gospel message of opening the Covenant to Gentiles.

The final words of the passage refer to Satan himself. It’s a summary of what this is all about. As long as there are humans doing human things, the Devil will raise up figures who destroy everything humans have built, good or bad. None of it matters. Eventually it will all be destroyed as will the destroyers.

Daniel is all about typology and numerology. It was inescapable in the Ancient Near East, in Daniel’s education in Babylon’s courts, and in Hebrew culture itself. It is the language of Heaven. Without that, you cannot hope to understand Daniel, nor the angels who communicated with him.

Posted in bible | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Eschatology Notes 03

One more item before we dive into the list of key passages for the study of eschatology: Hebrew cultural expressions.

For example, it’s an old established principle that Hebrew literature is all about the drama. They didn’t consider hyperbole as deceptive. Everyone in the audience recognized the hyperbole for what it was and no one was deceived. It’s just how they talked.

Thus, at times you’ll read statements about “all” in places where we would waffle saying “most”. Even in English, we might say “everyone knows” something, when it’s more precisely a simple matter of common knowledge. For us, the facts are the thing. For the Hebrews, it was a matter of the moral theme. Where are your commitments? Where does your faith reside?

A major element that completely befuddles most Americans is the frequent Hebrew casual neglect of chronological order. Proper formal Hebrew narrative is often quite nonconsecutive in relating events. The moral import is given far greater weight.

We know that Genesis 1 in is not in chronological order, but is in moral logical order. Notice that light comes before the luminaries that give light. It’s more important to establish the fundamental pattern of seven days than to give you a literal “First Week” in time and space. It’s about “light” as moral truth, the distinction between good and evil, not a materialistic question of source and product.

John’s Gospel is not in chronological order; some portions of Matthew isn’t either — to include Jesus’ message in chapters 24-25. The Book of Revelation is a pattern, not a chronology. We are pretty sure the Book of Judges is not in proper consecutive order, and it’s a whole lot easier to read Daniel 9 if you aren’t expecting it to be a consecutive sequence of events. Why do you suppose Mark makes it a point to state that this or that event follows another so his Roman readers can make sense of it? Romans had very low appreciation for Hebrew neglect of chronology.

Please note that this is particularly true of anything where God is speaking. There are times when He caters to a human sense of chronology and it shows. But most of the time, He’s demanding that we rise to a less childish level and grasp how He views things. It’s not that He has no sense of time and chronology, but it doesn’t affect Him. He intrudes into history wherever and whenever it suits Him; it’s all one thing to Him.

I’ve said this before: The Hebrew sense of time is more about fruit coming ripe than following a schedule. Their smallest increment of time was the hour, and it was quite often used in a non-literal sense in the first place. And the term “forty days (and nights)”? It was more often not literal than literal. It was meant to convey “a little over a month”. Numerical precision was seldom of any significance in a Hebrew mind.

While we cannot internalize an eternal perspective, we can grasp something of the nature of it. Our instinct for sequential chronology is going to blind us to what God says. Any word of prophecy is far more concerned with how you react than what you might know. The whole point is to move your soul to a better place where divine covering is stronger and your witness to divine justice is much more clear.

When you study eschatology, bring with you a understanding of the Hebrew lack of interest in factual precision, and far greater interest in moral precision.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Eschatology Notes 03

Eschatology Notes 02

Related to the concept that covenants can have invisible aspects is the whole concept of Two Realms. Heiser is obviously aware of this, having written Unseen Realm, and refers to it often enough, but he lacks the broad sweep of how the Spirit Realm does and does not relate to our Fallen Realm.

I’m not faulting him; it’s not his kind of subject. Rather, I’m noting that his discussion of eschatology lacks a few things that matter very much to us. This is why his characterization of Amillennialism doesn’t include our perspective.

He’s on the right track using the theological concept of “already-but-not-yet” — that a thing in the Bible is connected to both realms, and that something asserted true about our situation as believers can apply partially now and more completely in Eternity. This reflects the nature of divine revelation, often expecting us to grasp things on two levels at once. It’s just that Heiser doesn’t seem to apply it often enough.

One place where he seems to make an error is the nature of Divine Election. He’s dismissive of most mentions of it, because he assumes it is limited to just this realm. So far as I can tell from his teaching, he doesn’t see election as something that has somewhat different effects on both levels.

He knows that the word “angels” means different things in the OT versus the NT because of how the Hebrew language gets translated into Greek and English. But he doesn’t see how that applies to Election. The Chosen Nation (AKA “Elect Nation”) is one thing, as is the issue with Paul’s discussion of Jacob and Esau, or Pharaoh as “chosen”. But the Eternal Elect souls are another thing entirely.

This is why you need to pay attention to the applicable covenant for a proper context on the use of the terms “chosen” or “elect”. What can we know about the covenant purpose in the context under discussion? Jacob and Esau were under Abraham’s Covenant. Pharaoh ran up against the Covenant of Moses. What happens with election under the Covenant of Christ? The covenant’s purpose is the key to what we are to make of election.

Election is simply God’s prerogative applied to the context. We can predict some outcomes simply from knowing which covenant is in force. He always acts with a purpose, and it was Heiser who revealed the business of God having a dispute with the Devil and some members of the Divine Council, and that the whole purpose of God in creating humans rests partly on our ability to side with God against His troublemakers.

While we are limited in grasping all the implications of that image, it explains why election under Christ means “going to Heaven” unconditionally, or at least as far as we are permitted to see. The conditionality element shows up in our lives here; it’s the Covenant of Christ. It was Heiser who noted that this was a secret kept from the Divine Council and Satan, that God would elect souls from every nation to His eternal kingdom in Christ, and ignore the national boundaries.

You should bring these assumptions with you when examining the passages that seem to address the Second Coming and the End of Time.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Eschatology Notes 02

Eschatology Notes 01

I was watching the Heiser videos a second time, taking notes. He said something about a document on his website so I went searching for it. Turns out he had a set of questions he had proposed way back in 2008 for people to review in thinking about their view of eschatology.

Later, Heiser expanded on those questions in a series of posts that were appeared in 2010. This series turns out to be much better organized and in-depth than the videos. I’m not going to reproduce any part of his extended notes on eschatology, but I will be referring to that series of posts in my series.

I will admit that I am making my own plain-text copy of his blog pages for later reference. I assume his blog has been through a software upgrade at least once, because these older pages do not display properly. Then again, Heiser is notorious for doing a lot of cut-n-paste without even a cursory review of what the results look like. Lots of characters don’t transfer properly, even when it’s all English language. Thus, I’m having to edit the spelling and typography of his material to make them more consistent with standard practices.

Yes, I’ll make copies available when I’m finished, but I won’t post them directly to the Net anywhere. I’ll share them privately.

If you take the time to wade through this series, you’ll notice he is preoccupied with Dispensational Theology. He mentions the Left Behind series and some rather famous Dispie authors, but I suppose Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth is just too pedestrian for his tastes, as is Jack T. Chick and his tracts. Yet, they are major influences on the debate.

At any rate, he invests a lot time dealing with Premillennial Pre-tribulation theology, and doesn’t mention anything from the Christian Mysticism (CM) side of things. When CM people have an eschatological stance, like ours it is somewhat Amillennial in the main, but not in all the details he mentions.

A major difference is how we view the covenants of the Bible. For us, the covenants must be treated as living entities. They are an aspect of the Word of God; they never fail in themselves. Heiser’s comments about conditionality versus unconditionality I think misses the point. The covenants are like divine entities that have their own existence independent of any humans adhering to them.

Thus, God’s covenant with Israel (AKA, the Law of Moses) did not depend on the nation. It always accomplished God’s purpose, one way or another. When the people failed the conditions of the Covenant, they lost out on the blessings, but were still forced to fulfill the purpose. Here’s the thing: We don’t always know the purpose. The purpose of each covenant is indicated to some degree, but there remains for them an aspect that is visible only from the divine perspective. Thus, at no time could any mere humans truly understand the whole of the covenant, only their obligations.

There have always been elements of every covenant that were out of human view. This is why there are times when God seems very tolerant and fulfills some element of His promises for His own sake, and other times and places where He lets it drop when the people refuse to obey. We are not capable of understanding where He drew the lines because we could never see the whole picture.

While I don’t have footnotes, I’m not the first person to suggest this viewpoint. Somewhere in his studies, Heiser must of have missed this, because he tends to use the language of law and mechanics regarding the covenants of Abraham, Moses, David, etc. There’s a lot of critical questions he misses because of this, and he assumes strictures apply to the questions that I say aren’t there. His logical framework is missing something.

Furthermore, this hidden aspect of the covenants is the glue that holds them together. This is why the Old and New Covenants have continuity. We can see the traces of continuity when Paul enforces Old Testament law on a church, but the moral fabric behind that particular issue is not visible to the fleshly nature. It defies human reason, but it shines brightly in our hearts. Paul was used to operating that way, so he knew instinctively, as it were, which items belonged in both, even when it’s not obvious to scholarship.

Our covenant relationship with Christ implies a legal status, if you will, but it’s inherently personal and is linked to divine implications that our intellect cannot grasp.

Posted in teaching | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Eschatology Notes 01