A Ridiculous Yard Sign

 

Of all the ridiculous yard signs that you see when driving anywhere these days, this is the most ridiculous of them all. What makes it so ridiculous is the supposed viewpoint to which this sign is 'opposite' of. Hear me out. The maker of this sign (and by association, anyone who then puts this sign in their yard), is arguing that there are people out there who:

a) don't believe black lives matter, which OK, I will give you that there are definitely racist people out there

b) don't believe women's rights are equal to the rights of others; or this is a statement on abortion rights. If the former, I don't understand who it is that would argue that women's right differ, or should differ from anyone else's. If the ladder, then you're right, there are those of us out here who do not view a fetus as an extension of a women's body and who are vehemently opposed to abortion

c) believe that actual human beings are illegal; I'll talk more about this in a second

d) believe that science is false (?); again, more on this later

e) believe that love is not love (?), or this is a statement that people should be able to marry whomever they want. Here's the thing though - this statement is so oversimplified, it could be taken to condone pedophilia, bestiality, etc. The statement is far to vague to be helpful or descriptive.

f) Kindness is everything. Perhaps the most logical statement on the whole thing - another more colloquial way of saying this would be, "Be kind." Even this though - is so vague it's unhelpful. Kindness looks very different depending on the situation you're in.

One quick thing and then I'll get to the one that irks me the most. "No human is illegal". No one is arguing that human beings are illegal. Literally, no one. Some people are arguing that unlawful immigration is illegal (which it is, by definition). People argue that what humans DO is illegal, but no one is arguing that humans themselves are illegal. When someone is labeled an 'illegal immigrant' or 'illegal alien', what is actually being said is that their action of unlawfully moving to this country, not paying taxes, etc is, by the law of our country, illegal. Countries around the globe have these same laws. You, as a United States citizen, could not just up and decide to permanently move to Germany. There would be a long process of doing that legally - and if you skirted that process, you would be considered an illegal immigrant by the German government and if you were caught, you would likely be deported back to the US. Most countries in the world would do this. Anyway - I digress.

The most asinine thing on this poster has got to be the line, "Science is Real". What does this even mean? First, 'science' is not a noun. It can't be described as real or not real. Second, "Science" is about as fallible as it gets and if you don't think that's true, simply look at the scientists who have been wrong time after time after time after time on COVID. Read the dozens of great books out there on how 'science' has gotten it wrong time after time, across the centuries. Two I would recommend are "The Emperor of Maladies" by Siddhartha Mukherjee and Stuart Richie's new book entitled, "Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth". Does 'science' get a lot right? Sure - but saying "science is real" has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. The statement is utter nonsense! Are they saying science is infallible? If so, that's laughable. Are they saying we shouldn't question or challenge science? If so, that goes against the very foundation of science - science invites challenge and skepticism. When a scientist in almost any field produces a significant result, you often see 'replication studies' done as a follow-up, where other scientists try and and replicate the results achieved as a means of verifying the result of the original study. Are they simply saying that science is a thing? If so, who denies this? Why the need to state that?

When I see this kind of thing, its maddening. I try hard not to let it get to me, but my mind is too logical for that. What I see here is a sheep credo. It is a list of talking points that have nothing to do with one another which is then disseminated by people who seem to have little to no ability to think for themselves. At best, it is virtue signaling at its worst. Sorry, I just had to get this off my chest today.

Genesis 1-11 and the Prelude to Covenant

Our group has been going through a series of teachings lately that were shared to us by David Gordon and David Rickman. They are both part of the Daniel Training Network and David Gordon leads a community of believers out in Burlington, NC. The title of the class series is Studies in Torah: Biblical Frameworks for the Jewish Narrative and I've linked it there so you can access it yourself. What follows here is a summary of the first couple of teachings as well as my own thoughts. I'm not trying to 'steal' their material, but rather, I just want to solidify my own understanding by writing out my thoughts.

Genesis 1-11 - Unique in Scripture

Genesis 1-11 has one very unique aspect to it that makes it stand out from the rest of Scripture. That unique aspect is the sheer amount of time that it covers, about 1,950 years. By contrast, Genesis 12-50 covers about 360 years. The rest of Scripture tends to cover smaller periods of time. This may not seem all that important, but I thought of it this way - if someone were going to write about nearly 2,000 years of history and only mention a few things, and if those few things were more-or-less the BEGINNING of a longer story, then those few things mentioned at the beginning must be extremely important in helping us understand the rest of the story. Not only that - but in order for someone to so briefly summarize nearly 2,000 years of time, they would have to be very intentional about the words they chose. So with that in mind - let's look at the major themes of Genesis 1-11.

Saw, Took

In reading the creation narrative (Genesis 1-4), the narrative of events in Genesis 6, and the story of the Tower of Babel, we see a single theme:

"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit and ate; and she gave some to her husband also and he ate." (Genesis 3:6, JPS)

"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw that daughters of men were beautiful and they took them as wives." (Genesis 6:1-2, JPS)

 The references are less direct here, but the theme is the same:

"They said to each other, "Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick in stead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that that we may make a name for ourselves..."" (Genesis 11:3-4, NASB)

The main idea in all three of these stories is the same - that both man and heavenly beings saw something and instead of deferring to the boundaries that God had set in place, they decided to take it for themselves, to choose something for themselves that was outside of God's will and design. In the creation narrative, God's clear boundary to man was "you are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil..." Adam and Eve violate that boundary by eating the fruit of that tree. Similarly, in Genesis 6 (making the assumption, with evidence, that the 'Sons of God' are created divine beings), God must have set a boundary for created divine beings of not inter-marrying/having sexual relations with humans. Man, being complicit by allowing these marriages, also bears blame because it is clearly an effort on their part to circumvent God's curse of death after Adam & Eve's sin. And then with the Tower of Babel, we again see man attempting to have a relationship with the divine apart from God and God's will. It is a clear attempt to erase the boundary between earth and heavenly realm.

The creation narrative is clear - to be made in the image of God is to have the authority to steward, authority which is given by God. It is to have responsibility for something - but to CHOOSE, that is reserved for God. God alone has true authority. Created beings, both human and divine, have authority that has been delegated to them by God for certain things or over certain things. God delegates stewardship of the Earth to man early on, commanding them: "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Genesis 1:28, NASB) This doesn't mean they get to determine how the world was made or how it works, but rather that they have been given responsibility to cultivate and subdue it.

To Choose = Authority

I've been thinking about this idea of choice as authority. Think about children - when they are born and up until about age 2, they have and exercise no choice. Every detail of their lives is chosen for them. Then they start to become aware and they develop the ability to communicate. Anyone who has had a 2-3 year-old knows that they then become quite demanding. Some become downright tyrannical. They want to exercise an ability to make choices. Or think about the person or people who run the organization that you work for. If you work for a company that has a single owner - they probably like to know what their options are in any given situation and ultimately, they are the person who is responsible for making the final call.

God has given Man responsibility (Gen 1:28). He has also given created divine beings responsibility (Daniel 10: 20-21, Matthew 18:10-11, Jude 1:6). Authority has been GIVEN, but it is not inherent to the created order. When we say that God is sovereign, we are saying that God has ultimate authority, that His authority supersedes all other authority. Therefore, we can say that if God has chosen something, then any effort made to go around that choice or to undermine that choice is an effort to assert one's own authority over God's. At the core, that is Sin. Is is knowing what the boundary is and willfully overstepping that boundary. Jesus put it this way, "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters." (Matt 12:30) To go against the authority of God is to set oneself up in opposition to God.

**this idea of choice equaling authority lends itself to a lot of questions. Namely, does man have the ability to 'choose' to follow God if God is ultimately the one with power? I definitely do not understand how this all works, but I would say in that instance, it's more about deference than it is about authority. God's sovereign authority demands that we defer to Him, and to the boundaries that He has set up. To choose to violate those boundaries doesn't mean that those boundaries cease to exist, but only that we have decided to assert our knowledge of what is right above His.

Prelude to the Abrahamic Covenant

Given this brief Genesis 1-11 context, we can now have a clear understanding of the dynamic happening in Genesis 12, when God CHOOSES for himself a people, beginning with Abraham. Not only that, God is also laying out what his choice is for the redemption of humanity. That redemption itself was possible was made clear in Genesis 3:15. Now we will start to see with Abraham, and on through Moses and David, just how God intends to redeem humanity. But it is important to note that this people and this plan is of God's choosing. God is exercising his sovereign authority - He is asserting that this is the way He will do it.

This all begs an important question then...has God changed His plan? Perhaps also of importance would be to ask; have there have been attempts by humans to alter God's plan of redemption and salvation? The first utterance by God of a covenant with Abraham seems very clear:

"Now the LORD said to Abram: "Get out of your country, from your family and from your father's house, to a land that I will show you. I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make you name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you; and in you all of the families of the Earth shall be blessed." (Genesis 12:1-3)

God's plan for the salvation (blessing) of all of the families of the Earth goes through Abraham, the patriarch of the nation of Israel (Jacob's grandfather).

The Practical

Speaking for myself, I never want this stuff to be purely theoretical - because without a connection to reality, knowing things doesn't amount to anything. My 'ah ha moment' here is just how important God's promises to Abraham, Moses and David are. To me, it underscores the importance of the choice itself, even if we can't understand the 'why' of it. The point is that God chose! God said this is what I decide and this is how I'm going to do reconcile humanity to myself. He is not asking for our permission - he is asking for our obedience. As for specifics, this means that the Jewish people are still extremely important to God (which is exactly what Paul says in Romans 11:28-29). People have warped this in certain ways over the last several decades, I'm not arguing that we need to be picketing for Israel or making political overtures to or for Israel or anything like that - I'm saying that at the very least, we need to be praying for our Jewish brothers and sisters - praying for the remnant and praying that it would grow. Why? Because God has made it clear that salvation itself is going to be administered by His Chosen People. The twelve (Jewish) Apostles will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28). The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29). Perhaps we also pair that with an intentional evangelism to our Jewish brothers and sisters? I don't know what that looks like, but if the Jewish people are still important to God, then they should be important to us Gentiles as well, right?

There is so much meat on the bones of the book of Genesis. I didn't even mention the flood story or how Genesis traces two lines - the line righteous line of Seth and the evil line of Cain, all the way through to the end of the book. It seems likely that one could spend many weeks and months plumbing the depths of this unique book. I hope to gain more insight as I continue to read and study and really, what this all comes down to, is further rooting myself in the hope that God has provided through his promises. Is God going to do what He said He's going to do, or not? To me, that is what the entire Bible is trying to answer. If God is faithful to His promises, then He is God and thus worthy of everything that we are. If He is not, then He is not God. Simply - this is a question worth knowing an answer to!

COVID-19: A Legal Problem

I had a very good discussion with a friend of mine the other day and while he and I disagreed on a lot - the one thing we both do agree on is that COVID-19 is now a huge legal problem. I would argue that it is a far bigger legal problem now than it is a health problem whereas my friend doesn't believe it has gotten to that point yet, but that it will.

If you look at how this has evolved, publicly, over the past 4-5 months there has been a theme. First, it was lockdowns...first with countries...then with states; one state did it, then another, then a bunch more, until most of the country, save the states where no one lives (*cough* South Dakota *cough*) were all on 'lockdown'. Then it was re-opening plans. One state developed a "re-opening" plan and pretty soon, every state had a re-opening plan that looked something like a staging model, where it would happen slowly and over the course of a couple of months. At this point, school is now the vanguard - in our area, district after district has announced they are moving exclusively to e-learning to start the school year. I'm sure similar things are playing out all across the country. Colleges and universities have followed suit with the NCAA canceling team sports and many institutions of higher learning moving to e-learning models. The bottom-line is this: no one wants to be left holding a bag of blame. Executive orders written by governors have been successfully challenged, legally speaking, in almost every state and yet many are acting as though those orders still have teeth. Why? Because states have threatened legal action (forcible closings, forfeiture of business licensing, including liquor licenses, etc) for those businesses that don't comply. In talking to a couple of restaurant owner friends of mine - they probably would open except that the departments of health in the towns they operate in have threatened to shut them down, or take away their liquor licenses. They also talk about the social stigma and/or blow back that would occur as a result of re-opening.

The data could not be more clear in terms of how minimal the COVID threat is to children. The median age of the person who dies from COVID-19 is 78 years old. If we look at the CDC's data set, which is updated to September 9th, a total of 62 people under the age of 15 have died of COVID-19, in the entire United States, since the start of the pandemic in February (data set is 2/1 to 9/9). A total of 377 people under the age of 25, in the entire United States, have died of COVID-19 since the beginning of the pandemic in February. By comparison, 15,644 people under the age of 15 in the United States, have died of any cause, in that same period of time. A total of 35,642 people under the age of 25 in the United States have died of all causes, in that same period of time. Our children are far less vulnerable to COVID than they are to a number of other things (the flu, for example, has killed 110 children under 15 since Feb 1st, 2020), but we are shutting down in-person school because of COVID...why?

In case that isn't convincing. 1,894,447 (as of September 9th) Americans have died in the United States, since February 1st, when all causes of death are taken into account. The latest COVID death count is 175,866. Over 1 million Americans over the age of 75 have died since February 1st (1,028,792). Death, even death on a large scale, is common in our society...and yet we are weirdly fixated on COVID. To underscore this fact - a poll recently conducted by Franklin Templeton (accounting firm) showed that "for people aged 18-24, the share of those worried about serious health consequences is 400 times higher than the share of total COVID deaths; for those aged 25-34 it is 90 times higher..."

To me, it's a head-scratcher. We have more access to hard data than we have ever had for anything, and yet the story being painted by media (social and otherwise) doesn't match with reality. The question I keep asking myself is 'what is going on here!?"

The only logical conclusion I can make is that no one wants to be sued. That is the only conclusion that makes any logical sense when you look at the numbers. Every day - the media flashes up the current COVID death statistic, without giving it any context whatsoever, and so it has become a thing. They don't give it context within itself (number of deaths FROM covid vs. WITH covid), they don't give it any context in terms of what kills people commonly (cancer, heart disease, etc). They never mention that in a regular ho-hum year, 2.8 MILLION people die in this country of various causes.

And so we have what we have - schools closed, college students forced to wear masks almost 24/7, no fans in the stands, no concerts or large gatherings, businesses closing left and right, widespread unemployment or underemployment and on and on and on. PEOPLE - the folks making decisions have the same numbers that are available to you and I. 180,000 as a number, without any context, sounds like a lot, but it's not. It just isn't, even as it relates to death. And yet, we continually hear from people like Dr. Fauci and our governors, that we won't be "safe" until we have a vaccine. Dr. Fauci said yesterday that even when we get a vaccine, it will have to have been available for 6 months to a year until it's administered to enough people to make a difference. I guarantee you Dr. Fauci knows what is truly at risk here - it is his reputation. A reputation that has been hard fought over decades of time. You put a mic in his face and ask him, "Dr. Fauci, when will we be able to go back to normal again?" - he won't be hedging his bets. He's going to say the thing that preserves his reputation. The problem is, we aren't asking enough people - we aren't asking other experts in other fields what the consequences of shutdowns, social distancing, closing schools, making people wear masks, preventing people from dining out inside, etc. are. There needs to be more voices in the room where the policy decisions are being made. There needs to be federal leadership with regard to protecting businesses and individuals from litigation related to COVID-19. These are common-sense actions that no one is taking - and so we continue, in this malaise of uncertainty and fear, waiting for a phantom vaccine that may never come. How much longer will we tolerate this?

Covenant and The Gentiles

For the past 15 months, I've been a part of a small group of guys and we call ourselves the Apocalyptic Accountability Group (AAG) - you can read all about it on our website. We gather every Sunday night for a couple of hours to pray and discuss things together and this past weekend, we were talking about the Covenants. The discussion came around to the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31, Hebrews 8) and the discussion turned to the interaction between Gentiles and the Covenants. If you look at the covenants made to Abraham, Moses and David, no covenants were cut with Gentiles. All of them are made with Jews and are about Israel's hope. This discussion had the backdrop of Romans 11. For my own edification, and for the edification of anyone who might wrestle with this themselves, I thought I would go through each of the original covenants, parse out their similarities and differences and then try and draw some conclusions about the nature of the New Covenant and the hope that we Gentiles have.

Abrahamic Covenant

"Now the LORD said to Abram: "Get out of your country, from your family and from your father's house, to a land that I will show you. I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make you name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you; and in you all of the families of the Earth shall be blessed." (Genesis 12:1-3)

"The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, "Now lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward; for all the land which you see, I will give it to you and to your descendants forever. I will make your descendants as the dust of the earth, so that if anyone can number the dust of the earth, then you descendants can also be numbered. Arise, walk about the land through its length and breadth; for I will give it to you." (Genesis 13:14-17)

“As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram ; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.” (Genesis 17:4-8)

Mosaic Covenant

Generally speaking - the entirety of the Mosaic Covenant is found in Exodus 19-24.

"Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob and tell the sons of Israel: 'You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you to Myself. Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you shall speak to the sons of Israel."" (Exodus 19:3-6)

As I read this over - the line that stands out to me is "...and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." That certainly speaks to the 'set apart-ness' of Israel, but to me, it also speaks to their special role in redemptive history. The idea of a priest in Hebrew culture was someone who interacted with God on behalf of the people; a mediator if you will. The template for this role would have been the Levite priesthood within the nation of Israel. Just as God chose the Levites for special service within the temple, both to serve the people and to represent God, so he has chosen the people of Israel, to serve the nations and to 'be a light', telling the nations about who God is and what He is doing.

Davidic Covenant

I will present here the first time the Davidic Covenant is laid out; it is referenced several times in subsequent Scripture.

"The Lord declares to you [David] that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: When you days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever." (2 Samuel 7:11-16)

I'd like to include here one passage from the Psalms:

 "I will maintain my love to him forever, and my covenant with him will never fail. I will establish his line forever, his throne as long as the heavens endure. "If his sons forsake my law and do not follow my statues, if they violate my decrees and fail to keep my commands, I will punish their sin with the rod, their iniquity with flogging; but I will not take my love from him, nor will I ever betray my faithfulness. I will not violate my covenant or alter what my lips have uttered. Once for all, I have sworn by my holiness - and I will not lie to David - that his line will continue forever and his throne endure before me like the sun; it will be established forever like the moon, the faithful witness in the sky." (Psalm 89:28-37)

I included this passage from the Psalm 89 for a couple of reasons. First, the line from 2 Samuel that reads, "When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands" can be confusing. The context of the sentence that proceeds this one is alluding to Jesus so this sentence then becomes confusing..."when he does wrong"? Isn't Jesus perfect and without sin? Psalm 89 helps to clear up what is meant. The author in 2 Samuel isn't talking about Jesus doing wrong, he is talking about the sons of David's line. Second, Psalm 89 underscores just how serious this is. God swears that he will uphold this covenant by swearing to his holiness. In other words, if God doesn't not uphold this covenant, He is not holy and therefore not God!

Similarities:

- The Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants are both sealed with blood. This is important because as we will see, the 'New Covenant' is also sealed with blood. Blood alludes to the sacrificial system and also underscores the seriousness of the covenant.

""I am the LORD who brought you [Abraham] out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to possess it." He said, "O LORD God, how may I know that I will possess it?" So He said to him, "Bring Me a three year old heifer, and a three year old female goat, and a three year old ram, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon." Then he brought all of these to Him and cut them in two, and laid each half opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds. [...] Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, terror and great darkness fell upon him. [...] It came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram..." (Genesis 15:7-18)

"Then he [Moses] arose early in the morning, and built an alter at the foot of the mountain with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel. He sent young men of the sons of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as peace offerings to the LORD. Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and the other half of the blood he sprinkled on the alter. Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!" So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." (Exodus 24:4-8)

- The Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants are both unilateral. There is no part of those covenants that are dependent on man - God is both the covenant-maker and the covenant-keeper. The Mosaic covenant is the only bilateral covenant that God makes, and the question surrounding that covenant is not whether Israel will continue to be the chosen people of God but rather, whether they will remain obedient to the law and statues set forth, and thus remain in the Land. The consequence for disobedience? Exile.

- All three covenants are made to the House of Israel. Abraham, to whom the original promise is given, is the father of the nation - the Mosaic covenant is addressed "the house of Jacob" and "the sons of Israel" and the David covenant is made to the line of David, within the House of Israel.

- All three covenants contain FUTURE promises. To me this particular point is critical. Abraham 'believed God and it was credited to Him as righteousness' (Genesis 15:6). The Mosaic covenant says, "you shall be my people" - there is both the current promise, but also future aspect of it - and with that, the promise of certain exile from the Land if the covenant laws and statues are broken. The Davidic covenant is all about the future promise of a king and a kingdom that will endure forever.

New Covenant

As mentioned in the opening - the new Covenant is mentioned first in Jeremiah 31 and then quoted in Hebrews 8. It reads:

""Behold the days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will [future] put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive them their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."" (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Again we see here a unilateral covenant that is made "with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah". I've been pondering what the sign of the new covenant is, because with every covenant there has been an accompanying sign. With Adam it was 'the seed' (Genesis 3), with Noah it was a rainbow, with Abraham it was circumcision, with Moses, it was the sabbath, or perhaps the land, with David it was a coming King and an everlasting throne (Jesus, essentially)...but what about the new covenant? This is my opinion, but it seems to me like the sign of the new covenant is Jesus' return and the restoration of all things to perfect unity with him. If you read the first part of Jeremiah 31, it is undoubtedly a picture of heaven. Even in this laying out of a new covenant, you get a sense of peace, of freedom from a body of death, of there no longer being a necessity to teach anyone about God because everyone knows Him. "from the least of them to the greatest of them". The way I see it, this new covenant is entirely future. And once again, it is a covenant that is sealed in blood. In this case it is Jesus' blood and that is confirmed in Gospel narratives of the last supper when Jesus says, "In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you." (Luke 22:20) It just occurred to me that this scene in the Gospel may be misinterpreted by many to say that Jesus is fulfilling something, or saying that the new covenant is now. But we see from the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants that the establishment of the covenant was not the same as its fulfillment. Taken in this light, Jesus' death and sacrifice on the cross (and subsequent resurrection) serves as the establishment of the covenant, or said in a slightly different way, the assurance of things to come.

What about us gentiles?

So just in a relatively quick overview, we can easily see that none of the covenants that were made, were made to Gentiles (the 'goyim', the Nations); they were all made to Israel. Does that mean we Gentiles have no hope? Absolutely not. It was God's plan all along to save humanity. In his covenant with Abraham, God says, "I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you; and in you all of the families of the Earth shall be blessed." God's plan is to bless the nations (the world) through His chosen people Israel. I really don't see any other way to read it, and I if this is God's plan, I don't see any reason to question it. Paul says that Gentiles are 'grafted in' to the promises (the root of the cultivated olive tree, the covenants, Romans 11) and that we have hope because of what God has promised to His people. Like an eldest sibling typically has a special responsibility as the executor of estate even to this day, so the chosen people of God, Israel, are the 'eldest sibling' of the world - serving a special role in administrating the Kingdom of God. Our rewards are no different than theirs (eternal life, renewed bodies, having communion with and access to God), but our responsibilities are different.

There is a very interesting section in the middle of the Book of Acts, titled (in my Bible) "The Jerusalem Council". It is the 'a ha' moment for the early Apostles as it relates to the Gentiles and what God's view of the Gentiles now was. First, they recognize that this was always in God's plan (Acts 15: 12-18) to 'chose a people for his name, from among the Gentiles.' Next, Peter recognizes that Gentiles can have relationship with God, as Gentiles, which is to say - without becoming Jews (which was how it was previously understood). Lastly - Peter identifies three rules that he believes are universal when it comes to the conduct of Believers, whether Jew or Gentiles. Specifically, he mentions abstaining from sexual immorality, abstaining from the meat of strangled animals (from blood), and from eating food sacrificed to idols. Quick aside - in Deuteronomy, there are several explicit instructions from God about not eating blood - the meat of a strangled animals (i.e. not slaughtered, and thus not properly drained of blood) would still have had blood in it, thus making it unacceptable.

I mention the above passage because it seems to acknowledge that Gentiles are not under the same law as their Jewish brethren. That doesn't mean that Gentiles are under no law - Peter mentions in Acts 15:21 that he assumes Gentile believers would be hearing the law of Moses (Ten Commandments or, The Decalogue) preached in synagogues on every Sabbath. Gentiles, however, are not under the civil law of the Jews nor are they ordered to observe the Jewish festivals and ceremonies. Additionally - Gentiles were not allowed to enter the Temple of God; they could send animal sacrifices to be made on their behalf (in some, but not all, cases), but they were not allowed to enter - and thus not under the ritual and temple purity laws. The true revelation here, to the Apostles, is the Gentiles can have relationship with God as Gentiles - they don't need to convert to Judaism or adopt Jewish law and customs in order to know Him.

So, having established this - we still have this question - what about the Gentiles as it relates to the covenant? I believe the answer to this question is faith. Ultimately, for a Jew, faith in God's promises and a belief that God is going to do what He says He is going to do, is what is accounted to a person as righteousness. In the story of Abraham and Isaac, we see that Abraham's faith - his trust - is what God accounted to Abraham as righteousness. And so today - as Gentiles, grafted in to the nourishing root of the cultivated olive tree (Romans 11), we also put our hope in the Covenant/God's Promises - not that they have to do with us directly, but that by God following through on his promises to His Chosen People, we (the nations) will be blessed through them. In this way, God's statement to Abraham, "and in you, all of the families of the Earth shall be blessed" is literally true. Michael Wyschogrod, a Jewish theologian, in his book entitled, "The Body of Faith", wrote: "Salvation is of the Jews, because the flesh of Israel is the abode of the divine presence in the world. It is the carnal anchor that God has sunk into the soil of creation." God's choosing of a people necessarily means that He intends to have relationship with the humanity He created. Though some of the particularities of election may be off-putting to the modern thinker, it is nevertheless how God has chosen to do it. This also agrees with what Paul is saying in Ephesians 2:8 when he says, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith..." 

I leave you with two verses from Romans, one in chapter 11 and one in chapter 15. Paul, having whipped himself up into a frenzy regarding the 'chosen-ness' of Israel and about the dance that is to occur between Gentile believers and Jewish unbelievers says,

"Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them? For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen." (Romans 11:33-36)

 "For I tell you this: The Messiah has become a servant, to the Jews, to show that God is faithful to his word, confirming the truth and reliability of the promises made to the patriarchs, while the Gentiles glorify God for showing them such great mercy. As it is written, "That is the reason why I will praise you among the Gentiles; it is to your name that I will sing praises."" (Romans 15:7-9)