The Early Church’s Testimony on the Doctrine of Creation

Introduction
Recently in the long span of church history, the traditional view of the Creation, as recorded in Genesis 1, has come into question. Starting the in the nineteenth century, science became more and more secular. This secularization peaked in the middle of century, when Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in his book The Origin of the Species. At the time, the divide between Creation and evolution was simply a divide between Christians and non-Christians. The divide continued that way until the early twentieth century. The famous Monkey Scopes trial made Christians look foolish for believing in Creation. Now some Christians, fearing looking foolish and ignorant to science, sought to make their faith compatible with evolution, producing groups like theistic evolutionists. Now Creation Christians not only had to combat atheist evolutionists, but also theistic evolutionists.

A growing debate between Creation theists and evolution theist is their origin. Both sides appeal to early church history. The Creation Christians will claim the church always believed in the Creation story as Genesis 1 records it. They claim that believing anything different will be acting against the orthodox doctrine the church has supported all of its history. The theistic evolutionists claim that the early church never read Genesis 1 literally, which opens the door for science, not the Bible, to explain how the universe came into existence. This paper will look at ten of the early church fathers and how they interpreted the first chapter of Genesis.

The Opposition

Before looking at the early church fathers, the opposition to the early church fathers must first be observed. Most of the early church fathers’ writings came in response to popular false teachings that began to penetrate the church. While the early church fathers did not have evolutionists pushing evolution upon the church, they did have philosophers whose philosophies entertained the minds of Christians. Some of these philosophies do even sound like evolution. The philosopher Epicurus taught the universe began when small particles began banging together in empty space. Hippolytus expanded on Epicurus’s idea, even teaching that God Himself came about from these particle colliding. The particles of matter did not have an origin. They simply existed for all eternity, past, present and future. Other philosophers taught about a demiurge. Platonic philosophers, like Plotinus, believed that the spirit was good and that matter was evil. Therefore, the Supreme God, a spirit, could not make anything out of matter, for he would be evil. So these philosophers created a demiurge, a creator god, who was evil because he worked with matter.  While some Christians naturally knew these philosophies did not work with orthodox Christianity, many Christians did try to make their religion and these philosophies compatible. Because of these Christian compromising their faith, the early church fathers knew they needed to speak out against these false philosophies.

Justin Martyr

 

Justin Martyr referenced the creation story in many of his writings. Like many of his day, Justin Martyr recognized the origin of life and the earth to come from the divine God. In his Second Apology, Justin states that the reason Christians call God the Creator derives from the fact that God “created and arranged all things.” Justin takes the belief a step further and recognizes God the Son, Jesus, as the Creator. In another writing, Justin takes the belief another step further and specific recognizes God as the creator of human life. In one of his writings, Justin defends the doctrine of the resurrection. Justin believes that God has the power to give life to any human again because God gave life to humans in the first place, which, to Justin, demonstrates his omniscience. Furthermore, in the same sentence, Justin goes on to say that this first instance of human life came about when God inserted his power into the earth to make the man. This quote demonstrates Justin believed the life of man came about as Genesis 1 recorded.  Same lies true for Justin when it comes to Eve. Eve, coming from Adam’s rib, proved to Justin God’s role as the Almighty Maker of everything he saw. Once again, Justin’s quote verifies that Justin saw Eve as real. To him, Eve was as real as Elizabeth or John the Baptist who only lived a century earlier than he did.  Without a doubt, Justin Martyr believed in the creation story literally, especially when it came to believing in a literal Adam and Eve.

Irenaeus of Lyons

 

Just like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus felt the need to defend God as the Creator of all things. Irenaeus explains that God formed the heaven, earth and seas, as well as all their contents, with his Wisdom and his Word. Like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus takes the doctrine a step further. Unlike Justin Martyr, who focuses on the Son as Creator, Irenaeus specifies the Holy Spirit as active with the Father and the Son at the Creation. The language Irenaeus uses in his defense, such as “formed man” and “planted paradise” proves that Irenaeus believed in a divine God that created the world, as described in Genesis 1. Irenaeus also went further by defending the creation as ex nihilo, or out of nothing. Appealing to Luke 18:27, which says that everything is possible with God, Irenaeus boldly declared God as the first substance, thus requiring all other substances to flow from him. When God created the world, he created the first elements for the first time. Irenaeus also defending creation having over six days of twenty-four hours. Although Irenaeus uses it to erroneously predict the end of the world, it shows Irenaeus took the days literally.

Clement of Alexandria

 

Young earth creationists or any Christian who interprets Genesis 1 literally would not want to quote Clement of Alexandria. Clement interpreted Genesis 1 allegorically, similar to how the Gnostics would have interpreted Scripture. For Clement, Genesis 1:1-5 describes the creation of a spiritual world, not the planet earth. The numbers for the days in Genesis 1 do not serve as ordinal numbers, according to Clement, but rather the value of their importance.  While this interpretation might seem unorthodox, or even heretical, to the literalist, Clement of Alexandria did contribute the orthodox doctrine of ex nihilo. As a matter of fact, Clement of Alexandria clearly states on three different occasions that God created the world out of nothing. On one of those instances, Clement credits the utter use of God’s will as the sole source of everything’s existence. In another instance, Clement explains that everything must come from out of nothing except God’s will alone. If humans came from a previously existing matter, then then humans might worship that matter, but if humans came from God’s will alone, then they must worship God alone.  While literalist Christians might want to shun Clement of Alexandria for his Gnostic-like interpretation of Genesis 1, they can learn from him and appreciate his practical reasoning on the importance of the ex nihilo doctrine.

Hermas

 

Hermas would have Irenaeus and Clement on the importance of the doctrine of ex nihilo. Hermas is most famous for his book The Shepherd of Hermas. His book begins with five vision. During the first vision, Hermas depicts God creating the world with his wisdom and by his strong, imperceptible power. After receiving five visions from the Good Shepherd in his book The Shepherds of Hermas, first mandates his readers to worship God as the creator who gives existence to everything non-existent and set them in motion. Not only does Hermas affirm God as the divine Creator, but he also affirms that the divine Creation formed the earth and everything in it out of nothing.

Tatian

 

Tatian might not seem like a candidate with whom young earth creationists or Christian literalists would want to side. Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Irenaeus and Origen all deemed Tatian a heretic. Looking back at this point of history, historians believe some of the Early Church Fathers gave Tatian the title heretic because of his willingness to use Gnostic language in his writings. Looking at the remains of his writings, while using Gnostic language at some parts, Tatian holds to an orthodox belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Christians today can learn from Tatian, especially concerning the creation of the world. For Tatian, the creation begins with the eternal God. Nothing existed before, not even reason, even reason God had to begat. From God comes everything, from reason to matter. Tatian’s proves that not only did the early Christians support ex nihilo, but they strongly opposed Greek philosophers like Plato who declared matter to be eternal. To the early Christians, only God alone is eternal.

Theophilus of Antioch

 

Theophilus of Antioch knew what the Greek philosophers believed, and he did not fear challenging those beliefs. Theophilus knew that the Greek philosophers believed matter and nature existed eternally, just like God did. Using logic and reason alone, Theophilus refuted them all. If matter and nature exists eternally like God, Theophilus, then God cannot be the creator of all things. Furthermore, Theophilus states, if matter and nature exists eternally alongside God, then matter and nature stand equal to God. If the first two statements stand, God’s role as creator is limited, for just like man, he can only create with the resources he has. On the contrary, if God is the source of all things, then he cannot be limited. The logic and reasoning of Theophilus demonstrates the early church concerned itself the importance of believing in creation ex nihilo. Christians today should also display that same concern Theophilus had.

Tertullian

 

Tertullian constructs most of his doctrine on the creation in Against Hermogenes. Hermogenes, a Platonic philosopher, believed that matter existed eternally, that everything in existence came from that eternal matter, and that all things made of matter are evil because matter itself is evil. At first, Tertullian has to confess that Scriptures never explicitly say creation came out of nothing. He confesses that Christians believe in creation out of nothing as a presupposition. Yet Tertullian also tells Hermogenes that creation out of nothing only makes logical sense. First, if matter existed eternally, like God exists eternally, then matter is equal to God. Second, if matter is co-eternal with God and equal to God, then God is not omnipotent. Third, God also would not be omnipotent because part of God’s power is that he can create something out of nothing. If God needs matter to create, he ceases to be omnipotent. Fourth, when God does make something from something else, the Scriptures always mention it. For example, Genesis 1 explicitly mentions the sky produced birds and fish springing forth from the season. Therefore, one can conclude that when the Bible does not mention God making something from another thing, it must come from out of nothing. All in all, Tertullian could logically conclude that God made created the world out of nothing, making God the source of everything. Furthermore, Tertullian’s reasoning came from reading and understanding Genesis 1 literally. While Tertullian understood Genesis to be an incomplete account, he still believed it was a trustworthy account.

Basil the Great

 

Basil the Great wrote a sermon series on the opening chapter of Genesis, called The Hexaemeron. From reading these six sermons, the reader can tell Basil the Great took Genesis 1 very literally, as literally as possible. From his sermons, the reader can tell Basil wrote his own theology of the creation. He believed the source of the creation lies within the divine God. He believed the days in Genesis 1 as six periods of time twenty-four hours long, refuting anyone who disagreed, even Augustine! He also refuted Augustine on his allegorical approach to the Scriptures. In his Hexaemeron, he does not only refute Augustine, but also the Platonic philosophers. He disagrees with the philosophers who claim that matter is evil by pointing out how God made everything good. He even calls out the philosophers who claim their ancestors were animals, possibly the first building blocks of evolution. Basil the Great holds to an orthodox view of the creation because he reads and interprets Genesis 1 literally.

Origen

 

Unlike the early church fathers discussed so far, Origen refused to read the first chapter of Genesis literally. For him, believing in a literal reading of Genesis 1 meant thinking contrary to logic, reasoning and history. For example, he could not comprehend how the first three days had a morning and an evening when God had not yet created neither the sun nor the moon. Origen traded in a literal translation of Genesis for a spiritual interpretation. Origen believed for God to be truly omnipotent, a creation always had to exist to demonstrate his omnipotence. Using that logic, Origen concluded that God had already created a spiritual world prior to the events in Genesis 1. This spiritual world contained rational creatures that God could demonstrate his omnipotence to. According to Origen, Moses records this world’s creation in Genesis 1, not the planet Earth. God created the planet earth when a Fall happened in the spiritual world.

While theistic evolutionists might want to rejoice at a church father that did not believe in a literal interpretation, they might want to hold back on using him as an example. Origen applied his spiritual hermeneutic all over the Bible, causing him to doubt many historical events. For example, Origen did not believe that the Devil came and tempted Jesus.  Also, Origen stood alone in his hermeneutic and exegesis of Genesis 1. No bishop, pastor or church leader ever supported his stance.  Therefore, anyone could easily say Origen’s view on the creation was unorthodox.

Augustine of Hippo

 

Like Origen, Augustine did not interpret Genesis 1 literally, but unlike Origen, he took a different route. Whereas Origen read Genesis with a spiritual hermeneutic, Augustine read Genesis with an allegorical hermeneutic. According to Augustine, the “lights” created on the first day were the angels. Instead of the six days meaning six time periods twenty-four hours long, the six days represented six stages of increasing knowledge and wisdom of the earth. For example, on the second day, the angels had knowledge of the sky, and on the third day, the angels gained knowledge of solid land and its vegetation. The Bible has creation happening over six days in order that a day seven, which is the number for completion, could happen. That “seventh day” represents completion of knowledge and rest. Despite his allegorical hermeneutics leading to unorthodox exegesis, Augustine did side with many orthodox doctrines. He defended the earth’s origins coming from the divine God. He sided with his counterparts on the importance of believing the creation came out of nothing. Surprisingly, Augustine also strongly believed in a youth, so much so that he would attack anyone who proposed an old earth. While a theistic evolutionist might appreciate Augustine for not reading Genesis 1 literally, they might want to hesitate siding with him, for Augustine still sided with an orthodox understanding of the creation, especially when it came to a young earth

Conclusion

This article has looked at the preaching and the writings of ten early church fathers. From looking at the consistency of the writings, an orthodox doctrine of the creation comes out of it. The early church believed that all things, living and non-living, come from God. The church firmly held to the creation coming out of nothing, opposing all who thought matter existed eternally, like God did. Most of them held to a literal six-day creation. Those who didn’t, like Origen and Augustine, read the Bible in an extreme spiritual or allegorical way, so extreme, it would make any orthodox Christian uncomfortable. For a theistic evolutionist to pull out Origen or Augustine to claim the early church did not take Genesis 1 literally would be misrepresenting the early church. Still, even these men held to a divine God, creating a young earth, out of nothing. The early church fathers created this orthodox doctrine to defend against non-Christians who questioned and attacked their faith. Christians today can use these defenses of the early church fathers in order to also defend their orthodox, traditional faith.

 

1 John: A Three Ring Circus

Have you ever been to a circus? I haven’t been to a circus since I was a little kid, and I barely remember those. In the past, back in the day (and maybe even today, too), circus tents were circular in shape, and within the circular circus tent was three rings. In these rings, the circus acts were performed, all at the same time. With all the crazy circus events happening at the same time, it’s turned the term “three ring circus” to mean “a situation characterized by confusing, engrossing or amusing activity.” I wouldn’t describe the Bible as the latter definition, or the informal definition. But 1 John does have something similar to the former definition. In 1 John, John seems to running three shows at the same time, yet they are all in the same Biblical “tent” and they all agree with the rest of the Bible, with no contradictions. And as of a matter of fact, there are three in 1 John. But these three are not 3 rings, but 3 theologies.

Before we look at the 3 theologies, let’s once again remind every of the introductory information that we started out with. It might just help us understand the theology John is throwing at us.

THE AUTHOR (WHO): John

THE AUDIENCE (WHOM): Christians in Ephesus(and possibly all Asia Minor)
THE LOCATION (WHERE): Ephesus(and possibly all Asia Minor)
THE DATE (WHEN): 90-91 AD
THE HISTORICAL OCCASION (WHAT): False teachers teaching false theology, such as rejecting Jesus as God/man/Christ, as well as de-valuing the Law and fellowship
THE PURPOSE (WHY): John wrote the book of 1 John to persuade Christians in Ephesus to continue believing that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, and to love God and other people by not sinning against them.
THE STRUCTURE (HOW): A three-theology epistle

As I have mentioned before, a lot of times the structure of the Bible book could be displayed in an outline. But as I have also mentioned, 1 John is notorious for being difficult to outline. It would seem that John is all over the place. But he’s not. Instead, John mentions all 3 theologies in each chapter to display how all these theologies are interwoven and how they all display the character of God. So instead of attempting to outline the epistle, let’s look at the 3 theologies John spends most of his time focusing on, and then see if we can draw any conclusions out of it. The 3 theologies can be titled and categorized as following: doctrinal theology, moral theology, and social theology.

Doctrinal Theology.In Ephesusduring the 1^st century, mainly two different types of false teachers arrived. The one was an early form of Gnosticism, and the other was an early form of Docetism. The early form of Gnosticism preached that Jesus was only human and never God. Docetism preached that Jesus was only God and never human. Either way, John points out that both theologies deny that Jesus is the Christ, whether they do so intentionally or not. In 1 John 2:18-28, John uses the term “Father” and “Son” showing that Jesus has the same deity as Yahweh. In 1 John 4:1-6, John declares that Jesus came from God in the flesh. He also declares this an essential, orthodox belief in Christianity. Later on 1 John 4:14-16, John continues to say that it’s the deity of Jesus that makes him the Messiah and the Savior of the world. John concludes the doctrinal theology in 1 John 5:5-12 by stating that eternal life can only be obtained if Jesus is the Son of God. By clearly stating the facts that Jesus is God, human and the Christ, John also swiftly rejects anyone who preaches differently. Those who preach differently are liars (2:21), antichrists (2:22), of the world (4:5), and not of God (4:6). John declares these people not Christian, so true Christians should even listen to them. That is how important the deity and humanity of Christ is to Christianity. Without it, Jesus can’t be the Christ and can’t be the Savior of the world, which would leave humanity doomed.

Moral Theology.False teachers were also coming in proclaiming that since Jesus died on the cross, God no longer cared about sin. So a person could sin as much as they want, and God wouldn’t care. John devotes all of chapter 1 alone to get rid of this theology. In 1 John 1, John calls people who continue to sin liars who don’t know God or the truth. This applies to both the false teachers and all who follow the false teachers. In 1 John 2:12-17, John urges Christians to continue to overcome sin and not return to their old sinful lives. In 1 John 3:1-10, John urges Christians to purify themselves from sin. Those who do continue to sin are lawless (3:4), does not see or know God (3:6), is of the Devil (3:8) and is not born of God (3:10). Once again, this applies both to the false teachers and those who follow the false teachers. John concludes the moral theology of sinlessness in 1 John 5:2-4. In these verses John says the only way to love God is to obey His commandments and not sin. A true believer loves God, so if that believer loves God, he or she will avoid and overcome sin, and not fall into it. God does care about sin because He cares about the well-being of His people.

Social Theology. Somewhere between the false doctrines, a false social theology had slipped in. False teachers were also preaching that Christians only needed God, so they didn’t need to love other Christians or fellowship with other Christians. John simply states the facts. In 1 John 2:3-11, John says that a Christian cannot love God if a Christian cannot love his or her fellow Christian. In 1 John 3:11-24, John tells his Christian readers that they must follow the good example of love that Jesus provided, and they must not follow the bad example of love, as found in the story of Cain. In 1 John 4:7-13, John states that Christians must love other Christians because it is the sign they are Christian, for God is love. John even ends 1 John 4 by commanding Christians to love another, for anyone who doesn’t is a liar.

So what does this tell us about God? Well, a lot. The doctrinal theology tells us that God is concerned with truth. It also tells us that Jesus, God the Son, is just as much as God as the Father is. The moral theology reminds that God is holy and righteous, and He will not tolerate sin. The social theology teaches us that God is love, and so God expects His people to love one another just as God loves them.

So what does that mean for modern-day Christians in the 21^stcentury? Well, lucky for us, epistles are as straight-forward as application can get. John wants all Christians to follow all 3 theologies he presented in 1 John. Although it’s not threatened like it was in the earlier centuries, today’s Christian need to believe that Jesus is both God and man. It should be in every church’s faith statement and it should be discussed when evangelizing. Today’s Christians must also not take a liberal view of sin. If God does not tolerate sin, then neither should Christians. Yet at the same time, Christians today should not take a legalistic view of sin, for it does not accurate represent the compassion, mercy and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Even though going to church does not save a person, no one should separate themselves from church. Christians must keep coming together in Christian fellowship and in Christian love. If we do, it can be a powerful testimony to the world around us.

Christians under friendly fire

This entry is for both my forum post for Redemptive Cinema class and my blog. I’ve always wanted to write on one my favorite movies, Saved!, and now with needing to do one for Redemptive Cinema class, I have the time to. I could say so much about this movie, almost to the point I could write a book about it. But for now, I’m going to do a small bit. But first, I need you to check out this clip…

The Gospel is not a weapon

or read the transcript of it below

Pastor Skip: [to the Christian Jewels] Listen, I’m concerned about Mary. Something’s going on.
Hilary Faye: Yeah, me too.
Pastor Skip: Well, she’s part of your posse, and I think that you could help her. I’m gonna need you to be a warrior out there on the front lines for Jesus.
Tia: You mean like shoot her.
Pastor Skip: No, I was thinking of something a little less gangsta.I need someone who’s spiritually armed to help guide her back to her faith,to love and care that only Jesus can supply. You down with that?
Hilary Faye:Yeah, I’m down with that.
Pastor Skip:She’s pretty vulnerable right now,so I’m gonna need you to be extra gentle.
[cuts to Mary walking, reading a book. Hilary Faye’s van swings around]
– Hurry! Hurry! Come on!
– I’m going! I’m going!
– Get her!
– Come on, Tia!
-Stuff her in here!
-Hurry up! Hurry Up!
Hilary Faye:In the name of Jesus Christ, I command you,leave the body of this servant of God.
Mary:You’re performing an exorcism on me?! Get off me!
Hilary Faye: We’ve gotta get rid of the evil in you.
Tia [holding up a picture of Jesus to Mary’s face]: It’s God’s will!
Mary: God’s will?
Tia: Christ died for your sins!
Hilary Faye: Ok, wait a second. [to Mary] Are you not going to accept our intervention?
Mary: You mean kidnapping? No!
Hilary Faye: You are backsliding into the flames of hell.
Veronica:You’ve become a magnet for sin.We’ve all witnessed it.
Mary: Sure.Veronica acting all pure. What about last spring break at the Promise Maker’s rally?
Hilary Faye:You are making accusations as we’re trying to save your soul? Mary, turn away from Satan. Jesus, he loves you.
Mary: You don’t know the first thing about love.
Hilary Faye: [throws a Bible at Mary] I am FILLED with Christ’s love! You are just jealous of my success in the Lord.
Mary: [Mary holds up the Bible] This is not a weapon! You idiot.

So what’s your response to the last quote, said by Mary? If you’re somewhat knowledgeable in the Bible, I bet you might have though of Hebrews 4:12, “ For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” or maybe Ephesians 6:17b, “… the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Both verses compare the Bible to a sword, the most lethal weapon at the time. When I think of it that way, I wonder if the Bible was written today, would the Word of God be described as a machine gun, shotgun, bazooka or atomic bomb? Actually, I kind of think that atomic bomb might work. An atomic bomb immediately consumes those in close proximity to where it fell, and those off a distance still feel side effects in the present and future from the radiation. In the same way, those in direct contact with the Word of God will be consumed by it, while those who get bits and pieces of it indirectly will still have those bits and pieces weighing down on their heart, in the present and future. But back onto subject, the Lord says His Words are like a lethal weapon, but the movie seems to say “no” to this, and makes anyone who believes this look like a fool. So what do we say? Do we blindly just say, “God is always true, God says it is a weapon, thus it is truly a weapon, no question, end of discussion” or do we have a logical response for the fallen non-Christian who won’t accept that as answer? I know when I first saw this movie, I started out saying, “But Mary, you’re wrong! It is a weapon. The Bible says so!” But then I started saying it’s a metaphorical weapon, or “not that type” of weapon, and it would lead to some pretty messed up theology. And I couldn’t help but think that Mary might have had a point. What do you with it?

I came across this clip because I was naturally searching for YouTube clips of one of my favorite movies. This one showed up. Interested on why the person put it up, I clicked on his YouTube profile, which gave a link for his blog, on which he used the clip for a point he was making, called “The Gospel is not a weapon.” Below I have provided the links if you want to read them…

The Gospel is Not a Gun- Part 1
The Gospel is Not a Gun- Part 2

If you were too lazy to look at those blogs, I’ll quickly summarize what he said. The pastor admitted that in his early years he was treating the gospel like a gun. He would “load his gun” by learning as much Bible and theology as he could. Those on his side with guns were traditional theologians like Calvin, Spurgeon, Piper, Keller, and Edwards. The enemy on the opposite side of the gun were guys like McLaren and Osteen. And he would open fire on them his theology. And he was convicted of this. He felt like he was misusing the gospel.

Are you familiar with the term “friendly fire”? It is when the troops are under fire, not from the enemy, but rather their own side. It may have not been intended for guns to be fired against their on side, but for whatever reason (possibly just bad directions/orders), mistakes are made and friendly fire occurs. The most recent popular story of friendly fire is the story of Pat Tillman, a football player with a big contract from the Arizona Cardinals. He gave up that big contract to go serve his country. He died in Afghanistan, and was made a hero because he gave up both his career and life. When an investigation went on, it discovered he died in friendly. I believe that what’s made his story so tragic. Not that he lost his big football career because he died in a war, but rather that he died in a war from his own side not the enemy. Of all the ways to die in gunfire, I feel friendly fire is the most tragic.

And I think the biggest tragedy in Christianity is that Christians are under friendly fire from themselves. We load up our guns with the doctrine from our perferred denomination or faith statement, then we go open fire on those from different denominations, telling them they’re wrong. And it kills the relationship between brothers and sisters in Christ; it kills the unity of the Body of Christ. Sometimes it’s so bad the attacking Christian will even tell his target that he’s not really a Christian if he/she doesn’t exactly agree with the attacker’s faith statement. Even worse this ends up polluting our evangelism. I believe Christians are to evangelize to save souls from hell and separation from God and bring them into heavenly unity with the Lord. Instead, sometimes it seems like Christians go out and evangelize to prove themselves right and the lost wrong. Heck, I heard someone in my college went out to evangelize to a Jew, and his opening line to him was, “How does it feel to be wrong?” Yes, I believe that Jesus is the Truth, and God’s Word is Truth, but are we really aiming to save people from being wrong?

It’s sad to say I sometimes see this at my college. People will go on and on, arguing and arguing, about who has got the right answer to this doctrine. And in the end, people just end up mad at each other, not talking to each for a while. The relationship is ruined. And let me tell you, I’ve been under this friendly fire. I’ve heard everything from “I would highly doubt you’re a Christian if you call yourself a Democrat” to “If a whole nationwide conference of several churches has one or two churchs that are ok with homosexuality, then they support homosexuality, and have no part with the greater church” at my college, and let me tell you, it’s made it harder and harder to attend here. I feel like I don’t fit in and have no support. Even the few Mennonite “brothers” I have at this school have put my under this same friendly fire, and even my roommate. Is there anywhere safe I can go?

This is what I see in the Saved! clip. I don’t believe Mary has fallen away from God, because in the end she admits she messed up. I would also like to (arguably) say many are turning to God. What’s happening is Mary is entering this period of questioning and doubting. Even when she seems to be rejecting God, she is still seeking (even though it’s other religions) because she believes it can’t be all wrong, there has to be a right. Arguably, I like to say what caused Mary to doubt was that she was put under friendly fire. Hilary Faye took her loaded gun of evangelical Christianity, and shot it at Mary, at Dean, and every one who was struggling with sin. And sometimes, I think we’re misusing the weapon we’re given, to end up killing the soul. Just like the pastor from the blogs I gave you, I sometimes want to cry out to God, “Lord, please take Your Word away from us! We don’t know how to use it properly!”

So in the end, I have to conclude by saying, “Yes, the Bible is weapon, but who is our target?” Lucky for us, God provides that answer. Remember Ephesians 6:17b? Look on top of that paragraph at Ephesians 6:12. It says, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” The target is not the flesh and blood human being, but the dark powers behind the sin the human is struggling with. To borrow from the old adage, the target is not the sinner, but the sin. It’s time we stop firing at people, especially Christians, and time to start firing on Satan and his demons.

Covenants (Part 1): I am a progressive dispensational premillennialist

This blog and the next (and possibly one more after that) is about the covenants. The origin of the blog on the subject starting all my theology classes at LBC, especially Church and the Future class. Even the subject came across in Early Church class because the whole Jews and Gentiles issue. A lot of ideas and theories were presented to me. I’ve realized a lot of it has to deal with God’s movement through history. So I decided to sort through them on my own and see what I think. So I journaled on it, and made conclusions. When I came home for the summer, and heard my pastor was preaching a series called, “The New Covenant is Better” I took the time to listen and get ideas for further edits and revisions. So now I believe I am ready to give a full out study to reveal what I believe. And I’ve found out I’m a progressive dispensational premillennialist. Follow along as I explain my views of the covenants.

Before I get into any covenants, let’s talk about covenants in general. We don’t talk about covenants often today; the closest we got to covenants are contracts. But covenants are constantly made in Bible times. They were made between two or more kings/cities, as treaties for after war, but also during peace times. Archaeologists doing excavations on Hittite cities have found these ancient covenants and have provided an understanding for how covenants worked. First, covenants named the parties involved. Secondly stated in a covenant is the reason for the covenant, which could state the winners and losers of a war, or be the result of a business proposal. Third, each party would state his responsibilities. Fourth would say what each party gets in return. Next, blessings and curses are written down. Blessings for whoever follows it, and curses for the one who doesn’t follow up his end of the bargain. And just as we have a third party signature on contracts, the end of their covenants would have witnesses, usually their gods. This has really help scholars expand their understanding when it comes to the covenants in the Bible between God and His people. We’re not going to go into too much depth with it, but skim the surface.

The first covenant in the Bible is the EDENIC/ADAMIC COVENANT (Genesis 1:26-30, 2:15-17, 3:15-17). Now there is disagreement on this. Some say the Edenic and Adamic Covenant are two separate covenants, other say the Edenic and Adamic Covenant are one and the same, and yet others say that it is one covenant in two parts. I believe the third option: this is the same covenant, just in different parts. If this is already confusing, I am also going to say that this covenant is both conditional and unconditional. Before you accuse me of being postmodern, let me explain myself. Both sides of the covenant are God to Adam, but really it’s not just Adam, but mankind in general. Remember, “adam” is simply the Hebrew word for “man.” God is making a covenant with man here. Why is God making this covenant? God just has just finished making man in His own image. Seeing that man is good, he establishes a covenant with him. On God’s side, God gives man seed, land, and blessing. God makes man in His image (1:26,27). On God’s side, God makes man ruler over the earth. He is to spread over it by multiplying and also subduing it. Also, God provides food for man by giving him every green plant as food (1:29,30). Man has his responsibilities, too. On his side, man is to work and take care of the garden (2:15). He must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (2:17). The first one man will easily obey because he is innocent, and without the sinful nature, is fully obedient to God. So the only condition in this covenant is “you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (2:17a). The curse is clearly stated, “for when you eat of it, you will surely die” (2:17b). But as we know from the narrative, they couldn’t even do that. They fell short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23). Genesis 3:1-12 tells the story of how man fell. The Fall is the distinctive point where the covenant changes, from Edenic to Adamic, as some might say. The one condition of the covenant is broken. Now instead of blessings, there are curses. Man’s work now becomes labor. Woman’s childbearing is painful. Also, woman must submit to man, setting up a patriarchal world. So why do I say this covenant as a whole is both unconditional and conditional? Go back to the original blessings. Does man rule over the earth? I say yes. While some might say now Satan or sin is charge of the world, I see man being dominant over the animals. Does man still subdue the earth? While the ground produces thorns and thistles, man can ultimately make it produce fruits, vegetables and grains. So yes. Is man is going to multiply and reproduce? While the female has to undergo childbearing pains, yes, she will still reproduce. Does man still have God’s image? While it is broken and blemished, yes, the New Testament recognizes man still carrying God’s image, even up to that time (1 Cor. 11:7, Eph. 2:4, Col. 3:10, James 3:9). My point is that all the blessings God gives man at his creation are still in effect. So we see it’s unconditional. So where’s the conditional part? Count how many times I said “while” in this paragraph. I did state that all blessings on God’s part are still there, but I also noted that things were now different. No longer was it the easy road. Things weren’t simply provided. Man had to work for it. This is why the post-fall covenants are called “Covenant of works.” Man has to work. Man’s responsibilities become greater. Not only does he have to work, but sacrifices are needed, as one can see in Genesis 4. But more importantly, is the curse God states with breaking the condition: “you will surely die.” I read somewhere the original Hebrew phrase uses a double death, and that’s exactly what Adam and Eve experienced. Not only were they no longer immortal but physically going to die one day, they now were going to experience a spiritual death, which is separation from God. But most importantly, even more importantly than the curse from the fall, is the Proto-Gospel in Genesis 3:15. By eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they chose to leave God’s covenant with hthem, but God still promised a way back in. Even with the Edenic/Adamic Covenant “rewritten,” God still gives promises, a promise of a way back in. This is unconditional.

The NOAHIC COVENANT (Genesis 8:21-9:17) renewed the Edenic/Adamic under Noah, since God had destroyed the rest of humankind with the flood. The covenant is between God and Noah, but just like before, Noah is representing mankind as a whole. The covenant also extends to animals (9:9,12,15) Why does God establish this covenant? When Noah comes out of the ark, he makes a sacrifice to the Lord. The Lord smells the pleasing aroma of the burnt offerings. The offerings serve as a “reminder” (like God forgets) that his covenant with Adam and manking is unconditional, no matter how bad man’s sin would get. It was crucial for God to provide salvation for Noah, or else the Lord would be breaking His covenant to Adam/mankind by not sending a Savior before being destruction to the world. So since God brought Noah out of the destruction of the flood and into the ark for salvation from the floodwaters, God starts new with Noah and his family, and start a covenant. The promises to Noah are the same to Adam. Noah will be numerous descandants (seed), will fill the earth (land), and be fruitful (blessing. Compare Genesis 9:1,7 to 1:28). Also, just like in the Adamic Covenant, the Noahic covenant shows what mankind can eat. In the Adamic Covenant, it is every green plant, but in the Noahic Covenant, animals are added to the list of foods (compare Genesis 1:29,30 to Genesis 9:3. Now in the Adamic Covenant, man is given dominion over the animals. In the Noahic Covenant, this isn’t explicitly stated, but it is kind of hinted with the animals having “the fear and dread” of man. In a way, Noah somewhat becomes a new Adam, as he is given the same blessings as Adam was given (notice I said “in a way” and “somewhat.” Don’t take this allusion too far, because Romans says that Jesus Christ is the New Adam). The better way to put it is that the Adamic Covenant is now re-focused on Noah. But the for both of them, the focus is on mankind. This makes sense because with Noah and his family being the only survivors of the flood, every human on earth is a descendant of Noah. Another addition to the covenant is God’s promise not to destroy the earth with waters of a flood (9:11-15). The rainbow is the sign of this covenant (9:12-16). On the side of man’s responsibilities, man is to respect life and be held accountable for life, especially for loss of life (9:4-6). Maybe God had in mind that the first big sin that happened after the Fall was Cain killing his brother Abel. Yet even with these commands, the covenant is unconditonal. Even if man is murderous and sinful, he will continue to have seed, land and blessing.

10 generations and 3 chapters later, God gives the ABRAHAMIC COVENANT (Genesis 12:1-3, 15:1-19, 17:1-27. The reader even has a hint of it in Genesis 18:17-19 with God’s monologue with Himself/the trinity.) I believe these numerous mentions of the covenant were God’s reminder of His plan for Abraham as God moved Abraham from place to place. This covenant is the early establishment of Israel. God promises Abraham numerous descendants (seed), who will become a great nation (land). This nation will ble blessed by God and other nations who want to be blessed (blessing). Those who bless Abraham get blessed; those who curse Abraham get cursed. And even in some odd instances, God blesses Abraham and curses the nation (see Abraham and Pharaoh in Gen. 12:10-20). But if you think about this covenant and the story about Abraham, you realize that by the time Abraham dies, it is not fully fulfilled. The only land Abraham receives is his burial plot, which is very little compared to what God promised him (compare Gen. 15:18-21). The only descendants he has is his one son Isaac and his two grandsons Esau and Jacob (Abraham died while Jacob and Esau were teenagers, about 15), since Ishmael and Keturah’s sons were sent away and had no part in the inheritance. Abraham sees very little of the covenant fulfilled; it will all be fulfilled in the future. Despite popular belief, the Abrahamic Covenant was not just for Israel. It was meant for all nations. God planned to bless all nations. Israel, Abraham’s descendants, were the means of that blessing. So while at those sections, the coveant is made between God and Abraham, but it is set up to have all nations involved. The best example would Lot’s descendants, which would become the Ammnonites and Moabites. In Genesis 18, we see God interceding for Lot. Without that intercession, Lot would have never been saved. God saved Lot on request of Abraham. Since Abraham is related to Lot, Lot’s descendants, the Moabites and Ammonites, get a small taste of the covenant, as long as they are faithful to God. Why did God choose Abraham? Maybe because in a polytheistic world (Islamic tradition says that Abraham’s father Terah worshipped many pagan gods), God knew that Abraham would be monotheistic. Possibly because God knew Abraham would follow in perfect obedience, not questionning God. The reader sees that throughout the whole Abraham narrative. Or maybe it was because in His foreknowledge, God knew Abraham would chose God, follow by faith, and obey God’s laws, commands, degrees, and requirements. I believe all are possibilities. But I believe most importantly that God chose Abraham, and Abraham chose. Whatever the reason, I also think one of the main roles was because God had moved Abraham to a new place, and wanted to lead and guide him through this with a covenant. You can see this in Genesis 15, when God says, “I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans…” This brings us to the state of conditionality. Traditionally, this covenant has been declared unconditional. Those who say that use the imagry of God walking alone through the offerings- while typically both parties walk through, only God walks through. But the evidence saying that it is conditional outweighrs it. In Genesis 12:1, God tells Abraham to “Leave and go.” If Abraham stays put, God cannot give Abraham the land God will show him. Genesis 17 is an important chapter for this. In verse 1, God commands Abraham to walk before him and be blameless. Verse 9 has God stating the important of keeping the covenant. Chapter 17 goes on to talk about circumcision, which sets up an if/then clause. If you want to be in the covenant, you must be circumcized. If you don’t get circumcised, you’re out of the covenant. Conditions. You also see Abraham making sacrifices throughtout the narrative. Later on, when God talks to Isaac in Genesis 26:4,5, God says, ” I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, (WHY?) because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws.” So I conclude (and I apologize if this sounds postmodern again) that this covenant is also both conditional and unconditional. I would even go as far as say the covenant starts out conditional, but ends unconditonal. Abraham has conditions, passes, and thus the covenant is permanent forever more. Abraham’s descendants will get the seed, land and blessing. And like I said, the other nations are involved in this covenant, and for them, it is fully conditional. Nations that are for Abraham’s descendats are blessed, but nations against Abraham will be cursed. This covenant is renewed to Isaac and Jacob, Abraham’s heir son and gradson respectively. Isaac and Jacob do not get new covenants, but just renewed Abrahamic covenant. Same conditions, same promises, same blessings, same curses (Gen. 26:2-5, Gen. 28:10-22). The Abrahamic Covenant is referred by Paul in Galatians 3 and Romans 4. As both of them state, the main condition is faith. For example, Paul points out that Abraham was declared righteous by any act of circumcision. So it’s not by act he is made righteous, but his credited faith.

After leading the Israelites out of Egypt, as foretold to Abraham (Gen. 15:13-16), God establishes the MOSAIC COVENANT to Israel via Moses. It is found scattered all throughout Exodus (ch. 3, 6:1-8, ch. 19-24, ch. 34), is renewed with every new generation (as seen in Deuteronomy and Joshua, and is referenced in the New Testament (i.e. Matt. 5, Gal. 3, and the whole book of Hebrews). The parties involved are God and the nation of Israel. This covenant gets more specific. The Gentiles are not involved in this covenant (Deut. 4:8, Eph. 2:12). But in keeping with the Abrahamic Covenant, Israel was to be a light to the Gentiles, an example of what the people of God were to be like (Exodus 19:6). Also, any Gentile could get in on the covenant if they were circumcised and followed the Mosaic Law. The exclusivity of this covenant is also apparent in the reason. Many times in the Old Testament, God presents Himself as “I am the Lord Your God, who brought you out of Egypt…” Pretty much, God is saying to the Israelites, “I saved you, so I believe you own me. Let’s work out a mutual relationship.” Once again, God promises seed, land (Exodus 23:29) and blessing. Furthermore, the promise of the messiah is found in this covenant, where God says He will send a prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15-19). They must listen to this prophet, for if they don’t, they will be cut off from God’s people. This will come back into play later on in my next blog. All this is promised, but with a big IF. This covenant is majorly conditional. On Israel’s side, they receive the 10 Commandments followed by other laws explaining the 10 commandments (what is work, what is murder, what is adultery, etc.) totalling 613 (so the Jews say. yup, they counted). Most scholars divide this into apoditic law (Dos and Do Nots) and caustic laws (if/then). If Israel wants land, seed and blessing, they must be obedient to the Law. Sinning against the Law can be paid with sacrificial blood. Disobedience will lead to the opposite of the promises. Israel receives curses (opposite of blessing), its people will die (opposite of seed), and they will be cut off from the land (opposite of land). Yet because the Mosaic Covenant is still under the Abrahamic Covenant, God will no totally disown Israel. At anytime, if they repent and turn to God, they will be forgiven and everything will be restored. Just like in the Abrahamic Covenant, nation can also receive God’s blessing if they bless the nation of Israel. Any nation in its way will be cursed. The Israelites agree to the term and conditions (Exodus 24:7), even though the next time Moses goes up Sinai, Israel breaks the Law by building a golden calf (Exodus 32). Yet by the end of the book, the people repent, and they work something out with God. This prepares the cycle the reader will see going as he reads the whole Old Testament.

In 2 Samuel 7, God sets up with David the DAVIDIC COVENANT. The Davidic Covenant is usually portrayed as a kingly covenant. This covenant gets in more specific, as this is strictly God with David and his descendants. One family line from one tribe. 2 Samuel 7 also reveals why David gets this covenant. 2 Samuel 7:7-8 is God reminding David that He took David out of the weakest clan, the weakest family, and the youngest of the family to lift him up to king. That is why a covenant is being established. This covenant first promises David will have a great name (2 Sam. 7:9) and also land for the people (2 Sam. 7:10). This is the land and the blessing seen in the previous covenant. Now the seed. The covenant promises David that a son will always be on the throne. These kingly sons God adopts as His own son, leading to the Ultimate Son, the Messiah. This tends to lead people to believe that this is an Israel/Judah (even though David’s descendants are always kings of Judah, God promises in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 37 that Israel and Judah will be reuinted) only covenant. I disagree. Why is that? The Davidic Covenant promises the Messiah will come from David’s line. This messah from David’s dynasty will be the Savior of the world, promised all the way back in Adamic Covenant. This covenant is unconditional. No matter what David’s descendants do do, David will always have descendants (seed) on the throne, and the ultimate king will come from Him (although the descendant might face the wrath of the Mosaic Covenant). On top of land, seed, and blessings, David gets house, throne and kingdom (2 Sam. 7:16).

That leads us to the NEW COVENANT. To fully look at the New Covenant, we got to split it into different parts. Now someone might thinkg New Covenant = New Testament. This is not fully true. Turn to Jeremiah 31:31-34 in your Bibles. It simply starts, ” ‘The time is coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a New Covenant…'”. Already, the mention of a New Covenant is there before the New Testament is there. Let’s skip ahead to the 5th line in Jeremiah 31:32 to find out why this covenant is being made. It reads “because thy broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them.” If you’re no too familiar with the book of Jeremiah, let me paint the scene. Judah’s sin has become too great, and the Lord has pronounced judgment on the nation. They will go into exile. The Lord calls his prophet Jeremiah to announce the judgment. This judgment is the result of breaking the Mosaic Covenant. Judah had fallen into idolatry, and their last 3 kings were corrupt. The Mosaic Covenant had failed, but not because of God. God had been very faithful to keep His promises. It was Israel who could not be faithful to the covenant. Thus, they had to face the curses. Reading Israel’s history, the reader can tell the people are incapable of keeping the covenant. There’s got to be a better one. That is why God is preparing a covenant that is “not like the covenants I made with their forefathers” because sinful man is just not capable of following the Law. So what’s this new law like? Verses 33 and 34 tell the reader. It is not one of merely knowing laws of what to do and what not do do. The Law will be in their hearts, and so will God be. The big change is going from commanding the people to follow laws, to helping the people follow laws by changing them. This change will bring forgiveness of sins, a forgiveness so strong that God forgets the sin. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is an important setup for the New Testament. In fact, this passage is referenced in the New Testament in Romans 11:27, 2 Corinthians 6:16, Hebrews 8:8-12 and Hebrews 10:16-17.

Ezekiel also gets to hear about this New Covenant from the Lord. In Ezekiel 37:15-28, God lays out the New Covenant. First, starting with Ezekiel 37:15-23, God starts by reuniting Judah with the rest of the tribes of Israel to make them one people again, just like I said in the Davidic Covenant. Speaking of Davidic Covenant, verse 24 says David will be king over them. Is it really David? No, he is dead and buried. This is the Messiah, promised through David’s line. Going back to verses 15-23, even thought it is the New Covenant, God is still promising the land, seed and blessing promised to Abraham. (vs. 22,26). But the other half of this passage is the same as in Jeremiah. God will be with them and forgive them all their idolotrous sins. Once again, we see this oneness with God and the people. No longer separation with a curtain. No longer the middle man of priests and prophets between God and man. Now it’s one on one.

The New Covenant was established by God’s Son Jesus Christ. So naturally the first thing to do is defend Jesus Christ’s authority on establishing the New Covenant by showing how He fulfilled the Old Covenants. Jesus fulfilled the Adamic Covenant. First, he fulfilled it by being human just as much as He was God. He also fulfilled it by fulfilling Genesis 3:15 by the work on the cross. He fulfilled the Noahic Covenant by being a descendant of Noah, making Jesus a common relative to us all, because we all are related to Noah. He fulfilled the Abrahamic Covenant by being a descendant of Abraham, the promised One. He fulfilled the Davidic Covenant by being the son of David, the promised king. The New Testament starts out with Matthew 1:1, stating that Jesus is the sons of Abraham and David, fulfilling the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenant. He is the promised seed in all those covenants: the promised king, the promised Savior. Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Covenant by perfectly obeying it and not sinning. He also perfectly obeyed it by being the perfect sacrifice for our sins, representing all the sacrifices in Leviticus. Jesus fulfilled all the the covenants.

On the night our Lord was betrayed, which lead to His “trial,” crucifixion execution, and resurrection, Jesus made the NEW COVENANT (Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:17-20). This New Covenant promises a restored relationship with God to those who put their faith in Him, just like Abraham did. We are promised blessings, too. We are promised land. Jesus said in John 14:2,3 that He is preparing a place for His followers up in heaven. Galatians informs us we will be co-heirs with Christ. That leadus to another blessings. Those who receive Christ become children of God (John 1:12). We become the promised seed: the children of God. The ultimate blessing we get is forgiveness of sins, just like Jeremiah and Ezekiel prophecied. Since sin is the separator between God and man, Christ’s blood sacrifice, removing the stain of sin, allows to be in the presence of God. Another promise is the Counseleor, the Holy Spirit (John 14). When the Holy Spirit descends in Acts 2, the New Covenant goes into effect immediately. This covenant is from God, but the “to” part specifies no one specific. It can be Jews or Gentiles. In fact, the new people of God is the Jews and Gentiles coming together to form the church, the body of Christ. This covenant is unconditional on acts and works, but conditional on faith. God calls those who choose receive the gift of his salvation. They are the people who confess and repent of their sins and sinful desires, and have a belief in the words and works of Jesus Christ, which can be seen in their thoughts, speech and actions.

As a progressive, dispensationalist, I see not 6 independent covenants, but 6 interdependent covenants. The next covenant adds to, updates, and fulfills the previous covenants. Under the New Covenant, we fulfill all the Old Covenants. How so? We fulfill the Adamic Covenants by being descendants of Adam. We are Adam’s fruitful seed We fulfill the Noahic Covenant by being descendats of Noah. We are Noah’s fruitful seed. So how did we fulfill the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic Covenant, especially if we are Gentiles? Galatians chapter 3 links it together. We fulfill those 3 covenants because we are in Christ, and Christ fulfilled those 3 covenants. Therefore, we indirectly enter the covenants.