Thoughts on Salvation (Part 2)

I was going to completely re-do my previous post on this topic and then I decided I wanted to write something new, and preserve the thought process. I'm not sure that my thoughts have changed all that much, but I feel like I am clearer on the topic of salvation now, than I was a few months ago.

One of the things I've been diving deeply into lately is the concept of 'The Kingdom of God'. The motivational verse for me was Matthew 4:23 (corollary verses in Luke 8:1, Mark 1:14) which reads, "Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and healing every disease and sickness among the people." Two things occurred to me as I read this recently - a) this is Jesus, preaching THE GOSPEL before he was crucified and b) the Gospel and the Kingdom of God are tied together. To flesh that out just a little more - the Gospel can't simply be, "Jesus died for our sins and that by believing in his sacrificial death, we can have Eternal Life with Him in heaven" (which is a Romans 10 verse taken out of context IMHO). If that was the extent of the Gospel, what was Jesus talking about before he died? For that matter, what was John the Baptist talking about, before Jesus was even officially on the scene, since he was also preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God (Matthew 3)? So that got me thinking about the question, "what is the Gospel", but it also seemed that the Good News was intimately tied to The Kingdom of God (interchangeable in Scripture with the Kingdom of Heaven). After all, news, no matter what kind of news it is, is always about something - that seems self-evident, right?

What I set out to try and understand is what a 1st century Jew would have thought the Kingdom of God is. When John the Baptist and Jesus started going around preaching about the good news of the kingdom of God, no one was saying, "Kingdom of God? What's that? We've never heard of that before!". They all knew and so I wanted to know what their understanding was. I have so far read two books, along with innumerable articles - "The Gospel and the Kingdom" (1955) by George Eldon Ladd (the 'already/not yet' guy) and "The Kingdom of God in History" (1988) by Benedict T. Viviano, a New Testament scholar at the University of Freibourg. Ladd's book, to me, was lacking any real examination of the Old Testament. Though he does cite some old testament passages, and some inter-testamental material - his work seems more like an attempt at bringing together very different views that were held by predecessors in theology. It was Viviano's work which I was really impressed with and he did dive into the OT and into the inter-testamental literature that is available. His definition of 'The Kingdom of God' is the best one I have found so far. He says, "To attempt to define the undefinable, we could say that the Kingdom of God is a future apocalyptic divine gift not built by human beings directly but given as a response to hopeful prayer, longing and hastening struggle. It is the final act of God in visiting and redeeming his people, a comprehensive term for the blessings of salvation, that is, all the blessing secured by that act of God." In the Lord's prayer recorded in Matthew 6, Jesus teaches his disciples to pray, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done" - Viviano points out, what is the necessity of praying 'thy Kingdom come' if it is in some way already here? Even up to the very point at which Jesus departs this Earth, he is affirming that The Kingdom is future. Acts 1:3, "...appearing to them [his disciples] over a period of forty days and speaking of the thing concerning the Kingdom of God." Interestingly, the Disciples' recorded question after all that teaching is, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the Kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6) Jesus doesn't correct their understanding of the content he has been teaching them - he addresses the time aspect of their question and says, "It is not for you to know the times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority..." (Acts 1:7).

I think it is precisely that focus on the timing of the Kingdom which really colors ones view on whether the Kingdom is in any part 'now', or if it is altogether future. From reading Ladd's book, and some commentaries written by other modern theologians, it is clear what the modern consensus is...but the question everyone needs to ask themselves is, "what is actually true?" Does an interpretation of Scripture, outside of its historical context, mean anything? I'm starting to believe it does not. If one thinks of the Bible as a historical document, not in the sense that it is literal history (though it certainly is at times), but that its contents were directed at a certain people in a certain time and place in history -- or that it was produced by people, under the divine leadership of the Holy Spirit, who had a certain worldview and who had a specific set of things they 'knew' about their faith, then any interpretation of Scripture that does not take a serious effort at examining that context is faulty at best, if not outright wrong. I will not sit here and claim that Ladd didn't 'do his homework' so to speak, in that contextual regard, but I will say, I think he did what a lot of people in modern theological thought have done, and that is relying on the work of others to inform the baselines of the arguments they make. It is my personal opinion that he didn't go back far enough, he didn't take into account that a Hebrew belief system and Hebrew scriptures were essentially translated into a Greco-Roman worldview...and worldview makes a huge difference. There is much more to be said on this specific topic, but that is for another post (or book?) - if you are curious now, read Viviano's book because he dives DEEP into this particular topic.

The bottom-line is that the Apostles had a totally future view of The Kingdom. They would know the Kingdom was here when Jesus was sitting on the throne of David, in Jerusalem, with a fully restored Israel, having been completely vindicated in the eyes of their oppressors and enemies; all of which are Covenant promises. In fact, their view would have included their own involvement in that scene because Jesus says to the Twelve in Matthew 19:28, "Jesus said to them [the Twelve disciples], "Truly I tell you, in the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Put another way, there was no spiritualized or individualized element to the Kingdom of God. It was a literal Kingdom - it's elements were understood as physical, political, and social. If there was an individualized element to it, it was more that it gave an individual's life meaning and purpose, not that there was some element of the Kingdom that was realized within an individual.

Which brings us back around, taking the scenic route, to salvation. If the Kingdom is entirely future - then salvation, which is an aspect of the Kingdom (one is saved when one is IN the Kingdom) also becomes an entirely future hope.

"Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." (Hebrews 9:27-28)

One can put their hope and trust (faith) in Jesus and His coming Kingdom now, in this life, but salvation is not a thing that we possess on this side of the great and terrible Day of the Lord (aka Judgement). This is a total tangent, but I recently heard a commentary that much of Western Christianity rails against the 'prosperity gospel', but that many of the people railing against that type of gospel preaching believe a very similar thing, but instead of possessing physical prosperity, it's possessing spiritual prosperity (I'm saved now, I can experience the joys of heaven now, etc). Anyway, when you read the words of Jesus and of the Apostles, the continual theme is perseverance and endurance in one's faith, until the End. In this way, the things motivating a Disciple of Jesus never change. Our own internal motivation-level might wax and wane, but the driver is always there - never very far from the mind of a Disciple who is regularly spending time in prayer and in reading Scripture. When our hope is entirely future - suffering is put into proper context. Someone smart I know once said, "Eschatology is the engine of discipleship." Focusing on where this is going gives us an accurate balance of God's goodness and God's wrath - it provides something to strive towards and gives the gift of the Holy Spirit some real significance. It creates urgency within the Disciple and, when treated with a sober mind, causes the Disciple to walk in humility.

I want to touch on the Holy Spirit in a little more detail - because I feel that the Holy Spirit was the thing Ladd was misinterpreting. When you view of The Kingdom of God as entirely future, the purpose of the Holy Spirit becomes so much more clear. The Holy Spirit is the power of God to help you do something you cannot do on your own...to help you take up your cross daily, and to deny yourself - to say 'no' to the flesh and yes to the one who gives Life. Also - in the life of a Disciple, the Holy Spirit is the one who comes to confirm the truth of the Gospel - it is the witness of the truth of the things to come. Rather than the Holy Spirit facilitating the growth of God's Kingdom now as Ladd suggested, it is the thing turning men's hearts, with Jesus, towards the End and the Renewal of all thing - towards the hope of Eternal glory - giving them the ability to be Disciples of Messiah Jesus, to walk and remain on the narrow path that leads to Life (Matthew 7).

I have this heightened sense of urgency lately in my own life. Most of the time, I don't want to work, I just want to read and write and pray. When I'm around people - I want to tell them about this. Partly, I am concerned about the faith of most people I know. I don't want to sound arrogant or judgmental, far from it - no one is as much of a sinner as me - but the reality is, the gift is free, sure, but it requires everything. I was reading in Deuteronomy this morning, Chapter 1, and it's the story of God saving the Israelites from Egypt and it gets to the section about the Israelites being on the cusp of the promised land (you know the story, the 12 spies, 10 were bad and 2 were good), and after the spies came back from scoping things out, the people didn't trust God. Then in verse 34 it reads, "When the Lord heard what you said, he was angry and solemnly swore; "No one from this evil generation shall see the good land I swore to give your ancestors, except Caleb son of Jephunneh. He will see it, and I will give him and his descendants the land he set his feet on, because he followed the Lord wholeheartedly." It was that last line that struck me - ...because he followed the Lord wholeheartedly. There is no such thing as a halfway disciple. What is a disciple? Jesus said many things - but two things that stick out to me are: Luke 9:23 "Then Jesus said to all of them, "If anyone wants to come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me." and also Acts 2:42 - immediately after Peter preaches the Good News, it says how the people who believed responded, "Those who embraced his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to the believers that day. They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." The Apostles' teaching would have been Scripture, basically - so two of the main things were Scripture and prayer. I would add fasting into that mix as well (Matthew 9:15). I have much work to do in my own life - but I don't feel as though I live under any illusion. I'm not walking around thinking I have secured anything. Hopefully, as the days go by, I am getting more and more serious about emulating the conduct, cares and concerns of Jesus. I know I have the Holy Spirit to help me persevere and endure, the Scriptures to guide me, and brothers and sisters to encourage me. That's all that I need to think about - the rest is just, as they say, details.

As a means of closing - I pray regularly that God would keep my heart soft; that I would always be open to the Truth and not get stuck in theological camps or ideas just because I've decided that I need to make up my mind. Some people find it scary to let go the doctrine of eternal security and I can certainly understand that. But with that being said, I just don't see a backing for it in Scripture. Rather - I see a call to lifelong discipleship and how one lives their life as being the evidence of faith in God and a truly changed heart. I write these posts for myself and to distill my own thinking, but if you're reading this, chances are you probably know me, and if you want to talk this out - by all means, I would absolutely love that.

Confronted With Objective Truth

Two words: Objective Truth

In a world that constantly blares the message "YOU DO YOU" and seeks to make truth individualistic, objective truth has gone WAY out of style...unless you are Ben Shapiro. In his case, objective truth is his weapon ("The facts don't care about your feelings")...but I digress. My thought today is, "how many of those of us who call ourselves Christians realize that our message to the world, provided we are consistent in our thinking, is an objective truth?" An objective truth is a truth that is independent of one's beliefs about it. Whether you believe in Jesus or not, He is coming back - He will judge the living and the dead, and He will crush His enemies and throw them into an eternal lake of fire that we call Hell.

I saw a post on Facebook today and it read, "Where did religion go wrong when gay kids grow up fearing God's wrath, but racists don't?" While that may be a provoking line, it seems to me like it is asking the wrong question. What Bible are people reading that would allow them to excuse their own sin, regardless of what that sin is? I've talked about this before - but in order for God to be the embodiment of righteousness, it has to follow that He absolutely cannot co-exist with unrighteousness. Several times in the Scriptures, it says that God loves righteousness but hates wickedness. Jesus says very directly, "he who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather me scatters." (Matt. 12:30). So whether it is practicing homosexuality, or hating one's neighbor - both are sin. If one does not repent and turn from those sins, they will have the wrath of God on them at the judgement.

In ancient times - when a new king conquered or took power over a new land, typically there was a grace period where non-military citizens of the recently conquered land had an opportunity to declare their fidelity to the new ruler. Your life, the here and now, is your opportunity to bend your knee to Jesus. In his surpassing love and mercy, he has offered this opportunity. The writer in 2 Peter argues the same thing saying, "The Lord is not slow about His promise [Jesus' return, the establishment of his Kingdom], as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) God is love - and yes, He loves you - but the simple, objective truth is that now is the opportunity to embrace His love for you and bend your knee to Him, but there will be a day in which that period of amnesty is over. In that same section of 2 Peter, it says, "but by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgement and destruction of the ungodly." (2 Peter 3:7) Throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament, there is a warning. Those who are not following Jesus - those who have set themselves against Jesus and his commands, they will be destroyed - thrown into eternal torment in an un-quenchable fire. Christian - do you believe this?

I was thinking the other day about why the early Apostles were persecuted. When you read about them, they went from town to town healing people and sharing "the good news". Why would that offend people? Jesus says that anyone who would follow Him must take up their cross. I would argue that to carry the true message of Scripture is to carry a very confrontational message. In a world that loves subjective truth, it means carrying a message of objective truth that a lot of people aren't going to like. It makes me think about what love is - is it loving to know that someone is headed in the wrong direction but instead of telling them that, you placate them to try and make them feel like everything is going to be ok? Is it loving to see someone headed towards destruction and not tell them? If my 2-year-old ran out into the street and there was a car coming, would it be loving to just stand there? Of course the answer is no...but some segments of the Western Christian Church seem to be more focused on making people feel better about themselves than they are about getting people to take a serious self-inventory about whether they are actually disciples of Jesus or they are simply members of Church club (aka Converts).

I'm not trying to use this stuff as a way to beat people. Jesus obviously had compassion for people who were broken, in both body and spirit, but he didn't hold back from telling the Truth...which ultimately offered Eternal Hope. I think about the Samaritan woman at the well (see the scene from "The Chosen" series below, so powerful) - who Jesus knows is sinful and broken. He doesn't hold back from telling the uncomfortable truth to her, but it is ultimately about offering hope (living water!). Where my heart is in all of this is in looking around me and seeing my brothers and sisters who don't have well-grounded faith. That sounds judgmental, but I know from personal experience - I know how my previous theology was doing a poor job at spurring devoted discipleship - I was wishy-washy at best, confusing acknowledgement of God's ways for actually following them. I always assume I am not unique - that if I'm struggling with something, more than likely there are others struggling with the same thing. I think part of my issue is that I didn't understand how serious this all is. God takes sin very seriously - and we don't get high marks for "doing our best". Jesus makes it very clear what He is and will be looking for: true faith evidenced by being His disciple. He sent the Holy Spirit to help us do what is impossible for us to do on our own...to lay down our lives, to repent and bend our knee in submission to the King of Kings. Without that - we have no hope. Without the Holy Spirit, we will not make it and we are certain to face wrath on That Day.

"For we are to God the sweet aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one, we are an odor of death and demise; to the other, a fragrance that brings life." 2 Corinthians 2:15-16

Biblical Fear

When I was growing up, I was taught that the "fear of the Lord" was akin to 'a healthy respect for' or 'reverence for', but I'm starting to question that. The other night, it occurred to me that there are two types of fear mentioned in the Bible; there is a fear which talks about how we relate to God and there is a fear/worry/anxiety about this world or regarding the things of this world. Here are some relevant Scriptures to help me illustrate this:

Matthew 10:28

"Do not be afraid of those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." (NIV)

This, to me, is the clearest passage that distinguishes the difference. Jesus is clearly saying here - do not fear this world because the worst it can do is destroy your physical body, but after that it has no power. God, however, has the power to send you to eternal torment and punishment in hell. If we aren't found in Him on the day when Jesus returns, then we will face His wrath - which certainly merits fear...actual fear.

1 John 4:18-19

"Where there is love there is no reason to be afraid; indeed, love that is blameless drive fear away. Fear, after all, anticipates what? Punishment. If someone fears punishment, he still hasn't been made blameless in love. We love because he first loved us." (Blessed Hope Translation**)

I used to think this was one of those passages that was saying I shouldn't be afraid of God because, "God is love". In reality however, I think it is saying the opposite. I think this is saying that if we live in the Messiah's love, and by that I mean live it out, then we have nothing to fear. But to the one who builds his own Kingdom - to the one who walks around with this "I am awesome" mentality; that person has reason to fear. The verses immediately prior to the passage I quoted highlights this, "Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgement..." (1 John 4:16-17) Implied in verse 16 is that if you do not live in love, you do not live in God and God does not live in you. If love is not made complete in you (verse 17), then you do not have reason for confidence on the day of judgement. Jesus even goes on, a few chapters later, to explain what it means to love him. He says, "On that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you. Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me." (John 14:20-21, Berean Study Bible)

Hebrews 10:26-27

"If we go on sinning deliberately, you see, after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there is no other sacrifice being held in reserve to atone for sins. No, the only thing held in store now is a terrifying dread of judgement and of fire a blazing fury, a fire which is ready God's foes to devour." (Blessed Hope Translation)

"If we deliberately go on sinning after we have received the knowledge of truth, no further sacrifice for sins remains, but only a fearful expectation of judgement and raging fire that will consume all adversaries." (NIV)

To me, this verse couples well with Matthew 12:30 - "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters." If we are living in God's love, obeying his commandments and relying on the power of the Holy Spirit to keep us holy - then we have nothing to fear, we are "co-heirs with Messiah" (Romans 8:17). If we are being disobedient, however, we are enemies of God and we have only "a terrifying dread of judgement".

Matthew 6:25-27

"For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap, nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life?" (NASB)

The things Jesus lists here, food, drink, clothing - they are all things of this world. "Do not fear a lack of basic needs, or make this life all about the things of this world" is basically what he is saying. His summary statement after this is "But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and ALL THESE THINGS will be added to you."

Hebrews 13:5-6

"Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you." So we say with confidence, "The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can mere mortals do to me?"

Implied here again is that the world and the things it can do to us; we are not to be afraid of these things.

Another interesting story to consider is that of Adam & Eve. After they ate the forbidden fruit, we read this: "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, "Where are you?" He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." (Genesis 3:8-10)
Adam knew that he had broken God's law and he was afraid...and not just a 'reverential fear', but a fear that caused him to literally hide from God. We don't hide from things that we don't have an actual fear of.


I think the bottom-line is that my view of God has been too small. Francis Chan talks about this some in his book "Crazy Love", but that's really is what is comes down to. It makes me think about Job, who sat there and demanded God to give him audience and then God shows up and this is what God says, "Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now gird up your loins like a man, and I will ask you, and you instruct me! Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding, who set its measurements? Since you know."" (Job 38:1-5, NASB) Job's response is perfect, he says, "Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to you? I lay my hand on my mouth. Once I have spoken, and I will not answer; even twice, and I will add nothing more." (Job 40:4-5) His breath is literally taken away and you can tell from his response that he now has an appropriate concept of who God is and how unsurpassably great and awesome He is. I need to work on this.

I think fear gets a bad rap - especially spiritual fear. People say that fear is a bad motivator, or that things done out of fear don't last. I don't think that's wrong - but I think fear can be an excellent catalyst for change. I think God's ultimate aim is that we come to love and adore Him and that love will be what motivates our on-going walk with Him (see John 4 above)...but for a lot of people, myself included, the thing that got me on that path towards loving Him was a healthy dose of fear...a kick in the rear, a fire under my butt. It was God saying, "Adam, if you continue in the direction you are going, you will not grow up, you will not mature and the seed of Truth that was planted in you will get choked out and die." It was the 'fearful expectation of judgement' and the realization that I was on a road to destruction.

**A man named Tim Miller, who I have learned a great deal from, recently finished and published his own translation of the New Testament (from the original Greek) and you can access that translation by going to his website, blessedhope.life. He sought to put together a faithful, fully transparent translation and the end result is fantastic, I highly recommend it.

...To The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel

How many times have you read or heard Matthew 15:24?

"He answered them, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel."

A companion verse is in Luke's gospel, a little less specific, but similar in tone, "For the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost." (Luke 19:10) In this instance, Jesus is speaking to Zacchaeus, and it is important to note that Zacchaeus was a Jewish tax-collector, Jesus refers to him as a 'descendant of Abraham'.

The question begs itself, what does Jesus mean by "only to the lost sheep of The House of Israel?" I think the answer to this question lies at the very heart of God and demands Gentile believers consider and come to terms with some very difficult truths. These truths have been distorted over the past 2,000 years and the consequences are subtle, yet potentially profound.

The simple fact that no one, Jew or Gentile, would disagree with, is that Jesus himself was Jewish. He was born to Jewish parents, he was a descendant of the House of David, he was circumcised on the 8th day (Luke 2:21) according to Jewish law and tradition (Leviticus 12:3), and he was brought up and raised in the Jewish custom. He went through years of training and school to become a Jewish Rabbi, who were considered the foremost experts in writings of the Law and the Prophets (what we call "the Old Testament") and who were given the responsibility to teach the People of Israel. This would have, most likely, included memorizing the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, along with other writings. There's no getting around it - Jesus was a Jew in every possible way, and not only that, He had been steeped in the entire history and heritage of the Jewish people. He spent the vast predominance of his time speaking to the people of Israel and to their teachers and leaders. Furthermore, all of Jesus' Apostles were Jewish and all of the New Testament writers are Jewish. Paul, in particular, was a Pharisee ("Pharisee of Pharisees" Philippians 3:5) before his encounter with Jesus which meant that he was also an expert in the Law and the Prophets. Before coming to terms with who Jesus was, he was literally killing followers of Jesus because of the claims that they were making about Jesus (namely, that he was the Messiah) - that's how much of a Pharisee he was... Put simply - the ENTIRE Bible is steeped in Jewish culture and thought.

So the questions we must wrestle with are - does the fact that Jesus was Jewish (of the House of Israel) matter? What does removing the Jewishness of Jesus do to our understanding of who he was and what he was doing? Perhaps even, "if we don't acknowledge Jesus' Jewishness, and seek an understanding of the culture He himself was speaking to, is it even possible to rightly understand who He was and what He was about?"

I have few answers, but many questions.

I cannot take credit for this insight, but one thing I have come to realize recently is, you either view the Bible as having continuity between the Old and New Testaments, or you view Jesus as having done something different, or started something new, in the New Testament (discontinuity). Another way of saying it would be - either you view Jesus as further revelation of who God is, providing a perfect sacrifice and then pointing us to His return or you view Jesus (or Paul) as having started something new, changing God's plan part-way through the story.

This leads us to a brief but important discussion on something called 'supersessionism' (also called "replacement theology"). It's a seminarian term that simply refers to this idea, which is running rampant in the church today, which suggests that Jesus ushered in a 'new covenant' which supersedes the 'old covenant' which was made directly and exclusively to the Jewish people. Supersessionism is the ideology of those that claim that The Church is "the new Israel" or that the Israel of the Old Testament has been replaced by The Church. Proponents of this view will point to Jeremiah 31:31-32 and Hebrews 8:8-9 (which quotes the Jeremiah 31 passage):

"The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt - a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord." (Jeremiah 31:31-32)

"For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said: "The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord."" (Hebrews 8:7-9)

Jesus also speaks of the 'new covenant', when he is eating the Passover meal with his disciples. He says, "In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant of My blood, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."" (Matthew 26:28) So, Jesus certainly has something to do with the New Covenant, but when you read the totality of Jeremiah 31, an image of Jesus being the fulfillment of this prophecy in his first coming, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The overall tone and spirit of Jeremiah 31 is that of complete liberation and salvation - much more of a Heavenly motif and feel than an Earthly one. I would like to suggest (and again, this is not my insight but something I have learned from others) that what Jeremiah is referring to is chapter 31 is actually talking about the second coming of the Messiah. Read it for yourself with that lens and tell me that doesn't make more sense. To me, it is an image of God regathering His people to himself and the 'new covenant' he talks about is that of perfect union or marriage. He says, "...no longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another "Know the Lord," because they will all know me..." Not only that, but Jesus himself says that the New Covenant is in His blood, but is unto the forgiveness of sins. We are told to, as believers, to ask for forgiveness continually, in this life, but ultimately, we are looking to that Day when we stand before him and our sins are not counted against us, making us worthy to inherit Eternal Life.

What Jesus is doing here (Matt. 26) is revising the sacrificial system, not doing away with the Old Covenant. In ancient times, the Israelites had a system, established by God through Moses for how they could be forgiven of unintentional sin. Depending on who they were - if they sinned and became aware of it, they were to bring an animal to the temple, with the help of the priest they placed that sin upon the head of the animal which was then slaughtered; the blood was sprinkled around the alter and the animal was sacrificed.

Jesus is saying there is now a new way - as Hebrews says, "a new and perfect Sacrifice" - a single Sacrifice that covers all Sin, for all time. He is saying to his disciples, "I will bear your sin, I am the offering to the Lord on your behalf and placing your trust in my sacrifice is how you will be able to stand before me on That Day and not have your sins accounted to you." As Jeremiah says, it is not like the other covenants that God has made, where there was some onus on the people of Israel to hold up their end...no, this Covenant is unilateral. "If you trust in Jesus and in his Sacrifice for you on the Cross, that is the means by which you can stand blameless before him when He returns." Jesus did all the work - our side of the deal is to trust that God accepts Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf. To bring it all the way back around - those who put their trust in Jesus' blood

Are you starting to see what I'm saying when I talk about how critical it is to know the Jewish history and tradition within the Bible in order to accurately and rightly understand what Jesus and his Apostles are saying/doing?

Speaking personally now, I have struggled and wrestled with this a lot over the past several months - currently, I feel I have a strong grasp on the fact that our faith is a Jewish faith, but I'm wrestling with what to do with that, not in a political way, but as a Gentile disciple. It is difficult to wrap our minds around the fact that God would choose to be identified by an ethnicity, of this there is no doubt. But it's true - He is the (self-identified) 'God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob' - he is the 'God of Israel'. He chose Abraham and through that line, came Jesus and out of that comes the offer of salvation to the whole world...but it is still a Jewish faith. The Jewishness of it is the background of the story that we need in order to fully/accurately understand what Jesus, Paul and the other Apostles are talking about. In other words, the 'Jewishness' of the gospel in inextricable - to extricate it is, quite possibly, to have a different gospel than the one Jesus was preaching because it ignores the context and expectation around it.