Unconditional Covenant Marriage Not Biblical?

The idea of covenant marriage has become popular within Christian circles. Gary Chapman's book "Covenant Marriage" has a lot of good material that is beneficial to marriages. However, he seems to define a covenant relationship as unconditional. I'm not so sure that is the case.

The Marriage Metaphor

First, marriage is used as a metaphor for the covenant God has with Israel. However, the covenant that was established was similar to those established by kings with cities that they had conquered. In fact, God's covenant is similar to treaties made by Hittite kings. The king of the covenant would have a vested interest in keeping the covenant, not because he loved them but because if he lost the city, it would be a loss of his empire and may encourage other cities to revolt. That's what's so great about God's covenant with Israel, in that His relationship with them was unusual, because He really does love Israel.

Covenants are conditional

Covenants can be broken. If they can be broken, then there are conditions for breaking them. They are conditional. The Bible mentions numerous times that Israel broke God's covenant:

Hosea 6:7
Like Adam, they have broken the covenant--they were unfaithful to me there.

God even divorces Israel (the Northern Kingdom):

Jeremiah 3:8
I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery.

God revokes his covenant with the nations of the earth

Zechariah 10:11
Then I took my staff called Favor and broke it, revoking the covenant I had made with all the nations.

Why stick with a broken covenant?

So covenants can be broken, they are conditional, they can be ended. That's the great thing about God and His covenant with Israel. He maintains his side of the covenant even though it has been broken. He does not choose another people to be His people. This would have been considered unusual. Hosea is a great metaphor. Even though his wife was unfaithful, he did not choose another wife. Why does God stick with the Israelites even after they broke the covenant? Chapman might suggest that it is because of "steadfast" love. God certainly is loving but Scripture suggests a different reason:

Isaiah 48:11
“For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another.

It's not because of the covenant that God sticks with them and it's not because of His love, but rather for His own name's sake.

Stop Learning and Start Thinking

From time to time, I've questioned my decision not to go to seminary and pursue a career in academia. Blog posts like Brian LePort's "You’re going to be an adjunct and it is going to be terrible." makes me feel like I've made the right decision.

I recently watched this video of then 11 year old Jason Barnett's "Forget What You Know". The more I think about it, the more powerful I think it is. He talks about, not only himself, but also how Isaac Newton stopped going to Cambridge because of The Plague. It was during that time that he developed some of his best work - because he stopped learning and started thinking. I've found this to be true in my Biblical studies as well.

What does "Abraham's Bosom" mean?

Michael Patton recently posted on "Where Did Old Testament Saints Think They Went When They Died?".   I responded here. Patton's post sparked some discussion in the comments section about "Abraham's Bosom". A phrase found in Luke 16:22:

Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried

The discussion led me to Patton's post The Myth of “Abraham’s Bosom”. Patton sees that phrase as relational and not as a place. I agree but I don't think that necessitates a 2 part Hades doesn't/didn't exist. I would like to expand on the idea of "Abraham's Bosom" as being relational. The phrase is also found in the ancient Book of Jubilees:

Book of Jubilees 22:26
And the two lay together on one bed, and Jacob slept in the bosom of Abraham, his father's father and he kissed him seven times, and his affection and his heart rejoiced over him.

Book of Jubilees 23:1-2
And he placed two fingers of Jacob on his eyes, and he blessed the God of gods, and he covered his face and stretched out his feet and slept the sleep of eternity, and was gathered to his fathers. And notwithstanding all this Jacob was lying in his bosom, and knew not that Abraham, his father's father, was dead.

Closing the eyes of a dead father, was the privilege of the first-born son. By having Jacob close his eyes when he died, Abraham is declaring Jacob as his firstborn. This has implications for inheritance as the first-born son received a double portion of inheritance.

I think it is likely that Luke's readers were familiar with this story and recognized that Jesus was saying something about Lazarus' relationship to Abraham and possibly suggesting that Lazarus would receive an inheritance at the end of the age.

The phrase "sleep of eternity" is also used in the Book of Jubilees. Does this support the idea of soul sleep? The phrase "gathered to his fathers" is also used. Gathered where? Does this support the idea of a conscious afterlife?

Where Did Old Testament Saints Think They Went When They Died?

Michael Patton asks that question over at Parchment and Pen. He lays out the Biblical basis for believers going to heaven after they die but then adds:

However, it does not seem to be the case with Old Testament believers. They present themselves as those who fear death a great deal more than most of us are comfortable with. In fact, in some cases, it looks like they don’t believe in heaven at all.

He then lays out a number of O.T. verses that he feels supports that view, such as Psalm 6:5

For in death there is no remembrance of you; in Sheol who will give you praise?

He then offers three options of how to deal with it:

1. There is no intermediate state
2. Old Testament believes did believe in a conscious intermediate state
3. Old Testament believers did not believe in a conscious intermediate state, but this does not mean that there is not one

I would choose #2. Here's why:

Patton (and others) understands "Sheol" as meaning "death/grave" but Sheol was thought of as the place of the dead. Everyone went there, even if they were an Old Testament saint. It was understood to be under the earth. Other ancient near east texts support this idea of an underworld and Old Testament writers make no attempt to correct this idea. Translators of the Septuagint translate the world "Sheol" as "Hades" and Hades was thought of as an underworld place of the dead. I should note that Hades is not the same as what we think of as hell today.

Samuel seems to be in an intermediate state when the Witch of Endor brings him up "out of the earth" (1Sam 28). This would conform with the idea of an underworld.

New Testament writers also agree that Old Testament saints did not go to heaven:

John 3:13
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.

Acts 2:34
For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand

However, this all changes when Christ dies. Christ releases the saints from Sheol/Hades when he ascends to heaven. The "Gates of Hades" would not prevail as it were (Mat 16:18). At this point all future saints ascend to heaven at death and we come into alignment of Patton's understanding of the afterlife.

Questions in John 1

Brian Leport at Near Emmaus asks some good questions regarding elements of John Chapter 1. Brian writes:

Moses is part of the discussion in John 1. In 1:14 the Logos/Word becomes flesh (σὰρξ ἐγένετο), tabernacles among “us” (Israel? Humanity? ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν), and he seen by the author(s) of the Prologue. John the Baptist is cited as a witness toward Jesus’ exalted status. The community adds their witness as having received Jesus’ “fullness” of grace. Then the author(s) says that Moses gave the Law, but Jesus the Messiah brought grace (ἡ χάρις) and truth (ἡ ἀλήθεια). Does this mean Moses did not bring grace and truth? Is the first part of that combination in need of emphasis, i.e., Moses did bring truth, but not grace?

Although it is true that Moses is mentioned in Chapter 1, I don't think the emphasis is on him. In other Scriptures (1 John 4:12, 1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Timothy 6:16) that talk about not seeing God, there is no mention of Moses and so I think the context is larger than Moses. If John is writing to correct false teachings, then this would imply that someone in the Church at that time was claiming they had seen God. This is the context that we should read verse 18 in. This could tie in with the idea of two Christs, which John rejects by referring to the other Christ as the antichrist.

Furthermore, Moses did bring grace (I prefer the word "favor") but it was favor limited to the Jews. Only the Jews were God's people. Jesus also brought favor and he brought it for the Gentiles too. The emphasis should be on the second part: truth. No one was denying that Jesus brought favor for everyone, but there is evidence that there were those that were saying that Jesus was lying about it. That's why Jesus often says "Truly, truly" or "I tell you the truth".