The Bible is by far the most-published and most-bought book in history. Yet it is not nearly as much read as it is purchased, and it is even less understood. This paper will give readers a relatively brief but thorough overview of the Bible and will address common difficulties and objections encountered when studying the Bible. In seeking the meaning of the Bible, this inquiry is concerned most of all with the question, �Is there a consistent message and theme from beginning to end?� Remarkably, despite its numerous authors writing over a historical span of about 1600 years, the Bible is not a fragmented book lacking continuity, but a coherent account of God and mankind with a powerful central theme: God is working in history to create a people for Himself, holy and eager to do good, from among all nations. According to the Bible, history is to be understood as the unfolding and extension of God�s sovereign plan to glorify himself by redeeming and purifying a people for himself from all nations. The best summary of this is in Titus 2:13-14: �our great God and Savior Jesus Christ . . . gave himself for us to redeem from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.� Glorifying himself and redeeming people are both fundamental: �God is most glorified when his people are most satisfied in him,� theologian John Piper explains. The Westminister Catechism puts it this way: �The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.� God is not like a human egotist out for self-glory; God seeks the proper state of the world in which humans freely chose him, thereby glorifying him and simultaneously coming into their most-satisfied, realized state. We will walk our way through the Bible, discussing important doctrines and questions of Biblical continuity as we go. Also as we proceed, we will encounter and address the following common misconceptions about the Bible:

* The Hebrew God is parochial in giving the Jews most-favored-nation status.

* The Hebrew God is a vengeful, wrathful God while the Christian God is a gentle, loving Father-figure.

* The Old and New Testaments present different moralities.

* The Old and New Testaments lack real continuity.

* The Hebrew and Christian God is unjust.

* The early Hebrews were henotheists, not monotheists.

* The Bible shows the evolution of the idea of God.

* The God of the Bible is anthropomorphic.

* God�s will is arbitrary and his purposes in history are incomprehensible.

* Christianity was a religion founded by Paul, not Jesus.

* Jesus and Paul taught different things regarding the Law of Moses.

* Jesus was basically a good moral teacher who taught people to love each other.

* Jesus� great contribution to the world was his morality of love.

* Jesus never claimed to be God or the Messiah.

In view of these problems, a central concern will be the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament: the continuities and discontinuities between them. As we study these issues, a Biblical philosophy of history will emerge. The method of our exploration will be a chronological journey through the Bible, exploring key doctrines whenever they arise, then looking to the entire Bible to see whether or not there is legitimate continuity. For example, when we encounter the doctrine of creation in Genesis, we will pause before moving on to see whether or not the New Testament teaches the same doctrine. Doctrines such as the resurrection and the Holy Spirit, which play less of a role in Judaism than in Christianity will be dealt with as part of the New Testament, even though there are Old Testament precedents. So, by the time we reach the New Testament, we will already have explored much of the New Testament in depth. The only key doctrine not handled in this way is the overarching theme of God�s worldwide redemptive and evangelistic purposes in history, which will be demonstrated at each step in our chronological journey through the Bible.

The Old Testament can be divided into two parts: 1) The Problem Introduced (Genesis 1 - 11), and 2) The Operation of God's Plan (Genesis 12 - Malachai 4). Both parts reveal God's overarching redemptive purpose, not just to one nation (as a surface inspection would indicate), but to every nation. The introductory chapters of Genesis deal with humanity collectively, and the second portion deals with the Hebrew people and the role they play in God�s universal evangelistic and redemptive purposes.

From the very beginning, God reveals his universal claims to all mankind. Genesis describes how God made everything good and how human misused their freedom to rebel against God under the temptation and lies of the serpent. Genesis 1-2 contains five crucial doctrines in the Judeo-Christian worldview. First, God created everything that exists. The doctrine of creation implies that we are totally dependent upon God as the all-powerful provider of our existence, our freedom, and our world. It also tells us that everything God created was good; at the end of each of the creation acts, Genesis states that �God saw that it was good.� Certainly things in the world can be misused, to our own destruction, but everything God created was good. The New Testament teaches this message as well: �hypocritical liars . . . forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe the truth. For everything God created is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the Word of God and prayer. . . . God . . . richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment� (1 Timothy 4:1-8, 6:17). God has sacrilized the entire creation by calling it good (�the Word of God�), and giving us all things richly to enjoy. God is not a killjoy or a advocate of asceticism; he does, insist, though, that we not misuse his gifts and use them only as he intended, and this too is for our good, that we may not nullify the enjoyment God had intended for us.

The Judeo-Christian understanding of creation is that God�s creation of the world was a creation ex nihilo (out-of-nothing) as something distinct from his essence. In contrast, Pantheists and monists claim that God created the world by extension of his essence, thus God is immanent in everything, and everything partakes of divinity. The advantage of the Judeo-Christian creation doctrine is that it allows God to be separate from the processes and realities of the world. Whereas Hindus must claim that evil and destruction (Shiva and Kalyma) are part of God, Jews and Christians because of their creation doctrine can claim in contrast that in God there is any impurity or evil. For the monist, there is no real distinction between good and evil; everything is in the process of being, becoming, and destruction, as symbolized in the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. Because Genesis specifies that God is separate from the creation, Jews and Christians believe in a real qualitative distinction between good and evil. There implications about the nature of God and morality are far-reaching.

The second key doctrine of Genesis 1-2 is that humans are created in God�s image (1:26-27). What does this mean? Clearly it doesn�t mean that God has a body, though he is described metaphorically as �walking through the garden in the cool of the day� (3:8). In context, as Catholic theologian Dorothy Sayers points out, God is known primarily as a Creator God; so to be made in God�s image is to be likewise a creator. Humans build and create artistically in ways that no other known creature does. Humans are to be creatively engaged in fruitful work. Some people mistakenly claim that work is a part of the curse, a result of the fall. But this is emphatically not true. God himself is described as working and as resting and that all he had made was very good. God puts Adam �in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it� before the Fall or the curse (2:15). God creates woman as a �helper� to share in man�s work (2:20). So, part of the divine image is the capacity for creative work. Many theologians hold that the divine image, a.k.a. the �principle of individuation� between human and animal, is �personality,� the possession of rationality and agency (free will) and the capacity for interpersonal relationships. Many philosophers and theologians summarize these characteristics as �mind.� On the important implications of humans bearing God�s image is that every individual human life is sacrosanct. Collectivist and consequentialist ethical systems that subordinate individuals to abstractions like �humanity� are not permissible.

Free will is the third doctrine of Genesis 1-2. God gives humans the choice to eat of the tree of good and evil or not. Freedom implies the possibility of doing evil, of choosing to disobey. The belief in freedom is not conspicuously absent in most monist systems and materialist systems. For monists, distinct personality is an illusion, since all are part of the continuum of the divine spirit; no individual is a distinct free moral agent. For many materialists, such as Behaviorists, humans are determined by sociological, psychological, or biochemical factors and conditionings. That humans possess significant moral freedom and undetermined action is part of their bearing God�s image and being morally responsible targets of praise and blame.

The fourth key doctrine is dominion. According to this doctrine, humans are appointed as regents and rulers of the earth to take care of it and use it productively. In Genesis 1:26, God says, �let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.� God charges Adam and Eve to ��Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground�� (1:28). The implications of this doctrine include the subduing of nature by medicine, technology, and scientific understanding. This is not a license for destruction, though, but a mandate for responsible use and stewardship of the earth for human purposes, which are higher than those of other animals because only humans are made in God�s image. Initially, God gives humans only the fruit of trees to eat, but later he gives them meat to eat as well (Genesis 9:3), another implication of the doctrine of dominion.

The fifth central doctrine of the first two chapters of Genesis is the doctrine of marriage and sexuality. God observes Adam alone, and says, ��It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him�� (2:18). It is �for this reason [that] a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh� (2:24). Monogamous marriage is one of the most important ways humans can realize themselves as cooperative workers and partakers of a deep unity symbolized by and expressed in the sexual act, an act reserved exclusively for this context for which it was designed and ordained by God for its most perfect and enriching use. As implied in the doctrine of creation, God designed sex as a great blessing, but it can easily misused outside the intended domain of marriage, with consequences of eventual unnecessary pain and hurt for all involved and missing out on the highest pleasure God intended. God designed marriage as blessing, but it, too, can easily be misused as a short-term convenience instead of as intended, as a lifelong partnership, with consequences of unnecessary pain for all involved (especially children) and missing out on the highest enjoyment God intended.

Interpretive debates about Genesis 1-2 have raged for many centuries. Is it necessary to interpret Genesis 1 as a literal, scientific explanation of natural history? Does belief in the Bible require repudiation of the theory of evolution? Does belief in the Bible require belief in a young earth 6,000-10,000 years old? Probably not (to all three questions). The essentials of Genesis 1-2 are theological, i.e. the five doctrines mentioned above. All liberal theologians as well as many conservative theologians since Darwin have held that these doctrines can be reasonably maintained without holding to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2. The stickiest is of course, the doctrine that humans are made in God�s image, and its corollaries, the doctrines of dominion and free will. Traditional Catholic doctrine teaches theistic evolution, i.e. that the human body evolved naturally with God directing the evolutionary process, and intervening at a certain time to implant the soul (God�s image) into evolved human bodies. B.B. Warfield was a conservative Protestant who also held that biological evolution was compatible with Christianity, so long as it was directed and not assumed to be random. The important thing was not how God may have created the world, but that it was God who created it, and not blind matter in a closed naturalistic system. In the nineteenth century, most Christians thought that the best theology should incorporate the best science, since nature as well as the Bible are revelations from God; the theologian Charles Hodge wrote, �we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science.� Anti-evolutionism was not a traditional belief of nineteenth century conservative Protestants or even of early twentieth century fundamentalists. Creation science, i.e. the anti-evolutionary theory that the earth�s appearance of age can be accounted for by the cataclysms of the flood, was started by George McCready Price, a Seventh Day Adventist whose doctrine required a young earth. Creation science was popularized among conservative Protestants by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb who expanded Price�s work starting in the 1960�s. There are still major problems in evolutionary theory, but even if true, evolution poses no serious threat to Biblical religions since it does not refute any of the five major creation doctrines. However, if further scientific work, not predetermined by naturalistic metaphysics, disfavors evolutionary theory, the resulting absence of a good alternate theory to special creation of advanced organisms would strongly support belief in a Creator and also a more literal reading of Genesis.

The young earth doctrine was popularized by Archbishop Usshner, who in the 1640�s used Biblical genealogies to calculate that Creation occurred on October 3, 4004. Usshner�s chronology was printed in the margins of King James Version English Bibles for centuries, and was incorporated into the fundamentalists� anti-evolutionism in the 1920�s. Usshner assumed that there were no gaps in the genealogies and that the �days� of creation (the Hebrew word yom can refer to indefinite spans of time) were 24-hour periods. Both of these assumptions are doubted by many Christian scholars, and belief in a young earth is not essential to Christian belief by any means.

According to Christian theology, the serpent, which the New Testament identifies as Satan, �that ancient serpent� (Revelation 12:9, 20:2), had previously led an angelic rebellion against God. This event is cryptically described in Isaiah 14:12-15. The phrase �morning star� (v.12) is rendered �Lucifer� in the Vulgate, hence the name Lucifer is usually given for Satan before his rebellion. The passage in Isaiah refers immediately to the king of Babylon, but many interpreters understand the passage to have a dual meaning, or typological meaning, related to Satan. This is typical of much Old Testament prophecy. Isaiah says that Lucifer has been cast down to the earth and fallen from heaven on account of his pride, his wanting to �make [him]self like the Most High� (v.15). A similar passage in Ezekiel has also been typologically interpreted to refer to Stan, while its immediate meaning relates to the king of Tyre:

Related New Testament passages refer to Satan falling to earth (Luke 10:18), though Jesus appears to speak of this as a contemporary event, and to a war in heaven after which Satan is cast out of heaven and hurled to earth along with his angels (Revelation 12:7-9), though this appears to refer to a future event. None of these passages are very clear, but the typological interpretation of prophecy is not unreasonable since this is common in the Old Testament and all that is said in these passages, for example of the king of Tyre in Ezekiel, cannot possibly refer only to the immediate person involved. For example, �you were in Eden� cannot possibly refer to the historical king of Tyre. Is the Christian interpretation of the serpent as Satan justified. I think so, since it is done principally on the basis of Old Testament text, and since there are no better alternatives: who besides a pre-existent rebellious creature could have spoken through a serpent and deceived humans by arousing in them questions of God�s goodness and truthfulness?

All this history of the angels is quite ambiguous, but what is clear is that in Eden humans freely choose to disobey the one command God gave them, �you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die� (Genesis 2:17), and by that disobedience bring evil and death into the world. The serpent calls this command into question: �Did God really say, �You must not eat from any tree in the garden�?� (3:1); �You will not surely die . . . For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil� (3:4-5). The serpent effects the temptation by making Eve doubt God�s goodness, implying that God withholds good things, and his truthfulness, by telling her she will not surely die. Finally, he offers her the temptation to be like God. Eve consents to disobey God, and Adam joins her in disobedience. As the serpent promised, their eyes are opened and they realize they are naked and clothe themselves with leaves. God understands that humans have become like him in their knowledge of good and evil and must not be allowed to live forever by eating from the tree of life (4:22). So, God drives Adam and Eve from Eden and places cherubim around the tree of life to prevent their eating of it.

The story of Adam and Eve has been understood both as an historical account and as a mythic description of self-consciousness. Christian advocates of the historical interpretation argue that both Jesus and Paul viewed Adam as a historical figure, and that Paul�s theology of original sin rests on the actual historicity of the Fall. Advocates of the mythic interpretation see the story as a presentation of the philosophical claim that humans possess God�s image and that that image has been defaced. According to the Catholic G.K. Chesterton, the story �may be historic or symbolic, but cannot be more important than what it symbolizes. . . . The point of the allegory is that . . . we have misused a good world, not that we�re trapped in a bad one� (The Thing 225). The Catholic Dorothy Sayers says that the lesson is �evil is the price we pay for knowledge, especially knowledge of the type we call self-consciousness� (Creed or Chaos XX). The principle problem for Christians who opt for the mythic interpretation is that they undercut the doctrine of original sin, which is the very basis for the universal need for Christ�s redemption. If humans have the capacity to be perfectly good, then no Savior is needed. But does the text itself suggest the Christian theological interpretation (i.e. a collective fall of the race of Adam, from which redemption is needed) or is it an alien hypothesis forced onto the text? There are three principle clues in Genesis which suggest the original sin/ redemption model (i.e. Christian theology) is the right interpretation.

First, Adam and Eve�s disobedience is followed by God�s placing a curse upon the serpent, women, men, and the earth. The idea is that natural evil is a result of free human rebellion. Women�s pain in childbirth is a result of human free choice of evil; the frustration of work is a result; even death itself is a result: �and to dust you will return� (3:19). All natural evil is a consequence of human disobedience; the world as we know it, the world which includes death, pain, frustration, and suffering, is not natural. As Chesterton points out, this is a remarkably encouraging view of life, for it claims that evil and suffering can and should be resisted and opposed, and that such action is not opposition to God. This teaching about natural evil accords with New Testament theology:

The serpent�s claim that �You will not surely die� was a lie; on that day they did die, not physically, but spiritually, for the cessation of communion with God they had previously enjoyed was indeed a death. Moreover, on that day, they were bound over to the inevitability of physical death as a consequence of sin. �On the day you eat of the tree you will surely die� (Genesis 2:17) has its New Testament parallel in Romans 6:23: �for the wages of sin is death.�

Second, within the curse, God offers a prophecy of redemption. He tells the serpent, �I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel� (Genesis 3:15). What is odd is that this is the only place in the Old Testament when the word �seed� is used to refer to a woman, though the word is used in reference to men hundreds of times. Jews in the pre-Christian era understood this as a Messianic prophecy, and Christians have understood it as a prophecy of the Virgin birth of Christ as well as the life of Christ, which included a seemingly mortal strike on the heel from Satan (the crucifixion) yet a final triumph of Christ over Satan crushing his head (the resurrection and final judgment). Paul advocates such an interpretation, as seen in his claim that �The God of Peace will soon crush Satan under your feet� (Romans 16:20). Genesis 3:15 is further support that the serpent is Satan, for why would God describe in such a convoluted way the mere hierarchical relationship between humans and snakes?

Third, future redemption seems to be the only explanation for God�s enigmatic barring of the tree of life. The last book of the New Testament describes the heavenly city in which �no longer will there be any curse� (Revelation 22:3) and in which those who overcome will be given the right to eat of the tree of life (2:7, 22:2). By barring human access to the tree of life in humanity�s fallen state, God was able to ensure the possibility of offering an eternal life free from the vagaries of bondage to decay as a result of the curse. This sounds like limitations on God�s omnipotence, but God is limited by his own holiness to the exclusion of overlooking sin without punishing it and to the exclusion of acting unjustly or meanly. Thus, only by barring the tree of life could God subsequently bring eternal salvation to those who had fallen into the trap of death by their own free rebellion.

Thus, the Genesis 3 account of the Fall accords with the New Testament interpretation that sin leads to death and other forms of natural evil, that God has a redemptive plan which involves the defeat of sin and evil, which entered the world through free creaturely rebellion. But does Genesis support the doctrine of original sin, i.e. that the consequences of Adam�s sin, namely death and the �Fall of Man,� apply equally to his offspring as to himself? Paul states the doctrine as follows: �sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to call men� (Romans 5:12). Though Genesis does not state this doctrine explicitly, it is implied in the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 if understood as described above and in the barring of the tree of life, not only to Adam and Eve, but to their descendants as well. Moreover, the consequences of natural evil clearly do not terminate with Adam and Eve: women experience pain in childbirth after her; work is toilsome and frustrating after them; people continue to die after them. The Bible describes no separate curse for Adam and Eve�s children or for anyone subsequently which we would expect if original sin were not part of the Genesis account, i.e. if God�s dealings with humanity were not largely collective in nature. Furthermore, the Jewish expectation for a Messiah/Savior implies at least a mild form of the original sin doctrine, i.e. that the whole world required salvation. Finally, other parts of the Old Testament support the doctrine of original sin: �every inclination of [man�s] heart is evil from childhood� (Genesis 9:21); �there is no one who does not sin� (1 Kings 8:46); �All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one� (Psalm 14:3); �Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me� (Psalm 51:5); �Everyone has turned away, they have together becomes corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one� (Psalm 53:3); �There is not a man on earth who does what is right and never sins� (Ecclesiastes 7:20); �All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags� (Isaiah 64:6).

So, the Genesis text itself supports a Christian theological interpretation of original sin and the need for redemption. There is no Old Testament-New Testament discontinuity here. Some fall-event must be historical if these doctrines are to be reasonable. I leave it to the reader to decide whether or not these doctrines can be reasonably maintained by a mythical interpretation of Genesis 3.

A common objection raised early in Genesis is, �Where did Cain�s wife [4:17] come from?� Since Genesis explains that there was only one woman alive at the time Cain and Abel were born, Cain�s wife must have been a daughter of Eve. Daughters are usually not mentioned in the Old Testament text, unless they play an important role in the narrative history, so for example, in the genealogy of Genesis 5, only the eldest son is mentioned and then it is said that so-and-so �had other sons and daughters.� It is likely that Cain�s wife was one of these other daughters. But Genesis 5:4 says that �After Seth was born, Adam . . . had other sons and daughters.� There are two possibilities: first, that Seth�s birth (4:25) happened before Cain lay with his wife (4:17); or second, that a daughter was born before both events, but was not mentioned. Either seems plausible. Another issue raised by the Genesis 5 genealogy is the long lifespans: 930, 912, 905, 910, 895, 962, 969, and 777 years. Can these possibly be true? First, it is instructive to note that compared to mythical characters from other religions, their lifespans are rather short. Some of the characters of the Hindu Ramayana are tens of thousands of years old. Second, Genesis records an abrupt ending to these long lifespans after 6:3: �the Lord said, �My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.�� This happened just before the flood, which may have significantly changed the atmosphere; or God may have worked some change in human physiology to shorten the human lifespan. So, the lifespans are not implausible and Genesis gives a precise reason why lifespans after Noah (and including our own) are shorter than before Noah. It seems that the implausibility of the long lifespans is more naturalistic prejudice than anything else. All this said, these two objections are fairly trivial. Some Christians would take these passages as mythic and still be able to support all the crucial doctrines.

Two other objections are more serious: similar near-eastern stories and the documentary hypothesis. Archeologists have found similar creation and flood stories from the ancient near-east. Creation stories such as the Babylonian Genesis , Enki and Ninmakh, and the Atrakhasis Epic share some features with the Genesis creation story: pre-existent deity, humans the highest creature and in some way a reflection of deity, man formed from the earth, and creation by divine command. The Babylonian Genesis presents a dualist system of finite gods, a considerable difference from the Genesis account of a single all-powerful God. There is a battle of the gods, also, in which Tiamat, the watery mother-figure from which the gods are born is killed by Marduk, the god of Babylon and hero of the story. Marduk forms the earth from her corpse and creates humans with a divine ingredient so they can keep the earth orderly, so that the gods can rest (this last theme is especially prevalent in ancient creation stories). Enki and Ninmakh, a Sumerian poem dating before 2000 BC, also portrays humans as substitute workers for the gods. The Atrakhasis Epic (c. 1600 BC) begins with minor gods irrigating the land, then relieved by the creation of humans (out of clay and the flesh and blood of a god) to do their work for them. Humans make too much noise, so they are destroyed in the flood (except for one family). Despite such similarities to Genesis, there is no mention of Edom, of a single Adam, of a separate creation of Eve, or of a fall. The message seems to be: this is how humans came to exist and have to work; now accept it. In contrast to these stories, Genesis teaches that work is good, that humans are not substitute workers for God, but co-laborers with God, that God is simple and supreme (rather than finite in a dualist system), that sin (not noise) was responsible for the flood. In light of these huge theological differences, the fact that there are similarities in some details only increases their credibility.

Concerning the flood, the Epic of Gilgamesh has some strikingly similar narrative details: Atrakhasis was warned by a god in a dream to build a boat, take his family and animals on board; he sent out birds to learn whether the land was habitable again; he offered a sacrifice on the mountain where his boat landed; the gods swore not to cause such destruction again. There are significant differences, too: Atrakhasis� survival was the result of a man-honoring god who violated the agreement of the gods not to tell humans that they were to be destroyed; in the dream, the god instructed Atrakhasis to explain his boat building to other people as a punishment inflicted upon him which would benefit them (i.e. to deceive them); after mankind was destroyed, the gods were miserable because they no longer had the food and drink supplied by human sacrificial offerings; the gods swore not to destroy mankind again because they did not want to lose the offerings again; as a further concession to the god of sleep, the Babylonian social system with religious orders was established; the theme of the epic is that humans cannot hope for immortality because only the Babylonian Atrakhasis gained it. Therefore, the moral and theological details of the Epic are so different from those of Genesis that it should not be held that Genesis is a copy of a myth that was prevalent at the time. Rather, in view of the worldwide memories of a great flood, suggest that such an event may actually have happened. (See also Eerdman�s Handbook to the Bible, pp. 129-130, 135.)

Another commonly-encountered objection is the Documentary Hypothesis, which was given its classical formulation by Julius Wellhausen around 1883. According to the hypothesis, most of the Old Testament was composed of two different narratives, the Elohist (E) and the Jahwist (J), which were edited by a priestly redactor (P), and to which the book of Deuteronomy (D) was added. The primary evidence for this is the use of two different names for God, Elohim and Jehovah (YHWH), in Genesis and the presence of two creation accounts (Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-25) and two flood stories (6:1-8 and 6:9-9:17). Scholars disagree considerably about this theory and it has become increasingly disfavored in recent years. The alleged two flood stories can easily be read as one and the alleged two creation stories can easily be read as an overview account, then a specific account of the sixth day when humans were created. There are more than two names for God in Genesis, for example, El Shaddai (meaning �God, the Mountain One�) in Genesis 17:1. Also, YHWH (lit., �I am who I am�) and Elohim (lit., Lord) often offer together as a single complex title. Names in the Old Testament have special significance as descriptors of identity and character; this is why many names for God are given. Even if the Documentary Hypothesis is granted, so long as there is not contradictory theology (which, while some hold, cannot be well substantiated), the theory poses no threat to Christianity. In should be noted in passing that the Judeo-Christian doctrine of Divine inspiration of the Bible does not mean that God revealed the Bible as a book from the sky without human sources, as Islam claims about the Qur�an. No, the human authorship of the Biblical books, along with their historical-cultural situatedness, is fully acknowledged; inspiration holds that God nevertheless spoke through them to record truth. The Documentary Hypothesis is no threat to this doctrine. (See also The International Bible Commentary, ed. Bruce, pp. 82-83.)

Moving back to the Genesis narrative itself, we come to the flood. After Adam and Eve, sin increased to the point that God sent a flood to judge the world and to �refresh� it by keeping alive only the family of righteous Noah. One of the ways sin reigned was through polygamy, introduced by Lamech (4:19), which was against the doctrine of marriage described above. Polygamy was not uncommon in the Old Testament, and appears to be, like many other practices, an evil God was willing to tolerate for a time. God intervenes often in history to judge sin, sometimes by natural disaster or pestilence, sometimes by using military force, and sometimes by letting a society collapse under the weight of its own corruption. God�s judgments of societies are not unjust, for judgment comes at the point when corruption has reached such a level that allowing it to continue is more unjust than to destroy it. By destroying an unjust society, God prevents it from destructively influencing other societies and from being an environment in which children have no chance for rising to a moral life. This action fully accords with God�s general purpose in history to redeem and gather to himself a people freely willing to do good. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18-19) gives further information related to the doctrine of judgment. God tells Abraham, �The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me� (18:20-21). This indicates, not that God�s knowledge is limited, but that his judgment is restrained, that he is long-suffering in his patient toleration of evil, and yet there comes a point at which He will tolerate no more. The verse also indicates that God�s judgment is in response to human outcry (apparently of surrounding peoples or of the few righteous people left in the cities) against the heinous practices of a people. The angels who come to destroy the cities say the same thing: �The outcry to the Lord its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it� (19:13). The degree of sinfulness in the city is shown in two ways. First, when Lot�s guests arrive, �all the men of the city of Sodom�both young and old�surrounded the house. They called to Lot, �Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them. . . . They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door� (19:4-5,9). A city in which such atrocious behavior is pervasive, even among the young, surely merits judgment. Second, God promises Abraham he will not destroy the city if there are even just ten righteous people (18:32). The environment of the cities had become so vile that fewer than ten righteous people could be found in them. God judgment is just, it comes in response to outcry against rampant, grievous sin, and it comes as an act of mercy in eliminating such destructive evil. An important part of God�s nature is His identity as �Judge of all the earth� (Genesis 18:25).

Before proceeding, a brief note on Biblical morality is needed. In the passage about Sodom, Lot offers his virgin daughters to the Sodomites to have sex with instead of his guests. Many readers object that the Bible here teaches a pernicious morality. However, much of the Bible, including this passage, merely describes what happens without offering moral commentary (as, for example, the Qur�an provides with every story). Moral teaching is found in the Law and the Ten Commandments, not in the historical accounts.

After the flood, God makes a covenant with Noah that never again will he destroy the earth with a flood. The refreshing of the earth does not last for long, because God again intervenes in judgment in Genesis 11. Against God�s repeated command to multiply and fill the earth (1:28; 9:1,7), mankind assembled in one place at Babel to build �a tower to the heavens, so that [they] might make a name [i.e. gain renown] for [them]selves and not be scattered over the face of the earth� (11:4). The people�s motives are clearly to rebel against God�s command and to pridefully assert their own greatness independent of God by a tower as high as the heavens by which they would acquire a name for themselves. God observed that ��If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan will be impossible for them�� (11:6). Many object to this passage as portraying God as finite and limited in knowledge, since he responds to human rebellion at Babel as if it came as a surprise. However, God�s responsiveness only means that he does not determine human action nor violate the free will of people. He achieves his purpose to redeem a holy people for himself by allowing people to choose to follow him freely or by allowing them to destroy themselves and intervening when necessary in judgment to guide the movement of history. Though God appears to act reactivity as if surprised, outside of time, He actually knows what will happen and intervenes as necessary in the spacio-temporal realm of human existence.

So, God confuses the peoples� language at Babel and scatters them over the whole face of the earth. God�s very next act is to initiate a covenant with Abram and his descendants, the Hebrews. God states,

This, the Abrahamic Covenant, is the basis for the existence of the Jews as God�s chosen people. What is commonly overlooked is that the covenant contains two messages: God�s blessing to the Jews and his blessing to all peoples on earth through the Jews. What was the form of this mediated blessing? The Jews would be God�s representatives, a shining and attractive example before the nations of what godly living in a godly society would look like. Taken together, the Babel incident and the Abrahamic covenant suggest that after rebellious humanity refused to disperse itself and united �as one people� in its focused rebellion against God, God initiated a new strategy of achieving his evangelistic purpose: divide and then conquer by the appeal of a model nation. Speaking of strategy like this again seems to suggest a finite God limited in knowledge, but really it only indicates a willingness on God�s part to allow humans to freely rebel against him if they so choose and to adapt his methods to their resistance. Why not just divide the nations and reach each one individually by a special revelation to each nation? Bob Sjogren suggests, �He could have spoken the Gospel to each of them separately, but he chose not to. He chose to use mankind to reach mankind, in order to prepare mankind in the process to rule and reign for eternity� (Unveiled at Last! 28-29).

Thus, God�s election of the Jews to a special role is not a parochial choice against all the world, but fully in accord with his constant historical purpose to redeem for himself from all the world a holy people eager to do good. God reaffirms the covenant to Abraham (18:18, 22:17-18), to Isaac (26:2-4), and to Jacob (28:13-14), every time reaffirming the twofold nature of the Jews role: to receive God�s blessing and to be a source of blessing to all nations on earth. In the Old Testament, God often refers to himself as �the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob� (e.g. Exodus 3:6), apparently wanting to be known not as the benefactor to the Jews exclusively, but as the benefactor of all people through the Jews, as denoted in the covenant he affirmed to (and only to) these three patriarchs. Covenants between people and gods that the Gods would bless that people were common in the ancient near east; but only the Abrahamic covenant contains the crucial universalist provision for all nations on earth. This explains why, for example, Moses says, �[God] chose you . . . above all the nations, as it is today� and �God . . . shows no favoritism� both within a few sentences (Deuteronomy 10:15,17).

Why, though, did God chose the Hebrews? God as God has the right to elect whomever he pleases to play special roles in his historical purposes (which they will play, of course, only if they consent). However, some theologians have suggested that God may have chosen the Hebrews not because of their strength and virtue, but because of their weakness, incompetence, and hard-hearted rebelliousness; after all, God chooses the weak, foolish, and despised things of the world to shame the strong, intelligent, and lauded (1 Corinthians 1:27-28). The message to the nations would then be, If God can make something good out of these people, he can redeem anyone. Abraham was most likely an Chaldean idolater when God called him, lied twice that his wife was his sister, and slept with his maidservant out of lack of faith in God�s promises; Isaac was a nondescript figure whose only significant accomplishments were lying that his wife was his sister and getting deceived by his son; Jacob was a deceitful swindler: these were the great patriarchs.

God promised Abraham as part of this covenant that his descendants would be great in number: ��Look up at the heavens and count the stars�if indeed you can count them . . . So shall your offspring be�� (Genesis 15:5) and that they would possess the land of Canaan : �To your descendants I give this land� (15:18). However, the Jews have never been unfathomably large, and they did not possess the land of Israel for almost two thousand years until just recently. First, the Torah indicates that the first part of the promise was fulfilled during the time of the Exodus: �the Israelites . . . became exceedingly numerous� (Exodus 1:7); �The Lord has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky� (Deuteronomy 1:10). Second, Israel did posses the land promised them for several hundred years before losing it due to their stubborn sinfulness (see section on the Prophets, the Exile, and the Restoration below). The New Testament teaches that the Church superseded the Jews as the New Israel (see section on Messianic Prophecy below), so that the present political entity called Israel has nothing to do with the land grant promised to Abraham�s descendents in Genesis (some Christians disagree on this point). While this claim may seem specious now, I trust that the rest of this narrative will show that it is very reasonable, in fact the most likely explanation.

A corollary to the frequent charge that the Hebrew God is parochial is that the early Hebrew religion was henotheistic rather than monotheistic. (Henotheism acknowledges other gods of other people but only one god for a particular people; monotheism claims the exclusive existence of but one God.) This claim has two basic supports: the parochial understanding of the Hebrew God as a benefactor of only one race, and references to other �gods.� The first point we have already disproved textually, and the second point fails to recognize that the word �god� is frequently used to describe the false object of worship of a people. For example, 1 Chronicles 16:26 states, �For the gods of the nations are idols.� While this verse comes from a later era, there is no reason to suspect that t does not reflect the same attitude of earlier Hebrews, who read in the first chapters of Genesis about their God dealing collectively with all mankind, then initiating a covenant with Abraham as much out of desire to bless the nations as to bless Abraham. The explicit teaching that �besides [Jehovah] there is no other [God]� (Deuteronomy 4:35) and that �the Lord [is] the God of the spirits of all mankind� (Numbers 27:16) is a definite feature of early Judaism.

Skeptical charges related to the henotheistic charge are common. Here is a typical Biblically-uninformed assessment of Biblical religion:

This view reflects a naturalistic evolutionary theory applied to the study of religion far more than a careful reading of the Biblical text. First, as we just noted, the earliest portions of the Bible consistently portray God as the Creator of everything that is and his historical purposes as encompassing all humanity. The local deity/henotheism charges are nonsense. Language such as �walking in the garden� would be interpreted metaphorically by any sensitive reader who just read that God created the universe by the spoken word. Though God resides among his people in the Holy of Holies of the tabernacle and the temple, this was never understood as a limitation of his omnipresence and omnipotence. When Solomon dedicated the temple, he acknowledged this: �But will God really dwell on earth with men? The heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!� (2 Chronicles 6:18). God was never considered the God of Palestine in any exclusive or limited sense. God�s presence went into captivity in Babylon, for example, with his people; it did not leave them when they were exiled out of Palestine. The fully-evolved idea of God presented by Titus can be found in Genesis and Exodus without difficulty, if only one is willing to read the text and not make unwarranted claims about it out of ignorance.

Genesis also first records the doctrine of justification by faith in relation to Abraham. According to Genesis 15:6, �Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.� Abraham�s belief was that God would fulfill his promise that Abram would have a son and an heir �from [his] own body� and offspring as numerous as the stars. This belief in God�s covenantal promises is a kind of existential (related to the here and now existing situation) trust often referred to in the Bible as faith. Abram�s righteousness was not something he earned by good works, but an imputed (or decreed) righteousness on the basis of his faith. David writes, �Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, who sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him� (Psalm 32:1-2). This passage speaks of forgiveness of sin (justification) apart from works, in accordance with the doctrine of justification in Genesis 15 as well as in the New Testament. David also wrote, �In you, O Lord, I have taken refuge; let me never be put to shame; deliver me in your righteousness� (Psalm 31:1). David was here stating that deliverance comes through God�s righteousness, not through any righteousness we can achieve for ourselves on the basis of works. In Jeremiah, the prophesied Son of David (see Davidic Covenant below) was to be called �The Lord Our Righteousness� (33:16). Christ, whom the New Testament identifies as the promised Son of David, is also identified as the righteousness for all God�s faithful (see 1 Corinthians 1:30), just as this verse states. The teaching of justification by faith in a prominent doctrine in the New Testament, especially in Romans and Galatians. For example, �to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness� (Romans 4:5). Here is clear doctrinal continuity between the Old and New Testaments.

God initiates a second covenant with Abraham in chapter 17 called the Covenant of Circumcision. God changes Abram�s name to Abraham, which means father of many, promising that he will be the father of many nations (v.5). All Abraham�s male descendants are to �undergo circumcision, and it will be a sign of the covenant between me and you� (v.11). Circumcision was a sign of the covenant, not the covenant itself; it was an outward sign of an inner condition of being related to God by His covenant to Abraham. Circumcision was a requirement for Abraham�s physical descendants only and it was to be administered to every male born in a Hebrew household, independent of whether or not that individual would follow the covenant obligation of obedience to God. In the New Testament, Paul claims that just as Abraham is the father of many nations, so many nations among the Gentiles have come to God, but they do not have to undergo circumcision. Paul warns the Galatians, �if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value at all� (5:2), for it would be understood as a precondition for salvation, repudiating justification by faith. Paul observes rightly that Abraham was justified by faith before he was given circumcision as an external sign. Paul teaches that circumcision is not �merely outward and physical�; more importantly, true �circumcision is circumcision of the heart� (Romans 2:28-29). Is there any Old Testament basis for Paul�s view that what God really cares about is not physical circumcision, but the circumcision of the heart? Yes, for Moses, when summarizing the Law to Israel, stated, �Circumcise your hearts, therefore and do not be stiff-necked any longer� (Deuteronomy 10:16).

A very important account of Abraham is the story of his sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22. This story introduces two doctrines: testing and Providence. Genesis tells us that the incident was an occasion in which �God tested Abraham� (22:1). What is the purpose of testing if God foreknows everything that will happen, including, for example, Abraham if He foreknew what Abraham would do? When God intervenes in the sacrifice, He tells Abraham, �Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son� (22:12). Did God foreknow what Abraham would do or not? Most likely, God provides testing as an opportunity for personal and collective growth. Human nature is such that people only tend to reform themselves in crisis situations. Sometimes we bring these upon ourselves; sometimes God provides them for us in the form of testing. In the verse above, God is accommodating his speech to Abraham�s temporal understanding. When God says, �Now I know,� His exact meaning is closer to �Now you know that I know, and now you know, too.� The benefit for Abraham of the testing incident was the building up of His faith in God to fulfill his promises. God also used the incident as a paradigmatic object-lesson in faith for Abraham�s descendants and as an opportunity to reaffirm the Abrahamic Covenant, including the provision that �through your seed all nations on earth will be blessed� (22:18). The doctrine of Providence is explained in 22:8,13-14. God provided the sacrificial animal, God provided for Abraham�s need, and Abraham calls the place �The Lord Will Provide� (22:14).

In the New Testament, Paul refers to God�s restatement of the Abrahamic Covenant just mentioned following his testing of Abraham. In Galatians 3:8, Paul writes that God spoke the gospel to Abraham through God�s promise that �through your seed all nations on earth will be blessed� (Genesis 22:18). Paul argues that the singular �seed,� (not seeds, referring to many people), refers to one person, namely Christ (Galatians 3:16). This is an example of an Old Testament prophecy which no one in pre-Christian times would have been able to recognize. Many such prophecies are recognized in retrospect which were not clear beforehand. This does not render the claim of prophecy necessarily invalid, though. In cases like this, we should ask ourselves, not �Might this be a misappropriation of another religion�s text?,� but �Is the purported prophecy better explained as an ambiguous statement whose meaning was later disclosed or as a statement which clearly meant something else to its original speaker?� (notice this is different from typological prophecy, which serves as a prefigurment of something later but did in fact mean something else in its original context). In this case, the purported prophecy is not implausible and affirms the real thematic continuity between the Old and New Testaments in other areas.

The story of Abraham�s testing is a prime example of a typological prophecy. Early Christians saw the event as a symbolic pre-enactment of God�s sacrifice of his own Son, Christ, as the sacrificial animal. The ram�s substitionary sacrifice in Isaac�s place was a prefigurement of Christ�s substitutionary sacrifice in the place of sinners. There are numerous cases of such typological prophecies in the Old Testament which were not known or intended by those who acted them out in the Old Testament. Another example is the bronze serpent put up on a pole in Numbers 20:8-9 which snake-bite victims could look upon and be healed. The New Testament hails this as a prefigurement for healing through Christ: �Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life� (John 3:15). Many people find fault which such claims of prefigurement, holding that this is an uncontrolled abuse of the text which might be used to find prefigurement of anything one wants to look for. This is certainly a danger, and typological prophecy must be used carefully. It seems, though, that in the case of Abraham�s testing and the serpent lifted up in the desert, the parallels between these events and the crucifixion are too striking to dismiss the typological claim as totally unreasonable. As a suggestion of continuity between the Old and New Testaments, typological prophecy is one important consideration.

Often readers object that the testing story suggests an immoral God, or an evolving conception of God which by the time of the Moses repudiated child sacrifice (see Leviticus 18:21). Soren Kierkegaard, a nineteenth-century Danish theologian, held that God was requiring Abraham to take the leap of faith against reason as part of the religious level of existence which transcends the ethical level (he popularized this interpretation in his book Fear and Trembling). However, God had already proven to Abraham that He was trustworthy and fulfilled His promises, especially the promise that he would have a son (Isaac) in his old age. Abraham�s obedience was not a leap of faith against reason, but a movement of trust in the God who had already given him very good reason for having that trust. The New Testament offers the additional commentary that �Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead� (Hebrew 11:19), suggesting that Abraham did not see God�s command as unreasonable in light of God�s earlier promise to make a great nation out of Isaac�s descendants. That God never intended for Abraham to actually sacrifice Isaac is clear from the outcome of the story; never in the Bible does God give approval to human sacrifice. Especially when understood as a typological prefigurement of Christ�s crucifixion, we have good reason to believe that this was a once and only event and also a good explanation why it never happened again. So, the demand was not unethical, nor do we need to fear that accepting it obligates us to accept anyone�s claim that God told them to kill their son.

The course of Jewish history traced in the rest of the Old Testament is a commentary on the Abrahamic covenant, an explanation of the unfolding of salvation history, i.e. God�s involvement in human affairs to redeem a people for himself from all nations by blessing the Jews and making them a blessing to the nations. Genesis records several examples of this: First, we see an example of God�s blessing to a non-Jew, Melchizadek, through a Jew, Abram (chapter 14). Significantly, Abram took an oath before God that he would accept nothing from Melchizadek, so that it would be clear that Melchizadek had not made Abram rich; God�s blessing, the only explanation, would be a testimony to others of the living God (14:22-23). Second, Abimelech and his aids recognize God�s presence with Isaac: ��We saw clearly that the Lord was with you�� (26:28). Though it appears doubtful they decided to follow God, it is significant that God reality and blessings became clearly known to them by a Jew, just as indicated in the Abrahamic Covenant. Joseph�s life is a third example. Joseph makes the Hebrew God known to Pharaoh and in Egypt by his presence and productive contributions to life in Egypt. Moreover, Joseph is blessed and a blessing to the nations when he goes to Egypt to save the lives of his family (45:7) and the saving of many lives throughout the Middle East (45:5, 50:20). Job, who may well have lived in the Patriarchal period, is another example of a non-Jew of this time period who was redeemed and worshipped the one true God.

Through the Exodus, God frees his people from slavery and makes His name (character, reputation) known. He tells Pharaoh that while He could have completely destroyed Egypt, he was using Egypt and Pharaoh to show his power �that [His] name might be proclaimed in all the earth� (9:16). Clearly, the plagues are not merely about God securing freedom for his pet people. They are instrumental for God�s purpose in history to redeem for himself a people from �all the earth.� Again God says that as a result of his judgments on Egypt, �the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord� (7:5); and as a result of the Red Sea miracle, �the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord� (14:4,18). According to Exodus 12:37-38, �The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth [and] . . . Many other [non-Hebrew] people went up with them." After seeing God prove His power through ten plagues that revealed the powerlessness of their own Gods, many Egyptians apparently decided to follow Israel and her God!

The account of the plagues in Egypt raises objections for many readers because of its references to God�s hardening of Pharaoh�s heart. The key to understanding this passage is to recognize that God�s active hardening of Pharaoh�s heart (Exodus 7:13-14,22; 8:15,19,32; 9:7,34-35) follows the Pharaoh�s persistently hardening his own heart (9:12; 10:1,20,27; 11:10; 14:4,8). Through the first five plagues, Pharaoh hardened his own heart; God only hardened his heart starting with the sixth plague. God�s reason for hardening the Pharaoh�s heart is fully consistent with his general purposes in history of redeeming a people for himself from all nations, for it is through hardening Pharaoh�s heart that God multiples miraculous signs and wonders (the last five plagues) in Egypt so that �the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord� (7:5). While God foretold that he would harden the Pharaoh�s heart before Pharaoh hardened his own heart (4:21; 7:3), this was foreknowledge rather than predeterminism. The main message of God�s hardening Pharaoh�s heart is that God can justly do what he wants with someone who has chosen to reject him and head for destruction. Moreover, God will realize his purposes, whether by grace or by judgment, i.e. by using our willing cooperation (Moses) or by using our willful rebellion (Pharaoh). Furthermore, the process spoken of in Exodus as God�s active hardening of Pharaoh�s heart may be more of a passive allowance for Pharaoh to come under the control of sin. This doctrine of blinding or hardening appears in several places in the Bible and should be considered here as part of the doctrine of judgment.

Isaiah 6:9-10 records God�s words to Isaiah: �Go and tell this people: �Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.� Make the heart of this people callused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.� At first, it seems that God wants to prevent the Israelites from being healed by blinding their eyes and hardening their hearts. However, the recurring message in the Old Testament prophets is God�s plea, �I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?� (Ezekiel 33:11). More likely, then, is the possibility that God sent judgment on the Israelites for their persistent sin in the form of increasing hardness of their sinful hearts, and increasing blindness in their eyes, so they are unable to see beyond their sin. Martin Luther defined sin as �being curved inward on oneself,� and this is certainly the image we get of a sinner who cannot see and cannot hear the words of God spoken to him or her. This verse from Isaiah is quoted in Matthew 13:11-15, Mark 4:11-12, Luke 8:10, John 12:37-40, and Acts 28:23-29. Jesus quotes the passage from Isaiah when his disciples ask him why he teaches in parables. Jesus answers,

In Acts, Luke records,

The first part of the Matthean passage speaks of the disciples as the recipients of secrets not give to the multitudes. Does this indicate a kind of spiritual elite predetermined by God? No, because the implicit question is, Why are they the recipients of these secrets? The next verse gives the answer: �Whoever has will be given more, and . . . Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.� Luke writes, �From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much will be required� (12:48). In other words, whoever has knowledge or insight about God upon which they act in obedience will be given more insight, while those who do not respond obediently will lose even what insight they did have. This principle is the doctrine of accountability. We are accountable for acting in light of what we know of God and the good; if we act responsibly, God will give more insight, which also increases accountability; if we act irresponsibly God will either bring judgment or else limit insight to decrease accountability and delay judgment. If we choose the latter course, we are still guilty because we chose not to act on the insight we had formerly, but God can delay judgment in this way. God expects much from those to whom he has given much insight. So, we can either descend or ascend the ladder of insight coupled with accountability.

The people�s heart in Matthew was not made callused originally, but became this way, presumably through their suppression of the knowledge of God they did have. This is in keeping with Romans 1, which describes the descent into utter ignorance and vice of sinners who do �not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God� (1:28). In Acts, Isaiah is quoted with the Matthean paraphrase which does not identify God as the hardening agent. But are Jesus (in Matthew) and Paul (in Acts) justified in paraphrasing Isaiah, so as to apparently change the meaning? Isn't this misquoting Isaiah? No, for Jesus and Paul are giving a clarifying interpretation; they are giving the spirit of the message if not the verbatim letter of it. Consider the Lord�s prayer: was Jesus providing a text that believers should recite whenever they prayed, or was he giving the spirit of prayer as an explanation of the general themes and attitudes of prayer? The latter, clearly; the same applies to quoting from the Old Testament or to describing past events (both of which require interpretation). But is this interpretation given by Jesus and Paul a legitimate reading of Isaiah? The context of Isaiah 6, namely the whole book of Isaiah and the whole of Isaiah�s ministry, indicates that God�s blinding people is a response to their own decision of unbelief. He confirms their decision, he willingly lets them go down the spiral of increasing ignorance and blindness. His �blinding them� is analogous to his confirmatory hardening of Pharaoh�s heart and his �giving them [i.e. sinners] over� to ignorance and the controlling power of sin. Thus, the ministries of Jesus, Paul, and Isaiah were all of the same ethos: preaching a message of repentance and salvation to a people who did not want to listen and whose hearts had collectively grown cold through their unbelief and unwillingness to retain the knowledge of God. Heart-hardening is an active work of God in the sense that it is a form of judgment he instituted; it is a passive work of God is the sense that it is the inevitable and natural result of unregenerate sin.

Romans 1 gives the most systematic account of the process of heart-hardening. According to Romans 1, God has made his eternal power and divine nature perspicuous in creation so that people are without excuse for glorifying and thanking God (1:20). Many, however, suppress the this knowledge of God and as a result, �their thinking be[comes] futile and their foolish hearts [are] darkened� and they becomes fools, worshipping idols (1:21-23). �Therefore God [gives] them over in the sinful desires of their hearts for the degrading of their bodies with one another.� They worship other creatures and �Because of this, God [gives] them over to shameful lusts . . . and [they receive] in themselves the due penalty for their perversion� (1:27). Finally, since they have worked to abolish their knowledge of God, �he [gives] them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done� (1:28). The phrase �God gave them over� occurs repeatedly in this passage. The phrase occurs elsewhere in Scripture, too: �But my people would not listen to me; Israel would not submit to me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices� (Psalm 81:11-12) and �But the children [of Israel] rebelled against me . . . I also gave them over to statutes that were no good and laws they could not live by; I let them become defiled . . . that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord� (Ezekiel 20:25-26). It appears that the process alluded to in these two verses and described at length in Romans 1 is the gradual loss of genuine freedom to do good as one becomes increasingly absorbed in the illusory pursuit of autonomy from God. Always in response to humans� free rejection of Him, God allows them to fall increasingly under the power of sin, which increasingly distorts their ability to think clearly and see clearly what is happening to them. Isaiah also describes this process of sin resulting in blindness and ignorance:

As a result of sin, humans becomes idolaters and then become impervious to the plain evidence of experience and reason; as a result they know and understand nothing. This process is most likely exactly what is intended by God hardening Pharaoh�s heart.

A second key doctrine behind the story of the hardening of Pharaoh�s heart is Sovereignty: God is in control and his purposes will prevail no matter if humans cooperate or not. We saw this in Genesis also, when God worked with the human race as required by their sinfulness, but his worldwide redemptive purposes were never thwarted by human rebellion. So, too, God�s purposes will be advanced by those who cooperate with him like Moses, and by those who rebel against him like Pharaoh. God spoke the same message through Moses:

So, God�s purpose to reach the nations will be accomplished whether Israel obey or disobeys, cooperates or rebels. God invited them to play a special role in his worldwide redemptive purposes; it they cooperated, they would be blessed and enjoy him, for he would be their very life (30:20); but if they rebelled, they would suffer; but either way, god�s sovereign purposes will prevail. This doctrine is clearly exhibited in action during the time of Solomon�s kingdom and the exile.

During Israel�s wanderings in the desert (recorded in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), God gives Hebrews the Sinaic Covenant and the Law. At Sinai, God declared that Israel was to be His �treasured possession,� a �kingdom of priests, and a holy nation� (Exodus 19:4-6). The priesthood role meant that Israel was to have a mediating role between God and the nations, just as the tribe of Levites were priests (mediators) between God and the other tribes. God's selection of the Levites as priests (�God has chosen them and their descendants out of all your tribes to stand and minister in the Lord�s name always,� Deuteronomy 18:5) indicates not only that God's love for the nations was equal to His love for Israel (just as His love for the other tribes was equal to His love for the Levites), but that He had singled Israel out for a special redemptive purpose as well. This is part of the Sinaic Covenant, the larger part of which is made up by the Sinaic, or Mosaic Law.

The Sinaic Law is roughly divisible into three parts: the civil law (e.g. ordinances about governance, diet, and control of infectious skin diseases), the ceremonial law (the sacrificial system), and the moral law (the Ten Commandments and related laws). In all, there are 613 specific laws, touching many areas of life. (The important question of the continuity of the law in Christianity will be addressed in the section on the law under the New Testament.) The moral law expresses the basic moral principles which are God�s absolute commandments. These laws are not arbitrary human laws which lack necessity, as for example, the law that if you steal, you will be imprisoned. The moral law is best understood as God�s teaching about how humans must live if they are to avoid self-destruction and to maximize the fruitfulness and flourishing of their existence. The moral laws are more like unalterable laws of physics than arbitrary, breakable laws of governments. Moses teaches about the Law:

Here, Moses teaches that the law is intended both to lead the Hebrews to live the flourishing, happy lives he wants for them and also to display the His wisdom before the nations, who will see the Law and God�s nearness to Israel and be attracted by it. Through the Law, the Jews will be a blessing to all the nations. Isaiah 51:4 conveys the same idea: �The law will go out from me; my justice will become a light to the nations.�

The moral laws were not decreed into existence at Sinai, thought they were given explicit, firm, and systematic expression there. Among morals explicitly mentioned in Genesis are murder (4:10), lying (20:9), and sodomy (13:13). Frequent reference is made in Genesis to sin, corruption, wickedness, disobedience, and judgment, indicating that Biblical morality and knowledge of morals did not begin with the Ten Commandments, but was generally understood all along. Not only is the moral law an inherent, unalterable part of reality, but it is a basic part of the human constitution to know and recognize it. While certain differences in morality may be noted around the world, the general principles are strikingly consistent he world over.

If morality was generally known, why did God go to the trouble to give it explicit, firm, and systematic expression in the moral law? First, as we have seen, it was a witness to the nations. It may be objected that they wouldn�t be impressed if they already knew the moral law. However, though they did not practice it, they must have known it (and probably suppressed that knowledge), for if they did not know it, they would not have been able to recognize it when they saw it. Second, it was clear, unambiguous, and incontrovertible guidance for flourishing living.

What exactly was included in the moral law? First, the Ten Commandments, minus the Sabbath. The Sabbath, like circumcision, was �a sign between [God] and Israel for the generations to come� (Exodus 31:12). Here, then, are the nine commandments of the moral law (from Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5):

(Note: Christians disagree about whether the Sabbath is a normative part of the moral law or only a sign between the Jews and God.) In addition to these commandments, other parts of the moral law include the prohibition against sorcery and consulting mediums, who are to be put to death (Leviticus 20:26,31); the commandments against mistreating aliens and taking advantage of widows and orphans (Exodus 22:21-22); the commandments against sexual perversions, including beastiophilia (Exodus 22:19), homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22), and intercourse with close relatives (Leviticus 18:6); the commandments against blaspheming God or one�s rulers (Exodus 22:28); the commandment against accepting bribes (Exodus 23:8); the commandment against acquitting the guilty, condemning the innocent, or showing favoritism in judging (Exodus 23:7, Leviticus 18:15); the commandment against offering children to Molech, a Canaanite god (Leviticus 18:21); the commandment against revenge (Leviticus 19:19); the commandment against dishonest scales and weights (Leviticus 19:36); the commandment to respect the aged (Leviticus 19:32); the commandment against slander (Leviticus 19:16).

The civil law contains wise decrees, which are probably related to historical and cultural aspects of ancient Israel, since they seem to lack the clear necessity and universal significance of the moral law (though Orthodox Jews would disagree). Part of the civil law (which is debated among Christians today) is capital punishment: �If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death� (Leviticus 24:17), though this does not apply in cases of war and unintentional manslaughter. The civil law stipulates that injuries are to be repaid point-for-point, �fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth� (Leviticus 24:20).

The ceremonial law (mainly in Leviticus) dealt with the sacrificial system for the atonement for sin. Atonement is an important concept in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. The idea of atonement is that God forgives the offense of sin on the basis of the shed blood of a firstborn sacrificial animal. Sacrifice appears before the Law of Moses, so the concept predates it. In the enigmatic story of Cain and Abel, God accepts Abel�s offering (the firstborn of his flocks) but rejects Cain�s offering (some of the fruits of the soil). At first, this appears quite unjust on God�s part. However, it becomes obvious once atonement is understood. Abel�s offering involved the shed blood of another, while Cain�s involved agricultural products which weren�t even the best he produced. In the passage itself, it is significant that God confronts Cain with the words, �Why are you angry? . . . If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?� (Genesis 4:6-7), implying that Cain knew the standard of God�s acceptance. Job, probably roughly a contemporary of Abraham, also practiced animal sacrifice as a means to atone for sin (Job 1:5). Abraham�s aborted sacrificial offering of Isaac on Mt. Moriah (where the future sacrifices would be offered at the Jerusalem temple) was another example of sacrificial offering that predates the Sinaic Law.

But why this peculiar method of securing the forgiveness of sin? From the Old Testament alone, there is no clear answer except that God established it that way. The New Testament gives new insight (progressive revelation) which helps answer this question, which is exactly what we would expect if the New Testament claim is true that the Law was but a �shadow of the good things that are coming�not the realities themselves� (Hebrew 10:1). Because human sin is an offense to an infinitely holy God, it is an infinite offense which can only be forgiven on the basis of an infinite satisfaction, which no finite creature could accomplish, and could only be accomplished (if it were to be accomplished at all) by God himself. Since God established death as the consequence of sin (Genesis 2:17, Romans 6:23), for God to forgive humans their sin, he needed to incarnate himself and die in the place of human beings to achieve the satisfaction for their sin. Now, because Christ�s atoning sacrifice was necessary for God to forgive sin and maintain His justice (�to be just and the one who justifies,� Romans 3:26), God began preparing the Jews to receive this message by instituting the sacrificial system for the atonement of sin and allowing it to inform their understanding of sin for many hundreds of years before Christ came.

The elaborate sin offerings and ceremonies associated with the priesthood and the intricate, exacting artistry of the tabernacle and temple were ways by which God kept alive an acute awareness of the gravity of sin before an infinitely holy God. The New Testament explains that the Sinaic Covenant, which came after the Abraham, did not displace justification by faith, the kind of righteousness which the Abraham, the father of the Jews possessed. Paul writes, �The law, introduced 430 years later [after God�s promises to Abraham] does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and do away with this promise� (Galatians 3:17). Justification, according to the New Testament, has always been on the basis of faith (Romans 3-4). Before Moses, this faith (i.e. active trust in God�s covenants and promises) was demonstrated in a trusting anticipation of the fulfillment of God�s promises; after Moses but before Christ, this faith was demonstrated in offering the sacrifices God required for the forgiveness of sin; after Christ this faith was (and is) demonstrated in the basis of trusting oneself to God�s provision of salvation in Christ. The New Testament also provides a fuller account of the meaning of the Hebraic sacrificial system than the Old Testament itself provides, an account fully consistent with what the Old Testament does explain. Many Hebrews must have wondered how the blood of goats was supposed to substitute for their sins, whose infinite gravity was being constantly reinforced through the ceremonies and offerings required by the sacrificial system. The New Testament explains that since the Law is only a shadow of the coming reality,

This understanding that Christ�s sacrifice was �once for all,� i.e. pre-crucifixion as well as post-crucifixion, is also found in Romans 6:10; Hebrews 7:27, 9:12,26; and 1 Peter 3:18. According to the New Testament, it is a grave mistake to think either that God�s acceptance and justification in Old Testament times were based on obedience to the Law or that the blood of animals was an adequate satisfaction for sin. The sacrifices were repeated, though their repetition testified to their insufficiency to remove sin, for the sake of the continual reminder of the gravity and reality of sin (which humans, left to their own devices, are quick to conveniently forget). This expanded understanding provided by the New Testament removes several significant shadows left by the Old Testament account: it explains why the sacrifices were repeated over and over, why they were required even though they could not achieve the adequate satisfaction for sin, and why God chose atonement as a vehicle of forgiveness at all.

The Sinaic Covenant in total is primarily to be understood as a vehicle of preparation of the Jews to receive the revelation of Christ�s atoning sacrifice and as a vehicle for carrying the blessing of the knowledge of God to all nations. Additionally, it provided a clear formulation of God�s moral commandments which has been a timeless emphasis of the Jewish and Christian religions. It supported, rather than displaced God�s justification by faith, for the Law disclosed the sinner�s need to be justified by faith.

A major theme in the Sinaic Law is social justice. In Exodus 22:21, God instructs the Israelites through Moses not to mistreat aliens. They �are to have the same law for alien and the native-born� (Leviticus 24:22). God tells them, �Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan� (Exodus 22:22). The Israelites are to help their countrymen who fall poor and are not to charge interest (Exodus 22:25, Leviticus 25:35-37). Every seventh year all debts were canceled (Deuteronomy 15:1-2). So, it was impossible to get too far into debt. Every fiftieth year was to be a Year of Jubilee. At this time, liberty was to be proclaimed throughout the land to all its inhabitants, everyone was to return to their own family property. The result of this system was that no land was sold permanently (Leviticus 25:23), and no wealthy people could buy large tracts of land and force poor people off the land indefinitely. Finally, the Law required that �When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time to pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and alien� (Leviticus 19:9)

Many stipulations of the Mosaic Law seem arbitrary or absurd, such as �do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material� (Leviticus 19:19) and �do not cook a young goat in its mother�s milk� (Exodus 23:19). Many of the dietary laws seem arbitrary. Cooking a young goat in its mother�s milk was probably a Canaanite religious ritual; by not doing it, the Israelites demonstrated their separatedness to God. Other seemingly arbitrary laws may have similar significance.

Another part of the Sinaic Covenant was the construction of the Tabernacle, a portable tent in which the priests performed the rituals of the ceremonial law and the various sacrifices: burnt offerings, grain offerings, fellowship/peace offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings. Most importantly, the Tabernacle was the place where God localized his glory in the sight of the Israelites. After Moses and the Israelites finished constructing the Tabernacle, God�s presence and glory came over it in the form of a cloud by day and fire by night (Exodus 40:34-38). Thus it was said that God �tabernacled� among his people.

Exodus records the conversion of the non-Jew Jethro (Moses� father-in-law) through the Jew Moses� mediation in accordance with the pattern of the Abrahamic Covenant. Moses tells Jethro about the plagues and the miraculous escape from Egypt, and Jethro replies, �Praise be to the Lord, who rescued you from the hand of the Egyptians and of Pharaoh . . . Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who had treated Israel arrogantly� (18:10-11). Jethro comes to knowledge of the one true God through the mediating role of Moses and then offers a burnt offering and other sacrifices to God (18:12) as a gesture of his new faith.

At two points during Israel's sojourn to the promised land, God suggested to Moses that He destroy Israel and start over with Moses (Exodus 32 and Numbers 14). In both cases, Moses �persuades� God not to bring judgment on Israel. The persuasion element suggests to some readers a finite God who does not know the future. However, as in Abraham�s reasoning with God over Sodom and Gomorrah, here God is allowing Moses to confer with him, even though God knows the outcome and does not change his mind. This interpretation is supported by a verse in the same book which states that �God is not . . a son of man that he should change his mind� (Numbers 23:19). A possible reason for these conference is for God to make abundantly clear to Moses and hence to Israel that their chosenness had nothing to do with their own greatness (on their own merit, they deserved to be completely destroyed, repeatedly) but with their responsibility to the nations as representatives of God. The two incidents give important insight into God�s purpose in history and into God�s justice.

Just after the golden calf incident, God suggested to Moses that He destroy the Israelites because of their stiff-necked resistance to his gracious dealings with them. In response, Moses argues,

Moses� appeal is on the basis of what the Egyptians, recently so impressed by God�s power displayed in the plagues and the Exodus, would think if they heard that God had destroyed Israel. Granted, God had a right to judge Israel for their unregenerate sin; but the Egyptians wouldn�t know all the details. Abraham�s appeal to the Abrahamic Covenant refers only to the part about blessing Israel. However, God would not be breaking his promise to the patriarchs if he destroyed Israel and started over with Moses, for Moses was a descendent of the patriarchs. So, this appeal to the Abrahamic Covenant is an inadequate reason for God to curb his judgment unless it refers also to the covenant�s concern for the nations, which Moses just mentioned. Therefore, God curbs his justice precisely to further his constant purposes in history to redeem a people from all nations eager to do good, and to do so through the mediation of a particular people. Ezekiel 20:8-9 provides further commentary that this interpretation is true: �So I said I would pour out my wrath or them . . . But for the sake of my name I did what would keep it from being profaned in the eyes of the nations they lived among and in whose sight I had revealed myself by bringing them out of Egypt.�

In Numbers, Israel rebels against God again by refusing to trust him to bring them into the promised land following a report of the strength of the fortifications and the inhabitants there. God suggests to Moses again that he destroy Israel and start over with Moses. Moses� reply is the same as before:

As in Exodus, Moses begins with an appeal to God�s reputation among the nations who have heard of the miracles performed in Israel already. As in Exodus, he moves to an appeal to the land grant part of the Abrahamic Covenant. Again, the appeal to the land grant is vitally related to the first appeal to God�s reputation among the nations, which is grounded in the universal evangelistic concern of the other part of the Abrahamic Covenant. Thus, God curbs his justice again precisely to further his constant missionary purposes to redeem a people from all nations for himself. In Ezekiel 20:14 and 20:22, God gives the same interpretation of this event: �for the sake of my name I did what would keep it from being profaned in the eyes of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out.�

The theme of God�s evangelistic purposes with Israel is emphasized again when Moses says to God, �If your Presence does not go with us, . . . How will anyone know that you are pleased with us and with your people . . . What else will distinguish me and your people from all the other people on the face of the earth?� (Exodus 33:15-16). It was essential to God�s purposes that the nations recognized the distinctive Presence of God with the Jews. Just a little later, God says to Moses, �Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the Lord, will do for you� (34:10). Again, God emphasizes that his blessings to Israel are intended not only for Israel, but for the nations who will be blessed through Israel.

The book of Exodus provides, in addition to the Sinaic covenant and additional evidence of God�s constant evangelistic purpose in history, also provides important teaching about the nature of God and revelation. God tells Moses, �I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but by my name the Lord [YHWH] I did not make myself known to them� (6:3). This verse indicates that God reveals aspects of his nature and his plan in stages; this is sometimes called progressive revelation. This idea is exemplified in the treatment of the Sinaic covenant above, which showed that the understanding of atonement and the purpose law was left incomplete for many centuries until it became clear in Christ.

Exodus contains two famous passages on the nature of God, which is the same message in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Here is one:

God is quick to forgive, if only people will repent of their sins, but he will judge the sin of those who do not. The first half of the passage goes a long way in debunking misinformed skeptical arguments that the Hebrew God of the Old Testament is a vengeful God entirely different from the loving, forgiving, long-suffering Christian God of the New Testament. The second half of the passage, though, seems to fortify the skeptics� argument. Punishing sin to the third and fourth generation hardly sounds just; it sound unreasonable, unfair, and entirely vengeful�completely out-of-harmony with the New Testament God of justice and grace. The verse merits further consideration. A thematically-related passage, Ezekiel 18:20, says that �The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him and the wickedness of the wicked man will be credited to him.� Therefore, the �sins of the father� in Exodus 34 must mean something other than the passing on of guilt. What the passage most likely means is that sin entails consequences which often get passed on from one generation to the next. The sins of the father transmit consequences, but not guilt. Without much observation, it is clear that this is in fact the case. Children raised on welfare in single-parent homes where the father has left the mother and both parents are on drugs rarely escape the long-term consequences of these sins. Children whose parents are sexually promiscuous learn these behaviors are repeat them to their own destruction. Alcoholic and drug over-dosed mothers pass on these consequences to their infants. The wages of sin are so terrible that they don�t stop with the person who commits them. Not only do the effects of sin cross generational lines within families, but they cross into other families as well, and soon infect an entire society. So, the �sins of the father� verse teaches the heinousness of sin and God�s justice in punishing it. If this still sounds too distant from the New Testament God, remember the words of the writer of Hebrews: �It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God� (10:31).

Another of the covenants which defined God�s relationship with the Hebrews was the Priestly Covenant. Following an incident of disobedience to God (Israelite men were fornicating with Moabite women and going with them to the sacrifices of their gods to worship Baal), the high priest Phineas zealously killed one of these unregenerate couples, in accordance with God�s command (Numbers 25:5). God says to Moses,

Before commenting on the covenant, it is important to note that God�s persistent command to the Israelites not to intermarry was not a parochial command urging the Hebrews not to affiliate themselves with impure people, but a wise provision to keep them from being led astray religiously by foreign women. It was important that they not be led into the worship of false gods because, as God notes above, his honor is at stake�his honor before the nations. The success of God�s evangelistic purposes to the other nations is at stake in the question of intermarriage, for it leads to syncretistic religion. King Solomon, allegedly the wisest man ever, was led into the worship of foreign gods by his foreign wives.

The Levitical priesthood (Phineas� descendants) was lasting, but did not last forever. The New Testament portrays Christ as the fulfillment of the priestly covenant, for he is �a priest forever� (Hebrews 7:17,21). The Levitical priesthood was imperfect (it required sacrifices to be made over and over which could never really remove sin), so Christ came not as a Levite but as a priest in the order of Melchizadek. The writer of Hebrews identifies Christ with Melchizadek (the king of Jerusalem who met with Abraham in Genesis) because Melchizadek has no genealogy (just as Christ is without beginning or end), because Melchizadek combined the offices of king and priest in one man (just as Christ was to be king and priest forever in fulfillment of the Davidic and Priestly Covenants), and because Melchizadek�s priesthood (like Christ�s) was not based on ancestry (as the Levitical priesthood) but on �the power of an indestructible life� (7:3,16). Christ �sacrificed for [human] sins once for all when he offered himself� (Hebrews 7:27). According to the New Testament, then, the eternal priestly role of Christ fulfills the Priestly Covenant, establishing continuity between the Old and New Testaments. Jeremiah speaks of the Priestly Covenant, when he records God�s promise, �[Never] will the priests, who are Levites, fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to present sacrifices. . . . I will make the descendants of . . . the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore� (33:18,22). From a New Testament perspective, it may truly be said that the Levites do not fail to have a man presenting sacrifices since Christ is a priest forever who presented himself as a sufficient sacrifice once and for all.

But is this New Testament interpretation legitimate? We must ask whether it is more likely that the New Testament interpretation is legitimate or that the passage has a clear meaning in its original context other than that given by the New Testament. It is clear that since 70 AD, the Jews have had no priesthood offering sacrifices; therefore we are left with three options: 1) a renewal of the priesthood in its Old Testament form, still awaits permanent renewal [in which case it seems that God has abandoned the Jews and sent no prophets for almost 2000 years]; 2) the priesthood has already been renewed in a form slightly different, but principally the same, as that of the Old Testament [in which case the Christian interpretation, preserving the basic principle of atonement for sin by substitutionary death, is ideal]; or 3) the covenant was nothing more than a mistaken wish of the ancient Hebrews who wrote the book. While most modernists will choose the third option because of their naturalistic presuppositions, they cannot discount the second possibility as unreasonable, for it is at least as likely (probably more so) than the first option.

Moving on into the Promised Land, the Israelites had to wage war to occupy the land. Again, this seems to suggest a parochial God playing his favorite nation rather than the loving and peaceful universal God of the New Testament. However, Israel was not conquering Canaan at that time in an act of unjust aggression against innocent peoples. The conquest was not God giving Israel somebody else�s land because he favored them more. Israel was acting out God�s commands to destroy an extremely sinful cluster of peoples whose sin God had been patiently enduring for several hundred years until it became so bad that justice required he intervene (the same pattern of judgment as with Sodom and Gomorrah). The conquest was explicitly a divine judgment upon the nations inhabiting Canaan for their extreme wickedness. Deuteronomy 9:4-6 explains to Israel,

Earlier, God had told Abraham that it was not yet time for him to possess the promised land because �the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure� (Genesis 15:16). The full measure of sin of the Canaanites is described in passages like According to Leviticus 18, �this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled�: child sacrifice by burning to the god Molech, homosexuality, and sexual intercourse with relatives, mothers, sisters, granddaughters, aunts, daughters-in-law, sisters-in-law, neighbor�s wives, and with animals.

God explains that if the Israelites likewise defile themselves and the land, they will be �vomited up� just as the Canaanites were about to be vomited up for their own sin (Leviticus 18). The Conquest of Canaan caused the nations to fear God and protected Israel from the spiritual dangers of intermingling with idolatrous nations. Israel's holiness before the nations was significant because it was a direct reflection of God's character in the eyes of the nations. God had earlier instructed Israel, �Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods. Do not let them live in your land, or they will cause you to sin against me, because the worship of their gods will certainly be a snare to you� (Exodus 23:32-33). As the Old Testament records, Israel made a covenant with the people, defiled itself by adopting their wicked practices, and was vomited out of the land, just as promised during the conquest by Assyria and Babylonia. In light of this historical understanding of God�s purposes, it is much easier to understand God�s apparently vengeful and unjust commands in the conquest, for example, that Israel utterly destroy the Canaanite towns, �put[ting] to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys� (1 Samuel 15:3-4). What did the infants do to deserve death? God�s judgment here was an act of mercy for all involved. It was an act of mercy to put the Canaanite adults out of their misery, it was an act of mercy to cut short the lives of children who would be raised in wicked societies, and it was an act of mercy to prevent this vile kind of society from influencing other people and societies. It is important to consider also, especially with regard to the children, that there are much worse things that can happen to a person than death; a life of utter wickedness is surely one of them.

Why did God not destroy the Canaanites with a natural disaster as he did Sodom and Gomorrah? Why did he use human forces and military action? Probably this would achieve greater renown for the God of Israel when the other nations would see its great military successes. This does seem to leave the possibility for renewed holy wars in the name of Judeo-Christian religion dangerously open. However, without the direct commandment of God to a large number of witnesses in explicit redress of intolerable evil (criteria very unlikely to be met after the conquest of Canaan from all historical indications), there would be no basis for any holy wars per se. It is likely, however, that God continues to use military forces at times to enact judgment, but without commanding anyone to do so. Fascist Germany may be an example of such a judgment against a people of intolerable evil.

During this period, there is further indication that God is at work in the Jewish experience to further his evangelistic purposes to the nations in accordance with the Abrahamic Covenant. According to Joshua 4:23-24, God parted the Jordan for Israel to enter Canaan �so that all the peoples of the earth might know that the hand of the Lord is powerful and so that you [Israel] might always fear the Lord your God.� The Gentile Rahab, who helps the Jews conquer Jericho, was apparently a convert to the worship of the one true God. She tells the spies,

According to the New Testament, Rahab is even included in the genealogy of Christ (Matthew 1:5). Ruth the Moabitess is another Gentile woman of this period who comes to know the one true God through the mediation of a Jew, namely her mother-in-law Naomi. Ruth declares to Naomi, �Your people will be my people and your God my God� (Ruth 1:16). Ruth, too, is accorded a high place in Jewish and Christian esteem, for she is the great-grandmother of king David and the ancestress of Christ. Both Rahab and Ruth are outstanding examples of God's redemption of Gentiles through blessing the Jews as described in the Abrahamic Covenant.

The story of David and Goliath is a famous story, though its thematic continuity with God�s evangelistic purposes is often overlooked. David�s challenge to Goliath is as follows:

Besides the clear affirmation of God�s universal evangelistic purposes, this passage also tells us that the message God wanted to communicate through the Conquest of Canaan was not that the Hebrew God was a militarily active God, but just the opposite: they will know that it is not by sword or shield that the Lord saves.

When David sinned with Bathsheba, God�s punishment of David was largely framed in terms of his universal evangelistic purposes. Through Nathan the prophet, God tells David, �But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the Lord show utter contempt, the son born to you will die� (2 Samuel 12:14). God�s enemies are not those whom God detests (if so, why would he care if they treated him with contempt?), but those who detest God and make God their enemy.

David, the �man after God�s own heart� (1 Samuel 13:14), clearly understood God's heart for the redemption of people from every nation, as we see in the Psalms. David repeatedly stressed God's universal claim and that God's name was to be worshipped in all nations. Consider the following: �I will praise you among the nations, O Lord� (18:42); �All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him, for dominion belongs to the Lord and he rules over the nations� (22:27-28); �Be still and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth� (46:10); �God is the King of all the earth . . . God reigns over the nations . . . The nobles of the nations assemble as the people of the God of Abraham, for the kings of the earth belong to God� (47:7-9); �Like your name, O God, your praise reaches to the ends of the earth� (48:10); �O God our Savior, the hope of all the ends of the earth and of the farthest seas� (65:5); �Shout with joy to God, all the earth! . . . All the earth bows down to you� (66:1,4); �All nations will be blessed through him and they will call him blessed. . . . [M]ay the whole earth be filled with his glory� (72:17,19); �sing to the Lord, all the earth. . . . proclaim his salvation day after day. Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous deeds among all peoples. . . . Worship the Lord . . . all the earth. Say among the nations, �The Lord reigns�� (96:1-3,9-10); �The Lord reigns, let the earth be glad� (97:1); �The Lord has made his salvation known and revealed his righteousness to the nations. He has remembered his love and his faithfulness to the house of Israel; all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God. Shout for joy to the Lord, all the earth� (98:2-4); �Great is the Lord is Zion; he is exalted over all the nations. Let them praise your great and awesome name� (99:2); �Shout for joy to the Lord, all the earth. Worship the Lord with gladness� (100:1); �You will arise and have compassion on Zion . . . The nations will fear the name of the Lord, all the kings of the earth will revere your glory. . . . So the name of the Lord will be declared in Zion and his praise in Jerusalem when the peoples and the kingdoms assemble to worship the Lord� (102:13,15,21-22); �I will praise you, O Lord, among the nations; I will sing of you among the peoples. . . . let your glory be over all the earth� (108:3,5); �Praise the Lord, all you nations� (117:1); �The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made. All you have made will praise you, O Lord; your saints will extol you. They will tell of the glory of your kingdom and speak of your might, so that all men may know of your mighty acts and the glorious splendor of your kingdom� (145:9-12); �I will praise you, O Lord, among the nations� (2 Kings 22:50); and �make known among the nations what [God] has done. . . . Declare his glory among the nations, his marvelous deeds among all peoples� (1 Chronicles 16:8-9, 24).

Psalm 67 is especially striking: �May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face to shine upon us, that your ways may be known on earth, your salvation among all nations. May the peoples praise you, O God; may all the peoples praise you. May the nations be glad and sing for joy, for you rule the peoples justly and guide the nations of the earth. May the peoples praise you, O God; may all the peoples praise you. Then the land will yield its harvest, and God, our God, will bless us. God will bless us, and all the ends of the earth will fear him.� The two boldened lines are virtual restatements of the Abrahamic Covenant: God blesses the Jews and that His ways might be known throughout the earth, that all people everywhere may praise him. The verses above from Psalms 102 and 145 are restatements of the Abrahamic covenant as well. This staggering string of quotations from David�s Psalms is impressive proof that God�s concern with blessing Israel had universal salvific import.

The Davidic Covenant is an important covenant which God established with David at this time. David wanted to build a temple for God in Jerusalem, which he conquered early in his reign. Nathan the prophet told David,

This covenant appears to have been violated, for there is no Davidic king in Israel today, nor has there been since the Macabees and Hasmoneans were overrun by the Romans in 63 BC. Zedekiah in the sixth century BC. However, the New Testament claims that Christ is the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant. Matthew 1:1 introduces Jesus Christ as �the son of David, the son of Abraham.� Thus, Jesus is the Seed promised to Abraham that would be a blessing to all nations as well as the Son of David, who would be called the Son of God would and whose kingdom would rule forever. Luke makes this connection even more explicit when a angel tells Mary, �You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end� (Luke 1:31-33). Granted, then, the New Testament offers an answer that God has not violated his covenant to David. But is the New Testament understanding of the Davidic Covenant as predicting Christ reasonable? To answer this question, we need to consider what else the Old Testament has to say about the Davidic Covenant that might lend weight to one side or the other.

The prophet Isaiah provides this familiar reference to the Davidic Covenant: �For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David�s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever� (Isaiah 9:7). Based on passages such as Luke 1:31, Christians have long taken this passage to be a prophecy about Christ. When taken this way, it is also evidence for the Old Testament prophecy of the deity of Christ (�he will be called . . . Mighty God�). Alternatively, given that the New Testament claims that Christ was God and the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, this is a point of continuity between the testaments affirming the rationality of the New Testament understanding of the Davidic Covenant. Even more significantly, this passage identifies the fulfillment of the covenant as a single individual whose reign will begin at a certain point and continue on forever after; it does not support the view of the Davidic Covenant as referring to an unending succession of human kings beginning with David and continuing forever after. This is strong evidence of inter-testamental continuity.

Jeremiah, a prophet in Judah at the time of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, recorded this message about the Davidic and Priestly Covenants:

What is immediately striking in this passage is that God speaks of the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, which seemed to have been an ongoing preservation of his dynasty, as if it were a future one-time event. Jeremiah speaks of the fulfillment as an individual, a �righteous Branch,� rather than a continuing line of earthly rulers. Finally, the placement of the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant alongside that of the Priestly Covenant, renders plausible the New Testament claim that Christ is the fulfillment of both covenants (see section above on Priestly Covenant). These three factors offer good evidence that the New Testament claim that Christ is the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant relies on a legitimate continuity between the testaments.

Ezekiel prophesied about 300 years after David died, yet he spoke of a coming Messianic Age under David. God says through Ezekiel, �I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them. . . . My servant David will be king over them, and they will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees . . . and David my servant will be their prince forever� (38:24-25). The reference to David as �king� and �prince forever� clarifies that this passage is about the Davidic Covenant. Here, too, the covenant is to be fulfilled by one individual at a certain time, not a line of kings. This could be Christ, who presents himself in the New Testament as the Good Shepherd (John 10:11), in keeping with Ezekiel�s presentation of the Davidic Covenant. Here is further support for the New Testament understanding of the Davidic Covenant.

Like Jeremiah, the prophet Daniel taught a fusing of covenants; in Daniel, the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants are fused:

The passage refers to the Abrahamic Covenant in the line about the praise from all nations and to the Davidic Covenant in the line about the everlasting kingdom (a phrase which is only used of God and of the Davidic Covenant). A single individual, �one like a son of man,� is specified as the fulfillment of both covenants. Again, the Old Testament speaks of an individual person who will fulfill the Davidic Covenant, not an ongoing dynasty of numerous people. As we would expect if there were strong continuity between the testaments, the New Testament identifies Christ as the individual who fulfilled both covenants (e.g. Matthew 1:1, Galatians 3:16, Luke 1:32-33), records his description of himself as the �Son of Man,� and records his claim that this prophecy referred to him. Before the Sanhedrin, the high priest challenged Jesus, �Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.� Jesus replied, �Yes, it is as you say. But I say to all of you: you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven� (Matthew 26:63-64). At this, understanding Jesus� allusion to the prophecy in Daniel, the high priest tore his clothes and spiritedly accused Jesus of blasphemy; the other priests agreed that for his claim, Jesus was worthy of death (26:65-66). So, Daniel�s use of the Davidic Covenant helps builds a yet stronger case that the New Testament legitimately offers Christ as the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant and that there is real continuity between the testaments.

Micah is another prophet whose taught about the coming Davidic king: �But out of you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, who origins are of old, from ancient times [or, from the days of eternity]. . . . He will shepherd his flock in the strength of the Lord . . . his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth. And he will be their peace� (Micah 5:2). Like Isaiah 9, this passage mentions the eternal nature of the future ruler over Israel, who will be from the clans of Judah (David�s tribe). The New Testament matches this Davidic prophecy perfectly, teaching that Christ was the good shepherd (John 10), that he was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1), that he was eternally preexistent (John 8:58), that �he himself is our peace� (Ephesians 2:14), and that his greatness will reach the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).

Zecharia proclaimed to Israel, �Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout Daughter of Jerusalem! See your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey� (9:9). Unlike many conquerors, the coming king would not arrive on a war horse, but on a donkey. This, too, speaks of the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant as a single person, one who would enter Zion on a donkey, just as Jesus did.

So, the Old Testament understanding of the Davidic Covenant as developed by further revelation from God through the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Micah, and Zecharia. But a conspicuous problem remains. Granted, the New Testament claims that Christ is the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant and does so legitimately, but Christ�s life surely did not seem to establish an everlasting kingdom as stipulated in the Davidic Covenant. Briefly, the New Testament claims that there are two coming of Christ: his first coming two millennia ago as the Seed that would be a blessing to all nations by offering himself as an atoning sacrifice for sin (Abrahamic and Priestly Covenants), and his second coming will be as everlasting Ruler and Judge (Davidic Covenant). The issue of two comings is addressed in more detail below in the section on Messianic Prophecy.

The location of Israel, at the crossroads of Africa, Asia, and Europe, at the intersection of numerous trade routes, also shows God's intent to bless the nations (which would often pass through Israel) through his people. In Ezekiel 5:5, God explains, �This is Jerusalem, which I have set in the center of the nations, with countries all around her.� God�s plan to use Israel as an attractive model of godliness before the nations all around it was finally realized during the reign of King Solomon, David�s successor. At the dedication of the temple, Solomon prays:

This passage shows that Israel had a keen awareness of its mediating role between God and the nations, who would know of God through what they heard of His mighty works in Israel and righteous lifestyle of Israelites. The Gentile was acknowledged as a rightful worshipper at the temple. There was even a Court of the Gentiles in the temple. According to Isaiah 56:7, the temple was �a house of prayer for all nations.� In the New Testament, Jesus reaffirmed the international purpose of the temple as �a house of prayer for all nations.� Since in his time, money changers and businessmen had turned the Gentile�s area of worship into a �den of thieves,� Jesus forcibly cleared them out to Court of the Gentiles by overturning their booths (Mark 11:15-17).

The story of the Queen of Sheba�s visit to Jerusalem is an example of a Gentile coming to Jerusalem to learn of God's name because of God's blessing on Israel and her king. She came to Jerusalem �to test him with hard questions� after hearing �about the fame of Solomon and his relation to the name of the Lord� (1 Kings 10:1). Upon seeing his wealth and wisdom, she declared, �How happy your men must be! . . . Praise be to the Lord your God� (10:8,9). The Queen of Sheba was apparently just one of many such visitors, for 1 Kings 10:24 says that �The whole world sought audience with Solomon to hear the wisdom God had put in his heart.�

Despite his great wisdom, Solomon was led astray by his numerous foreign wives. Because he violated God�s covenant and decrees, God declared that the Israel would be split between a northern kingdom (Israel) with its capital at Samaria, and a southern kingdom (Judah) with its capital at Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:31-36). During the Divided Kingdom, a succession of good and bad kings ruled in both Israel and Judah. Finally, though, idolatry and wickedness grew so intense that God brought judgment and exile first upon Israel (conquered by Assyria in 722 BC) and then upon Judah (conquered by Babylonia in 586 BC). The most notable king of this period was the godly King Hezekiah of Judah, who reigned in Jerusalem when the king of Assyria unsuccessfully besieged Jerusalem after conquering Israel. The Assyrian king presented this challenge to Hezekiah: �Has the god of any nation ever delivered his land from the hand of the king of Assyria? . . . How then can the Lord deliver Jerusalem from my hand?� (2 Kings 18:33,35). Hezekiah prays to God, �It is true, O Lord, that the Assyrian kings have laid waste these nations and their lands. They have thrown their gods into the fire and destroyed them, for they were not gods but only wood and stone fashioned by men�s hands. Now, O Lord our God, deliver us from his hand, so that all kingdoms on earth may know that you alone, O Lord, are God� (2 Kings 19:17-19, Isaiah 37:20). God answered the prayer, thereby furthering his universal evangelistic purposes through Israel once again.

During the period of the Divided Kingdom, God showed his concern for the Gentiles by sending the prophet Elijah to the widow in Sidon (1 Kings 17:1-15) and the prophet Elisha to Naaman the leper in Syria (2 Kings 5:1-14), instead of sending them to equally needy Hebrews. Naaman became a worshipper of the one true God; he declared, �Now I know that there is no God in all the world except in Israel� (1 Kings 5:15).

As Israel and Judah declined in sin and idolatry, God patiently bore with them, sending a series of prophets to plead with them to repent so he would not have to judge them. God does this, even though he knows Israel will not repent; he gives them as much time as possible to repent if they do so. Isaiah asks God, �For how long [should I preach to them]?� God�s answer shows his foreknowledge of the futility of Isaiah�s pleas for repentance: �Until the cities lie ruined and without inhabitant� (Isaiah 6:11). Isaiah 65:2 is a good summary of this period: God laments, �All day long I have held out my hands to an obstinate people, who walk in ways not good, pursuing their own imaginations�a people who continually provoke me to my face.� This is the perpetual pattern of Israelite life: ever stubborn, stiff-necked, hard-hearted, and resistant to God�s gracious offers of mercy. Here as elsewhere in the Old Testament, God is portrayed as long-suffering, full of grace and mercy, and eager to forgive; these are not exclusively New Testament attributes of God. Elsewhere, Isaiah writes, �Yet the Lord longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you compassion� (30:18). Ezekiel conveys the same message: God says, �Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? . . . Repent! Turn away from your offenses . . . Why will you die, O house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!� (18:23,30,32). The prophets bring this message of repentance and God�s grace to the Israelites again and again: �I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live� (Ezekiel 33:11); �Why bring such great disaster on yourselves . . . Why provoke me to anger . . . You will destroy yourselves� (Jeremiah 44:7-8); �How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel� (Hosea 11:8); �For [God] does not willingly bring affliction to the children of men� (Lamentations 3:33); �If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, than I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned� (Jeremiah 18:1); �Though I often speak [in judgment] against [Ephraim], I still remember him. Therefore my heart yearns for him; I have great compassion for him� (Jeremiah 31:20). The Hebrew God is not vengeful, unjust, and arbitrarily destructive; he is long-suffering, longing to forgive sin if people would only repent, unwilling to violate human free will, but letting judgment finally fall when their unregenerate sin becomes too destructive to themselves, their children, and other nations.

The ministry of Hosea presents a beautiful picture of God�s graciousness in the face of rebellious people. Hosea�s life was a symbolic enactment of God�s relationship with Israel. God commanded Hosea to marry an adulterous wife, Gomer. Just as Gomer was unfaithful to Hosea, so the Israelites had committed spiritual adultery against God by worshipping Canaanite deities. God tells Hosea to pursue Gomer and bring her back, just as God in his mercy brings back Israel to Canaan after the exile required by their unfaithfulness: �Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adulteress. Love her as the Lord loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods� (Hosea 3:1). God�s covenant relationship to Israel is like the covenant relationship of marriage; though the Israelites broke the covenant, God�s betrothal is �in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion [and] . . . faithfulness� (2:19-20). The characteristics of the Hebrew God, powerfully illustrated by Hosea, are not particular to the New Testament God; there is a firm continuity in the nature of God throughout the Bible.

God�s concern for the nations is an important theme of the major prophets as well. God does not only lament for rebellious Israel, heedlessly immoral and idolatrous, headed to its own destruction; he also mourns for other nations that do the same. God says, �My heart laments for Moab like a harp . . . I wail over Moab . . . I weep for you . . . So my heart laments for Moab like a flute� (Isaiah 16:11; Jeremiah 48:31,32,35). Isaiah records that by God�s judgment on Israel�s oppressors, �all mankind will know that I, the Lord, am your Savior, your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob� (49:26). Here is powerful evidence of God�s continual purpose in history to redeem for himself a people from all nations. Another similar passage is thorough proof against the view that God has favorites: ��Are not you Israelites the same to me as the Cushites? declares the Lord. �Did I not bring Israel up from Egypt, the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir?�� (Amos 9:7). Like David, Isaiah teaches, �Give thanks to the Lord . . . make known among the nations what he has done, and proclaim that his name is exalted. . . . let this be known to all the world� (12:4-5). Isaiah 45:22 summarizes God�s desire throughout human history: �Turn to me and be saved all you ends of the earth for I am God and there is no other.� One reason God delayed his wrath on Israel is �For my own name�s sake . . . for the sake of my praise . . . How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another� (Isaiah 48:9,11). As in the two incidents en route to Canaan, when God did not judge Israel for the sake of his reputation among the nations, here, too, God seeks glory for himself in the worship of other nations that may reject him if Israel provokes him into a judgment they do not appreciate. Yet again, the prophets reaffirm the unchanging purpose of God in history to bring salvation to all nations.

God sends several prophets to the Gentiles. Jeremiah, for example, is appointed �as a prophet to the nations� (Jeremiah 1:5). Jonah is the best example, for he, like most Israelites, refused the missionary mandate given to them. When God sent Jonah to the Ninevites, he fled in the opposite direction to Tarshish. His reason? �O Lord, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. Now, O Lord, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live� (Jonah 4:2-3). God did not allow Jonah�s fleeing to Tarshish to succeed, and he brought Jonah back in the belly of a great fish. As Jonah explained, God had mercy on Ninevah and did not bring on it the judgment he threatened through Jonah, because Jonah�s preaching caused the entire city to repent (3:5). So, Jonah refused to God precisely because he didn�t want God to have mercy on Ninevah. He wanted them to perish! And because they repented and were spared, he pouted so much that he asked to die. What a contrast between vengeful, apathetic, ethnocentric Jonah and the gracious, compassionate, forgiving, universal God! It seems that the parochialism of Israelites has been responsible for the misperception that the Hebrew God is xenophobic and narrow, for the Bible supports precisely the opposite view. Isaiah reported the said state of affairs: �We have not brought salvation to the earth; we have not given birth to people of the world� (Isaiah 26:18).

Another theme of the prophets is social justice. This theme is often linked to God�s rejection of insincere religious ritual, since there the hypocrisy is so evident. God says to Israel through Amos, �I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies. Even though you offer me burnt offerings, I will not accept them. . . . I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream� (5:21-24). The beginning of Isaiah records God�s evaluation of Israel and her hypocritical ritual:

Halfway through the book of Isaiah, God gives another analysis of Israel�s empty ceremony: �These people come near me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men� (Isaiah 29:13). By the end of Isaiah, the situation is no better, but God offers a beautiful picture of how a true fast, i.e. true covenental relationship with God, is lived out:

This justly-famous passage emphasizes God�s concern for social justice, as stipulated in the Law, but which Israel failed to follow. In another place, God spoke through Amos to reprove the Israelites for their social justice violations:

God has little tolerance for social injustice. Finally, Micah offers a concise summary of godly living as consistent with the social justice concerns of the Old Testament as with the New Testament: �He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God� (Micah 6:8). God�s rejection of insincere ritual is part of a broader doctrine, namely the test of true faith, i.e. the test of true covenant relationship with God. Those whose truly love God can be distinguished from those who do not by their works, not by their legalistic performance of ceremonies, which even the insincere can do.

Despite God�s desire not to send Israel and Judah into exile, their unregenerate sin (which included the unwillingness to assume responsibility to proclaim God�s name to the nations, as described so extensively above) forced him finally to judge them by allowing Assyria and Babylonia to conquer and exile them. However, God�s purposes cannot be thwarted by human disobedience; His purposes are always advanced, whether humans cooperate with those purposes or rebel against them. Just so, God�s advanced his purposes to make himself known in all the nations through Israel even through Israel�s exile. He did this is two ways. First, God set forth his judgment on Israel as a witness to his holiness which could not tolerate such wickedness. Through Ezekiel, God told Israel, �I will display my glory among the nations, and all the nations will see the punishment I inflict and the hand I lay upon them. From that day forward the house of Israel will know that I am the Lord their God. And the nations will know that the people of Israel went into exile foe their sin, because they were unfaithful to me� (39:21-23). Second, God used four men in Babylon and one woman in Susa to make himself known in miraculous always across the great Babylonian and Persian empires. God�s renown spread through the Babylonian empire when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to worship the huge idol the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar erected. For their faithfulness to the one true God, they were thrown into a fiery furnace. In the furnace, an angel protected the three Israelites, and seeing a fourth man walking in the fire, the king told them to come out. He said, �Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants! They trusted in him and defied the king�s command and were willing to give up their lives rather than serve or worship any god other than their own God. Therefore I decree that the people of any nation or language who say anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego be cut into pieces and their houses be turned into piles of rubble, for no other God can save in this way� (Daniel 3:28-29). Granted, Nebuchadnezzar�s violent methods were not God�s methods, but through the three men�s faithfulness, the name and knowledge of God was spread throughout the empire.

Just after this incident, Nebuchadnezzar sent a decree �To the peoples, nations and men of every language, who live in all the world . . . to tell [them] about the miraculous signs and wonders that the Most High God has performed for me� (Daniel 4:1-2). The signs he described was a dream interpreted by Daniel, another Israelite in exile in Babylon, and how it is fulfilled with the end result that �I, Nebuchadnezzar, . . . praised the Most High; I honored and glorified him who lives forever and ever. His dominion is an eternal dominion . . . Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and his ways are just� (Daniel 4:34,37). Here God won at least one covert, and a very influential one who immediately wrote to all the nations in his empire. In accordance with his constant purposes in history as specified in the Abrahamic Covenant, he did so through the his abiding presence with the Hebrews, in this case Daniel. After the Persians conquered Babylon, the new Persian king Darius had Daniel thrown into a den of lions for praying to God against his decree. Daniel, too, was delivered by an angel, and seeing the miracle, Darius issued a decree �to all peoples, nations and men of every language throughout the land: . . . in every part of my kingdom people must fear and reverence the God of Daniel. For he is the living God and he endures forever; his kingdom will not be destroyed, his dominion will never end� (Daniel 6:25-27). Again, the king�s totalitarian methods were against God�s, who forces no one to worship him unwillingly, but the story gives yet another example of God using his people to mediate the blessing of knowledge of God to all nations on earth.

In Susa, the Israelite Esther was selected as queen for her beauty. From this position, she was able to influence the Persian king Xerxes to allow the Jews to assemble and protect themselves against armies that might attack them due to an ordinance the king had been tricked into signing. Joy spread through the empire as the edict became known to the Jews. As a result, �many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them� (Esther 8:17). It seems that this fear was a reverent awe not unlike the �fear of the Lord� that here was awakened by the remarkable turn of events favoring the Jews. It does not seem that these conversions were at sword-point or out of fear for their lives, for the Jews have not yet taken military action in 8:17, and the dispersed Jews were not a formidable military force compared to the powers of the Persian empire with which they were acquainted. As with almost every part of the Bible, the book of Esther demonstrates the constant purpose of God in history to make himself known among all nations through the Jews.

After seventy years of captivity in Babylon, God restored the Israelites to their land through the decree of King Cyrus of Persia. God instructs Ezekiel to tell Israel that the restoration was not an act of favorite-nation status, nor was it due to the righteousness of Israel:

According to Ezekiel, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and Esther were the exceptions rather than the rule. While these outstanding individuals made God�s greatness and holiness known widely among the Gentiles, the majority of exiled Jews profaned God�s name among the nations where they went. Nevertheless, for the sake of his name, his reputation among the nations, God restores Israel. The message is a restatement of God�s redemptive purpose in history to all nations and of his Sovereign Purposes which will be fulfilled, whether through human cooperation or resistance. Jeremiah also mentions the restoration as a sign to the nations (31:10-12).

During the bleak time in Israel�s history from the end of the Divided Kingdom up until the Restoration, God sent many prophets with messages about the coming of a Messiah and a Messianic Age of peace, justice, and righteousness. This Messianic Age was typically called the �kingdom� or �kingdom of God� in reference to the everlasting kingdom promised in the Davidic Covenant. Some of the prophecies already discussed in the section on the Davidic Covenant were important messianic prophecies. For example, the famous Wonderful Counselor passage already mentioned describes the peaceful reign of God through the son to be given who will sit on David�s throne. Much Messianic Prophecy is vague and unconvincing, but other parts of it are very impressive. The prophetic material is arranged here from the most to the least convincing Messianic prophecy that argues for continuity between the Old and New Testaments.

1) The Messianic Age will be the everlasting kingdom of the Son of David, the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant. (See section above on the Davidic Covenant and its continuity with the New Testament.)

2) The Messiah will be born a child and will be called Mighty God. In a truly remarkable passage, Isaiah prophesies, �For to us a child is born, to us a son is given . . . And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father . . . He will reign on David�s throne and over his kingdom, establishing it and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever� (9:6-7). The passage is clearly Messianic because it refers directly to the Davidic covenant. So, Isaiah presents a Messiah-Judge who will be a child, who will be born, and yet who will be called Mighty God and Everlasting Father, and who will reign forever. Since the penalty for blaspheming according to the Mosaic Law was death, it is unlikely he would be called Mighty God and Everlasting Father unless he really were. So here we are faced with glaring contradictions: born and everlasting; a human child and Mighty God; a human child and eternal King. Since then, there is no room to say the original prophecy had a clear meaning which Christians misinterpreted, we are left to choose the most likely of three options: 1) Christ resolved the contradictions, 2) the contradictions will be resolved somehow . . . someday, or 3) the �prophecy� and �fulfillment� are both superstitions. In this case, the second option is no good, and the third is worse, for it would have us believe the Jews wrote and canonized the most contradiction-riddled prophecy imaginable. In light of this puzzle, the Christian answer is the most likely. The continuity between the Old and New Testaments cannot be dismissed, for there are no better explanations.

3) The Messiah will be a Suffering Servant. Isaiah includes several �servant songs� (42:1-9; 49:1-13; 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12) in which God speaks about �my servant.� There is some ambiguity about whether the songs refer to the nation of Israel or to the coming Messiah as the servant. There is good reason to believe the latter. Isaiah 42:1-2 describes the servant as a judge: �Here is my servant . . . he will bring justice to the nations.� Isaiah writes of the coming Messiah-Judge as an individual who will �reign on David�s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness� (9:7) and as a righteous Branch from the stump of Jesse (11:1) who �with righteousness . . . will judge� (11:4). Thus, since Isaiah identifies the servant with the role of justice-bringer to the nations, a role he elsewhere identifies with the Branch who is to fulfill the Davidic Covenant, it seems fair to conclude that the servant songs may very well have Messianic significance. The most remarkable of these songs is Isaiah 52:13-53:12. Here are the salient portions:

Even if the other servant songs might be about Israel, this one cannot be. For the passage explicitly distinguishes the servant from Israel: �for the transgression of my people, he was stricken�; �the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.� Moreover, every judgment God ever made against Israel was based on moral guilt, not on �the Lord�s will to crush him� even �though he had done no violence.� The book of Isaiah is filled with God�s gracious promises to Israel in spite of her guilt, never because of her goodness or innocence (much less a punishment for goodness!). The passage very explicitly says the servant will be �a guilt offering.� Never in the Old Testament is it suggested (unless in the servant songs) that the nation of Israel was to be a guilt offering in any way. To interpret the passage this way would be to go against everything we have seen in the Old Testament this far: the Abrahamic Covenant, God�s justice, Israel�s persistent sin, the Sinaic Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, etc.

Given then, that this passage does not refer to the nation of Israel and probably refers, like so much of Isaiah, to the Messiah, the question is whether the New Testament presentation of Christ fulfills this prophecy. Point for point, Christ matches Isaiah�s servant:

a. despised and rejected by men. The New Testament says, �He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him� (John 1:11).

b. pierced for out transgressions. The New Testament says, �one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear� (John 19:34).

c. by his stripes we are healed; We all like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all; the Lord makes his life a guilt offering. In the New Testament, Jesus says, �This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins� (Matthew 26:28). Paul writes, �for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Jesus Christ. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood� (Romans 3:23-25).

d. will justify many. In the New Testament, Jesus says, �whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life� (John 5:24). Paul writes, �Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ�through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand� (Romans 5:1-2).

e. as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. The New Testament records, �While he was being accused by the chief priests and elders, he made no answer� (Matthew 27:12).

f. cut off from the land of the living. The New Testament records, �With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last� (Mark 15:37).

g. numbered with the transgressors; assigned a grave with the wicked. The New Testament records, �They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left� (Mark 15:27).

h. He was assigned a grave . . . with the rich in his death. The New Testament records, �there came a rich man from Arimathea named Joseph . . . and asked for the body of Jesus. . . . And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb� (Matthew 27:57-60).

i. made intercession for the transgressors. In the New Testament, Jesus says from the cross of his executors, �Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing� (Luke 23:24).

j. though he had done no violence nor was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the Lord�s will to crush him. In the New Testament, Jesus knowing he will be killed, prays, ��My father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will�� (Matthew 26:39). Paul writes, �God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement� (Romans 3:23-25).

k. After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life. The New Testament Gospels record that Jesus rose from the dead.

l. I will give him a portion among the great. Paul writes that Christ �humbled himself and became obedient to death�even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name� (Philippians 2:8-9).

Here we may be presented with a very impressive prophecy. There are other explanations, though, which we must consider.

a) The correspondences between Isaiah 53 and the New Testament could be coincidental. While many of these particular correspondences are not particularly compelling and could be coincidental, the fact that every statement in Isaiah has a precise correspondence in the New Testament, and that thirteen different points are fulfilled decreases the possibility of coincidence to just about nil.

b) Isaiah 53 could have been written after the New Testament. The recent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, included an entire copy of the book of Isaiah dating before the time of Christ.

c) Jesus could have deliberated tried to fulfill these points from Isaiah 53. However, the resurrection (assuming the gospel narratives are accurate, see New Testament section) could not have been fulfilled in this way. Whether or not he was pierced was also outside his control, as was his place of burial. (Yes, he could have asks the soldiers to pierce him and a rich man to bury him, but is this likely?) The real sticking point for this theory, of course, is that it imagines Jesus a normal person who decided to pose as the suffering servant Messiah. He therefore would have to have decided to die at a young age the most painful execution then known, all for what? For fame? If he wanted fame, he could have presented himself as the political king-Messiah (as other popular historical figures of his time presented themselves), which the Jews were expecting and for whom they were desperately hoping. This is not very likely.

d) The gospel writers combed the Old Testament looking for phrases that resembled Christ�s life in some way and found this passage. There are prophecies claimed in the New Testament from Old Testament passages in which this process seems to have been done. However, this passage is rarely quoted in the New Testament, and never in full. Moreover, the number of correspondences make this mass-coincidence unlikely.

e) The gospel writers wrote fiction/myth about Jesus to make it appear his life fulfilled Isaiah 53 (i.e. the whole �prophecy-fulfillment� thing is untrue). But the correspondences are too striking to opt for this naturalistic option so quickly. The fact is, Jesus died at a young age an extremely painful death, and this is attested by secular and Jewish historians as well. Unless he was deluded, Jesus had no reason to do this. In light of the profundity of his teaching, few people are willing to accept him as deluded. This option is weak and relies on naturalistic prejudice more than anything else. An unbiased reader would probably think these correspondences deserve a second look. And they do.

4) The Messianic Age will be the age of the New Covenant. God proclaimed the future New Covenant to Jeremiah:

The words �new covenant� in this passage, translated into Latin in the Vulgate, are the basis of the term �New Testament.� According to the New Testament, Christ fulfilled the prophesied new covenant when, at the Last Supper, he told his disciples, �This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you� (Luke 22:20). The passage from Isaiah is quoted in its entirety in Hebrews 9:8-12, with the commentary that the new covenant was needed because the old covenant in itself was inadequate, and that the old covenant was made obsolete by the coming of the new covenant. The New Testament understanding of law is based on internal guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit, in accord with the internalization of law described by Jeremiah (see section below on the new dispensation of law). The New Testament also explains that God had left the sins committed before Christ unpunished so that the punishment might fall on him (Romans 3:25), in accord with Jeremiah�s teaching that God would remember past sins no more. But is this claim of fulfillment a legitimate continuity between the Old and New Testaments, or is it a misuse of Jermiah by misguided or careless Christians? To decide, we should ask, �Is the text open to that interpretation or is another interpretation in the original context more likely? As with much messianic prophecy, a distinct claim about a better future is made, so if the Christian claim of fulfillment is illegitimate, a more legitimate one must be found, for there is no meaning related only to the original context. The Christian claim seems good, for the best alternative is the claim of those Jews who are still waiting for the Messiah that the new covenant is yet to come.

5) The Messianic Age will reveal a new people of God. One verse already quoted states that �The Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together. In that day Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth. The Lord Almighty will bless them, saying, �Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance�� (Isaiah 19:21,23-25). This passage puts Egypt and Assyria ahead of Israel as sources of blessing on earth; the Abrahamic Covenant will be extended to them as well! Not only is Israel�s role as God�s people (i.e. mediators of blessing to the nations of the earth) accorded to other ethnic and political entities than the physical descendants of Abraham, but God explicitly calls another nation (Egypt) �my people�! Consider also Psalm 87:4: �I will record Rahab and Babylon among those who acknowledge me�Philistia too, and Tyre, along with Cush�and will say, �This one was born in Zion.�� God will count Gentiles as legitimate Israelites, so where people are born or who their parents are is irrelevant to whether or not they are and part of God�s people; he will call the believing Gentiles Israelites. The most explicit Old Testament prophecy about the coming change in God�s people is recorded in Zechariah: �Many nations will be joined with the Lord in that day and will become my people� (2:11). Here, God declares that his people will be those from every nation who are joined to him, not merely the physical descendants of Abraham, who may or may not be joined to him. Elsewhere, God foretells through Amos a time when his long-suffering will spare Israel no longer:

This is another passage which discredits the naturalistic assessment, for humans would be unlikely to write or canonize prophecies like this about themselves (unless perhaps God did reveal it). One striking point here is the detail that in the day when God will spare Israel no longer, the sun will go down at midday. According to the New Testament, darkness covered the land from about noon to 3pm (sixth hour to ninth hour) immediately prior to Christ�s death and the curtain in the temple being torn, symbolic of God�s presence leaving the temple (Matthew 27:45-51). While this fulfillment may have been a deliberate attempt by Matthew to portray Christ as the Messiah, i.e. it may be pretended continuity, it must be acknowledged that on this point, the Bible as a book has genuine continuity.

According to the New Testament, the inclusion of the Gentiles as part of God�s people is the fulfillment of these prophecies. John the Baptist emphasized the spiritual rather than racial nature of God�s people when he proclaimed to the Pharisees and Sadducees, �Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, �We have Abraham as our father.� I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham� (Matthew 3:7). According to John the Baptist, being physically descended from Abraham counted for nothing if there was no repentance and fruit in keeping with repentance. Likewise, Jesus reproved the Jews, �I know you are Abraham�s descendants [but] . . . If you were Abraham�s children, then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things� (John 8:37, 39-40). Jesus taught that being descendants of Abraham was not the same as being his children�a status accorded not to those of a physical lineage, but to those who do the same things Abraham did. The healing story of the centurion�s servant is another good example of this doctrine in Jesus� ministry. Jesus healed the servant of a Roman soldier, who had greater faith in him than Jesus had yet encountered in Israel. Turning to the crowd (mostly Jews), Jesus said, �I say to you that many will come from the east and the west [Luke�s account adds �and the north and the south�], and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth� (Matthew 8:11-12). This passage teaches that not all those who are Abraham�s physical descendants are part of God�s people (those of the covenant promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) and that many people from every direction would be part of that people. Jesus also taught this message in parables. In the Parable of the Tenants, Jesus told the story of a landowner who owned a vineyard, and rented it to some farmers while he went on a journey. At harvest time, the landowner [symbolic of God] sent servants to collect his fruit, but

Here Jesus very explicitly says that God is giving the kingdom to another people, one who will obey him, and produce the fruit of the kingdom, which as we have seen, includes the responsibility of taking the knowledge of God to all nations. Paul had the same message about the new Israel. Paul writes,

So, Paul�s teaching is in agreement with that of Jesus, John the Baptist, and the prophets. The verse from the psalms is virtually a paraphrase of Paul�s teaching that not all physical Israel are sons of Abraham and that among Gentiles there are true sons of Abraham.

Like Paul, Jesus, John the Baptist, and the prophets, Peter taught that the church was succeeding Israel to the position of God�s people, recipients of God�s blessing and mediating agents of the gospel to all nations message. Peter wrote to Christians in Asia Minor,

The first part of this passage is an allusion to Leviticus 19:5-6: �Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all the nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.� The Old Testament records that Israel did not obey God fully and broke his covenant, and foretells that there will be a new people of God. Here, the New Testament explains that this new people of God, the Christian Church, has the same task and responsibility as a nations of priests that Israel had: to mediate God�s redemptive work among the nations, to declare God�s praises among the nations, and to live godly lives among the nations that will call them to repentance and redemptive relationship with God.

So, here too is strong indication of continuity between the Old and New Testaments. What is more, this point of prophecy presents a strong argument against the skeptical interpretation that these Messianic prophesies are of human origin, for what human people who prophesy that they a new people of God other than themselves was going to be formed, unless that was really the case?

6) The Messianic Age will include the pouring out of God�s Spirit upon people. (This is closely related to the New Covenant prophecy.) Joel writes, �And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughter will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days� (2:28-30). Ezekiel teaches the same thing, as a future prophecy, but not explicitly as a Messianic prophecy: �I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws� (36:26-27). In the New Testament, Peter quoted the passage from Joel as a prophecy being fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2), when the Holy Spirit first came upon believers. Here is strong continuity between the testaments.

7) All nations will know God during the Messianic Age. Isaiah writes, �In that day the root of Jesse [Jesse was David�s father] will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him� (11:10). Jeremiah records, �At that time they will call Jerusalem The Throne of the Lord, and all nations will gather in Jerusalem to honor the name of the Lord� (Jeremiah 3:17). According to Zechariah 2:11, �Many nations will be joined in that day and will become my people.� 9:10, 14:1-9; Micah 4:1-8, 5:2-5; Malachi 1:11-14). Micah writes, �In the last days . . .. Many nations will come and say, Come, let us go up to the mountain of the lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths� (4:1-2). Isaiah records a similar prophecy: �Many peoples will come and say, �Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.� The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem�� (2:3). God also foretells that �the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea� (Isaiah 11:9, Habakkuk 2:14). He continues, �In that day the Root of Jesse [i.e. the Messiah] will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious� (Isaiah 11:10). He foretells that �gifts will be brought to the Lord Almighty from [Cush]� (18:7), and that �the glory of the Lord will be revealed and all mankind together will see it� (40:5). God proclaims to Israel, �I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I w ill strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides me� (45:6). Over and over he repeats this message: �I have made [David] a witness to the peoples . . . Surely you will summon nations you know not, and nations that do not know you will hasten to you, because of the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has endowed you with splendor� (Isaiah 55:4-5). Finally: �See, darkness covers the earth and thick darkness is over the peoples, but the Lord rises upon you and his glory appears over you. Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn. Lift up your eyes and look about you: All assemble and come to you . . . All from Sheba will come . . proclaiming the praise of the Lord� (Isaiah 60:2-4,6). In Isaiah 49:6, a very remarkable passage, God states, �I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.� God says that a day will come when �The Lord will make himself known to the Egyptians, and in that day they will acknowledge the Lord. They will worship with sacrifices and grain offerings. . . . The Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together. In that day Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth. The Lord Almighty will bless them, saying, �Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance�� (Isaiah 19:21,23-25). All these verses have the same recurrent message: in the Messianic Age, God�s purpose in history to redeem a people from all nations will finally be fulfilled.

The New Testament claims that the promise of worldwide knowledge of God in the Messianic age has been and is still (to this day) being fulfilled by Christian missionary activity. Is this claim of continuity between the testaments legitimate? We must ask, Which is more likely: 1) the prophecy has yet to be fulfilled through the physical descendants of Abraham (in which case, God has apparently ignored human affairs for almost 2000 years); 2) the prophecy has been (and/or is being) fulfilled through a new form of Israel that is highly continuous with the ancient Hebrews (in which case, Christianity, with its high degree of continuity from Judaism [far more than Islam, the only other serious candidate for this role] and its phenomenal worldwide growth, is probably the best candidate); or 3) the prophecy was wishful thinking in the deluded minds of ancient religious fanatics. While the third possibility is appealing to most modernists because of their naturalistic assumptions, the second possibility must be considered, as it is probably more likely than the first. The New Testament claim is contingent upon the doctrine of the Church as the New Israel, for many of the passages in original context seem to refer to the nation of Israel. This important concern was addressed in point #5 above.

There is also continuity between the testaments about how this worldwide movement will start: Isaiah 2:3 says that God�s word will go out from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth; Jesus said that �repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in all nations, beginning at Jerusalem� (Luke 24:47) and that the disciples would be his �witnesses in Jerusalem, and in Judea and all Samaria, and to the ends of the earth� (Acts 1:8). The New Testament does not say the truth will go out from Mecca (Islam), New York (Mormonism), or anywhere other than where the Old Testament said it would: Jerusalem.

8) The Messiah will come be a righteous judge and his judgment will be just. Isaiah says of him, �He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. . . . Righteousness will be his belt, and faithfulness the sash around his waist� (11:3-5). Isaiah also prophesies that the Messiah-King-Judge will �reign on David�s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness� (9:7). In a third prophecy, Gods says through Isaiah, �Here is my servant . . . I will put my spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations. . . . In faithfulness, he will bring forth justice; he will not falter or be discouraged until he brings justice on earth� (42:1,3-4).

The New Testament presents Jesus as just such a Messiah-Judge. John 5:27 says that �he [the Father] has given him [Christ] authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.� In Acts, Jesus� disciples speak of him as �the one whom God appointed to judge the living and the dead� and of an appointed day �when [God] will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof to this to all men by raising him from the dead� (Acts 10:42, 17:31). In 1 Timothy 4:1, Paul writes of �Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead.� In Matthew 25, Jesus presents himself as the judge of all the nations (25:32), just as described in Isaiah 42. Therefore, there is continuity between the Old and New Testaments on this point (though the continuity may be dismissed as coincidental or deliberate but untrue).

However, justice did not come on earth in the way Isaiah predicted as an immediate result of Jesus� coming. All the New Testament passages on justice are looking forward to Christ�s Second Coming as Judge, for in his First Coming, he came as Suffering Servant.

9) The Messianic Age will be peaceful. Isaiah describes it as follows: �The wolf will lie down with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child lead them . . .� (11:6f). Isaiah 9:6 speaks of the Messiah as the �Prince of Peace.� Micah records the famous prophecy, �He will judge between many peoples . . . They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore� (Micah 4:3). The New Testament records that angels announced Christ�s arrival with words of peace (Luke 2:14). However, peace did not come on earth in the way Isaiah predicted as an immediate result of Jesus� coming. Jesus offered his followers inner peace, but this is different. Like the prophecy of messianic justice, the fulfillment of this prophecy of messianic peace awaits Christ�s Second Coming, according to the New Testament, when he will come as Judge and King (Matthew 25).

There are other prophecies, but these are generally not entirely convincing or not huge thematically in the continuous narrative of the Bible.

According to the New Testament, the Old Testament prophets unknowingly foretold two different comings of the Messiah as though there would only be one coming of the Messiah. First, the Messiah would come as a suffering servant to die a substitutionary atoning death for he forgiveness of sin, fulfilling the Abrahamic and Priestly Covenants. Second, the Messiah would come again at the end of time as the King and Judge to fulfill the Davidic Covenant. Thus, Jesus speaks ambiguously of the Messianic Kingdom, sometimes as a present reality [�Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near� (Matthew 4:17); �the kingdom of God has come upon you� (Matthew 12:28)], and sometimes as a reality of the distant future (�this is how you should pray: . . . your kingdom come� (Matthew 6:9-10)]. Jesus quoted the following part of Isaiah, saying �Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing� (Luke 4:18-21):

When Jesus quoted this passage, however, he cut it off after the word favor, for the day of vengeance would be part of the Second Coming.

The Jewish theologian Martin Buber rejected Christianity because he believed that the Messianic Age could not have come in light of the evil and suffering still present in the world. He wrote,

However, it seems that Buber has not properly understood the doctrine of the two comings. The Kingdom has only come in part now; the world is only partly redeemed now; the righteous, peaceful reign of the Messiah as King and Judge is still in the future.

To many, the doctrine of two advents of the Messiah, a doctrine nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament, is pure Christian misappropriation of the Old Testament. As in every case when we face this objection, we must ask, which is more likely: 1) the Christian interpretation clarifies what was ambiguous in its original context; 2) the original context provides a clear meaning which Christianity clearly violates, or 3) the �prophecy� as well as its �fulfillment� are purely human constructions. In matter of fact, the Old Testament is not very clear on this matter. The Old Testament prophesies a Messiah who will be a suffering servant, a despised and rejected man of sorrows, who was led like a sheep to the slaughter. Then it prophesies a Messiah who will bring an eternal reign of peace and justice to the earth, who will judge all people, who will rule over all nations on earth, who will be God himself. The Old Testament makes no effort to bring these startling contradictions into any harmony. Before Christ, Jews must have puzzled over the mysterious suffering servant passages and wondered how they could depict the same Messiah as the Davidic Covenant passages. Most did not, however, for they were more interested in a temporal political kingdom than a spiritual eternal kingdom. This is why most Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah: they wanted a political deliverer from the Romans who would establish Israel�s political autonomy. Theirs was an understandable mistake, but not a justifiable one, for as Jesus noted, the Scriptures proclaimed him in his advent as suffering servant, so they should have recognized him. So, given that the Old Testament by itself is left with an unresolved contradiction, that the New Testament resolves the contradiction in an unexpected way is hardly a failure; I should think that any resolution at all would be quite an accomplishment! And when one thinks about it, after all, the Christian resolution is really the only resolution conceivable. The other alternative, the naturalistic rejection of prophecy, is also unlikely, for why would the Israelites ever have concocted such a contradiction, or having concocted it, canonized it (unless it were truly from God)? So, considered carefully, the Christian doctrine of two comings is not implausible, is in fact the most likely alternative given the ambiguity of Old Testament prophecy, and affirms a strong continuity between the Old and New Testaments.

The New Testament can be divided into three parts: 1) The Messiah, 2) The Apostles and the Church Age, and 3) Eschatological Prophecy. Each part reveals God's redemptive purpose for all peoples. The New Testament reveals the Messiah, who came to redeem all mankind, His commission to his people to disciple the nations, and the purpose of the mysterious Church Age. It records the highlights of the early Church Age and prophesies its consummation.

One initial question: why then did Jesus preach so obscurely to the masses and only clearly to his disciples? Jesus� words in Matthew 7:6 are apposite: ��Do not give to dogs what is sacred; do not through your pearls before pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.� Jesus knew there was no reason to give a clear statement of his message to people he knew would only despise and reject it. This willful resistance suggests the inefficacy of simple, clear explanations. Consequently, Jesus avoided simplicity and clarity along with theology and systematic teaching. If he had taught clearly and systematically in public, people would not have listened openly or understood. Much of his teaching involved parables, which have hidden meanings that Jesus reveals only to those who inquired or who, like his disciples, were already committed to him. Jesus� entire teaching strategy was aimed at making people disturbed and disquieted about their sinfulness so they will open their hearts to receive his teaching and embrace it with repentance and faith.

In the Gospels, Jesus is presented as the Messiah, and his life and ministry attest to God's redemptive plan for all mankind. Jesus� world missionary intent manifested in the Great Commission was not without precedent in His earlier ministry, but repeatedly emphasized. Simeon, just after Christ's birth, attested that Jesus would be "a light of revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to [God's] people Israel" (Luke 2:32). Jesus referred to the Gentiles as His sheep outside the pen, i.e. outside Israel (John 10:16). Jesus foretold the proclamation of the gospel "in all the earth" in Mark 14:9. Satan's tempting Jesus with "all the kingdoms of the world" (Matthew 4:8), rather than just Israel, suggests that God's intent was to redeem a people from every nation. Additionally, Jesus� self-designated title, "Son of Man" depicted him as the future ruler of a Kingdom from every nation (Daniel 7:13-14).

Though Jesus limited himself primarily to Israel during his ministry, he did extend salvation and healing to Samaritans (Jewish/Gentile "half-breeds") and to Gentiles on several notable occasions. Rather than following Jewish custom of crossing to the east side of the Jordan to bypass Samaria, Jesus went into Samaria, overcoming social taboos and engaging in cross-cultural missions. A large number of Samaritans (the ripe harvest fields of John 4:35) came to believe in Jesus as a result (v. 39-40). Jesus healed a Samaritan leper as well (Luke 17:11-19) and showed mercy on a Samaritan village (Luke 9:51-55). Among the Gentiles, Jesus healed the Capernaum centurion's servant (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10), the Gerasene demon-possessed man (Mark 5:1-20), and the Canaanite woman's daughter (Matthew 15:21-28). The first healing was significant because Jesus told the Jews that people would come from all nations (from the east and the west) to enter the Kingdom of God while unbelieving Jews would perish. Jesus also spoke to Greeks in Jerusalem in John 12:20-32, explaining that �I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself� (John 12:32). Also, Jesus headquartered his ministry in Capernaum, making it far easier for Gentiles to come hear Him preach than if he had headquartered his ministry in Jerusalem. Matthew 4:25 records that large crowds from the Decapolis and from across the Jordan River (i.e. Gentiles) followed Jesus.

Jesus' comparative, or at least apparent, lack of interest in the Gentiles was a strategic decision rather than exclusiveness or favoritism. Jesus strategically limited the concentration of his time and efforts not only to Israel, but even further�to a small group of twelve men. It was through preaching to an already prepared people (the Jews) and training a small core of men (the apostles) that He intended to again use His people to reach the nations.

We will consider the New Testament by working through its primary doctrines and objections. We have already covered much New Testament doctrine, including some of the most important doctrines, such as Atonement and justification by faith.

The New Testament cites numerous Old Testament passages as typological prophecy. These are obviously not very convincing as prophecies since they are more foreshadowings recognized after the fact than real prophesies. Here are several well-known examples:

1) The Virgin Birth �took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: �The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son� [Isaiah 7:14]� (Matthew 1:22).

2) The Flight from Egypt �fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: �Out of Egypt I have called my son.� [Hosea 11:1]� (Matthew 2:15).

3) The Murder of the Bethlehem babies fulfilled �what was said through the prophet Jeremiah . . . �A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.� [Jeremiah 31:15]� (Matthew 2:17-18).

4) The Atonement was prefigured by Abraham�s offering his son Isaac as a sacrifice.

5) Salvation by looking on Christ was prefigured by Healing by looking on Moses� snake.

The last two we have already look at. In the first three, Matthew claims that a prophecy was made which in its original context refers to something else entirely. Remember that typological prophecies are like prefigurements which at the time had their own significance, but looking back afterwards, can be seen to have prefigured the later event. While these are interesting, they do not provide a convincing case of prophecy and fulfillment; nor we they probably intended to.

The New Testament introduces some new points to the doctrine of the law, but preserves substantial continuity. We will explore what the similarities and differences are in this new dispensation. Jesus� �Sermon on the Mount� (Matthew 5-7) is his primary teaching on the law. In it, and in his other teachings on the law, he emphasizes several basic points:

We will look at these points one-by-one.

1) Right motivation is part of the law, just as internal wickedness is sin. Jesus taught this in several ways. First, he taught a series of beatitudes which blessed the merciful, the meek, the contrite in spirit (i.e. humble and repentant), and the pure in heart. Then, he condemned several common internal ways of sinning:

In each case, Jesus is taking a commandment from the law and reminding the people what its implications are for their thoughts and motives. He is reinvigorating the law with the spirit behind the letter which had become lost in externalism of legal observance in Jesus� day. (The Law does not say to hate one�s enemies, but only to love one�s neighbor.) With each law he looks at, Jesus says, �You have heard . . . But I say . . .� He is not teaching a different law from before; he is searching each law to get at its deepest meaning. The civil law required equal punishment for wrongs, but love was the governing principle for all interpersonal relations.

The third way Jesus communicates the message about the spirit of the law is by taking the Pharisees and exposing the hypocrisy of their actions in light of their motives. Jesus observes,

Jesus urges people to examine their motives and not to perform acts of righteousness before others to be seen. If motivated by the honor accorded by human observers, the blessing for obedience to the law is lost and there is no reward for this kind of action.

Teaching the law in this way is not a New Testament invention. Jesus was not reinterpreting the law, making it more rigorous; he was restoring its original meaning to a people who had lost touch with the law�s ultimate meaning. Internal motivation is included in the Mosaic Law, and in the history and prophetic books of the Old Testament. For example, the Law directed people to

This passage is very clear that selfish thoughts are sin. The commandment against covetousness (Exodus 20:17) is another clear example of a sin that could be committed entirely internally. God also commands, �do not hate your brother in your heart. . . . Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself� (Leviticus 19:17-18). Here, internal sin is commanded against and love of one�s neighbor is required, even love for one�s enemies (those against whom you might bear a grudge or seek revenge). The most important verse of the Law, agreed upon by Jews and Christians both, is this: �Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength� (Deuteronomy 6:5). More important than any ceremony or specific commandment was the heart attitude behind all action. Moses summarized the law in this way: �And now, O Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord with all your heart and with all your soul, and to observe the Lord�s commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own good� (Deuteronomy 10:12-13). So, wholehearted love, service, and obedience to God is all that God requires (the rest of the Law are the details for how this is practically lived out).

Outside the Law, the Old Testament continues with the same message: God looks at peoples� hearts and he requires true obedience from wholehearted love. Consider these examples: �motives are weighed by the Lord� (Proverbs 16:2); �The lamp of the Lord searches the spirit of a man; it searches out his inmost being� (Proverbs 20:27); �If you say, �But we knew nothing about this,� does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?� (Proverbs 24:12); �Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting� (Psalm 139:23-24); �[To God]: Forgive, and deal with each man according to all he does, since you know his heart (for you alone know the hearts of men)� (2 Chronicles 6:30); �serve [God] with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the Lord searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever� (1 Chronicles 28:9); �O righteous God, who searches minds and hearts�� (Psalm 7:9). Recall that the Prophets are full of entreaties to true justice, concern for the oppressed, and social justice. Here is another example: �Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other� (Zechariah 7:9-10). Thus, Jesus� teaching that God is concerned with inward obedience to the Law is completely continuous with the Old Testament.

Jesus reproved Israel�s religious leaders for missing the important matters of the law, i.e. loving obedience, by getting bogged down in ceremonies, just as they did in human traditions. Jesus protested, �Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices�mint, dill, and cumin. But you have neglected the weightier matters of the law�justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former� (Matthew 23:23). Again, these are the overarching principles of the law which are so easily lost in the midst of religious observance, an important warning for any day. The Old Testament teaches this point in a number of places. Recall the Prophets teaching about the priority God gives to social justice over empty religious ceremony. Here are two key Old Testament passages: �Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams. For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry� (1 Samuel 15:22); �Your love is like the morning mist, like the early dew that disappears. . . . I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings� (Hosea 6:4,6). Here again, Jesus� teaching on the law is continuous with Old Testament teaching on the Law.

3) The spirit of the law is more important than the letter. The law permitted divorce, but only, as Jesus says elsewhere, �because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning,� when the Creator established marriage so that a couple �are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate� (Matthew 19:8,6).

The example of marriage is very instructive, for it suggests that much of the Law is not absolute,. Some of Jesus� other teachings go a step further to teach that there are times when one can follow the spirit of the law and even break the letter. At one point, some Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath when his hungry disciples were eating from a grain field they were walking through. Jesus gave five answers: 1) David and his companions broke the law by eating consecrated bread in a time of need; 2) The priests break the Sabbath and yet are innocent; 3) If his accusers had understood the passage, �I desire mercy, not sacrifice,� they would not have accused the innocent; 4) I am Lord of the Sabbath; and 5) The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Matthew 12:3-8, Mark 2:25-28). The first three seem to be clearly teaching that the letter of the law is subordinate to the spirit of the law. The first and the fifth seem to teach that legitimate human needs should not be denied on the basis of Sabbath

Law. Healing on the Sabbath is an example of this issue. Jesus remarks, �If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath� (Matthew 12:1-12). Healing on the Sabbath was not a violation of any Mosaic Sabbath Law, but the point is, if you have the opportunity to do good or meet a need, do not worry about a potential Sabbath violation. The fourth point above seems directed at the Pharisees to get them to recognize who he is. At another time, Jesus healed a leper, whom it was unlawful for him to touch (Leviticus 5:2, 13:45-46). In a third instance, Jesus overturned the dietary laws with the principle of spirit above letter. Mark records, ��Don�t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him �unclean�? For it doesn�t go into his heart but into his stomach and then out of his body.� (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods �clean�)� (Mark 7:18-19).

Does Jesus� teaching match that of the Old Testament? As seen under point #1 and 2, there are Old Testament passages that support a spirit over letter interpretation of the Law. However, the abolishing of dietary laws was a major change. In the New Testament, a dream to Peter later confirmed this abolishing of the dietary laws (Acts 10:9-15). While this is discontinuous in the sense of unpredicted, it is not discontinuous in the sense of unprecedented. There were several changes in dietary law recorded in the Old Testament: first seed-bearing plants only (Genesis 1:29), then everything (Genesis 9:3), then everything with the limitations of the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 11).

4) The Law and not human traditions is what matters. By Jesus� time, Jewish legal interpreters had accumulated thousands of traditions about what was and was not acceptable behavior in every conceivable situation. For example, it was not enough that the Law said not to plow on the Sabbath; the interpreters came up with 29 additional laws about how not to break the Sabbath, including the rule that spitting on dirt violated the Sabbath, while spitting on a rock did not, because this was plowing. Much of the traditions were undisguised casuistry, i.e. convoluting plain moral principles in order to make a loop-hole for breaking it. The effect of these proliferating traditions was to nullify the original intent of the law, i.e. the expression of wholehearted love for God and neighbor, so that people were either licentiously avoiding obedience to God, or else trapped in endless lists of do�s and dont�s, which made them understand salvation as an achievement of human action, rather than as a gift of covenant grace. Jesus had no tolerance for this mixing of the Word of God with the Word of man. Consider this statement of Jesus:

Here Jesus quotes the prophets, demonstrating the continuity of his teaching with that of the Old Testament. The Law itself unambiguously commands, �Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you� (Deuteronomy 4:2).

5) The law is fulfilled by love, not by legalism. When Jesus was asked what the most important law from Moses was, he replied, ��Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.� This is the greatest commandment. And the second is like it: �Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments� (Matthew 23:37-40, quoting Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18). It is a huge misconception to think that in preaching love, Jesus was teaching a new law. The Rabbi Hillel had given the same answer to the same question several decades earlier; it is a thoroughly Jewish, thoroughly Torah-based answer. The continuity between the testaments is unbroken here. The �Golden Rule,� i.e. �do to others what you would have them do to you,� while not explicitly in the Law, is similarly held by Jesus to �[sum] up the Law and the Prophets� (Matthew 7:12); it is simply a restatement of the law to love one�s neighbor as oneself. Jesus� morality of love could not have been his greatest contribution to the world, for all he did was restate the Jewish law of love.

6) God requires perfection and sin is extremely serious. Jesus taught theses principles in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus, after speaking about loving one�s enemies, commanded, �Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect� (Matthew 5:48). Be as perfect as God! Wow! He says something similar a little earlier: �For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven� (Matthew 5:20). In this verse, Jesus exhorts the commoners in Galilee that they must be more righteous than the educated experts in the Law who invented hundred of traditions to be sure they did not break it at any point! This must have been almost as dumbfounding as the command to be perfect like God. This was surely out of their reach! Perhaps this is where Christ�s morality breaks from the Old Testament, in its extreme rigor. No, for Jesus� statement appears to be precisely modeled on a commandment repeated throughout the Law: �I am the Lord your God . . . therefore be holy, because I am holy� (Leviticus 11:44-45, 19:2, 20:26). The meaning of the Old Testament phrase is identical, and it was equally staggering, if not more so, because God revealed himself in fire and thunder and plague in the Sinai. The effect on Jesus� audience, after he had restored the power and inward import of the Law must have been overwhelming, just as the command to be holy had been for the ancient Israelites. Jesus taught the seriousness of sin in a famous passage related to lust:

Very few people have ever taken these verses literally; seen in their context, they make perfect sense in his general message that the law requires obedience and love which his audience could probably have barely imagined before he began. This emphasis has roots in the Old Testament as well. Recall the intricacies of the ceremonial law and the harsh punishments of the civil law; surely these had the same effect of highlighting the gravity of sin which Jesus� teaching about gouging out a eye that causes sin. Once again, Jesus� teaching on the law matches the Mosaic Law, point-for-point.

Where then did that leave the ancient Israelites? Where did that leave Jesus� audience? Where does that leave us? Clearly, unable to enter the kingdom of heaven, falling far, far short of God�s holiness. But Jesus also taught that his yoke was easy and his burden light (Matthew 11:30) in contrast to the unbearable burden the Pharisees place on people (Matthew 23:5). How can Jesus� burden be easier and lighter than the Pharisees, whose righteousness Jesus says must be exceeded to enter heaven? There are other examples of this contradiction in Jesus� teaching. At one point, he remarked that humans are evil (Matthew 7:10), and on another occasion instructed people to �stop sinning� (John 5:14, 8:11). Was he being deceitful, or was there more going on? On extremely instructive passage resolves the contradiction:

This passage immediately confronts us with the contradiction, then resolves it. The contradiction is that tax collectors and prostitutes are getting into the kingdom which he said one could only enter if his righteousness exceeded that of the Pharisees. What�s more, the Pharisees are not getting in. Then the resolution: John showed you the way of righteousness. But, what did John say was the way of righteousness? Matthew records that John�s message was: �Repent for the kingdom of heaven is near� (3:1). John baptized people in the Jordan River when they repented and confessed their sins. So, the way of righteousness which exceeds that of the Pharisees is repentance and confession of sin. Jesus adds, �even after you saw this [the prostitutes entering the kingdom through repentance], you did not repent and believe.� Repentance and belief, then, are the keys. This, of course, is the same message Jesus taught at other times. The message �Believe and be saved� recurs throughout the early chapters of John, receiving its most famous form in 3:16: �whoever believes will not perish but have eternal life.� Luke�s famous Parable of the Lost Son describes this way of entering the kingdom:

This is how one enters the kingdom: God in his grace forgives sin and receives the sinner if only the sinner will repent. Because the Pharisees would not repent, they were not entering the kingdom of heaven. To make sure this message is abundantly clear, Jesus teaches the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector:

Jesus� message is again: the way of righteousness (justified = declared righteous in God�s sight) is repentance; those who exalt themselves and are confident of their own righteousness will always miss the true way of righteousness and be unable to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Why then did Jesus say their righteousness had to exceed that of the Pharisees? The answer is found in Paul�s letters, as well as in the Old Testament. We will look first to the Old Testament. Remember that God commanded the Israelites, �Be holy because I am holy.� God also proclaimed to them, �You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so that you may know that I am the Lord, who makes you holy� (Exodus 31:13). The purpose of Sabbath observance was to show the Israelites that it was God who made them holy; Sabbath rest was a symbol of justification by faith according to the writer of Hebrews; so perhaps the Sabbath rest was a reminder that Israel�s holiness was apart from works. Even if this is not granted, it must be conceded that the verse means that the Sabbath was to remind Israel that God made them holy because it was a reminder of their covenental relationship with God. So, God required them to be holy and then made them holy on the basis of his covenental relationship with them. God refuses throughout the Bible to override human will, so he cannot force them to be holy. He must declare them holy on the basis of their covenental relationship to him, i.e. on the basis of repentance and belief, just as Jesus taught. Speaking of the priests, God said, �Consider them holy, because I the Lord am holy�I who make you holy� (Leviticus 21:8). Here the principle of imputed righteousness is taught: the priests will be considered holy on the basis of the holiness of God, who makes Israel holy. The same message is taught in Leviticus 20:8. In Jeremiah 23:6, it is prophesied that the Messiah will be called �The Lord our Righteousness.� Given that God�s people were holy on the basis of his holiness because they were in a covenental relationship with him, and that the Messiah would be called �the Lord our Righteousness,� we would expect that the righteousness of those who believe and repent is greater than that of the Pharisees because the repenters enter into covenant relationship with God and God makes them holy, credits them with his own righteousness, with that of Christ, �The Lord Our Righteousness.� Paul says exactly the same thing, as we will see soon.

In an oft-quoted passage, Jesus teaches, �Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stoke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven� (Matthew 5:17-19). The first part of the passage teaches that Jesus fulfilled the Law, the second part that the Law is still in effect and will be until heaven and earth disappear. It is clear from his other teaching, though, that this does not mean all the laws nor a letter-heavy interpretation of the laws. What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the Law? Elsewhere, Jesus says, �The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John [the Baptist]. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached� (Luke 16:16). Jesus� ministry somehow ends the proclamation of the Law and Prophets; he must fulfill them in the sense of being the object of whom they were prophesying. Jesus states that this is the case in Luke 24: �Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms� (24:44). So, there is a sense in which the Law as a prophecy of Christ is finished once Christ has come; yet he says it must still be obeyed.

Paul�s teaching on the Law complements Jesus� teaching and expands on it. First, Paul explains the idea of imputed righteousness very clearly: �To the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness� (Romans 4:5). Paul cites Abraham�s imputed faith as Old Testament evidence of this doctrine; he might also have cited the imputed holiness of Leviticus or Jeremiah as well. This is the crucial doctrine of justification by faith, which we already discussed at some length with relation to Abraham.

Second, Paul explains a function of the Law that was implied in Jesus� teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, i.e. the Law as a revealer of sinfulness. Because the moral law is clear, unambiguous, and incontrovertible, it stands as a witness against people of their sin. It was a kind of mirror in which people were able to see their impurities, a measuring stick which confronted people with the inescapable reality that they were sinners offending an infinitely holy God. Paul explains that the law was given �so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather through the law we become conscious of sin� (Romans 3:20). Without the law clearly stated before us, we quickly resort to rationalization of immoral behavior, convoluted casuistry, and the blunting or numbing of our conscience. The verse implies that we can even become unconscious of sin in this way. The law brings us to undeniable, conscious accountability before God, convicting us of sin, and guiding us toward justification by faith. Paul comments, �So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith� (Galatians 3:24).

Paul also holds that �The law was added so that the trespass might increase� (Romans 5:20). Paul further explains this unexpected twist, that God gave the law in part to increase sin: �the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment put me to death . . . in order that sin might be recognized as sin� (Romans 7:9-11,13). The law, though �holy, righteous and good� in itself (7:12), serves as an instrument for sin to �become utterly sinful� (7:13), again for the purpose of leading people to Christ in repentance that they might be justified by faith.

Third, Paul explains how Christ has fulfilled the Law. He was �the end [fulfillment] of the Law, so there can be righteousness for everyone who believes� (Romans 10:4). So, Christ�s fulfillment of the Law meant that believers no longer had to strive to attain righteousness before God through the Law. Paul also indicates that the Law as a way of life has been ended for believers. He writes, �we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code� (Romans 7:6). He does not mean we have been released from the law in the sense that we can now do whatever we want, which would contradict Jesus� teaching that the Law would continue to be practiced. He explicitly warns against this kind of misinterpretation in Romans 6:1. 1 Timothy 1:9 gives a clue what he means: �the law is made not for the righteous, but for lawbreakers.� It is made for lawbreakers, because it leads them to repent and to be justified by faith in Christ (Galatians 3:25), after which they serve in the �new way of the Spirit.� What Paul has in mind is the New Covenant prophecies of Jeremiah 31:33, �I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts,� and Ezekiel 36:26-27, �I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you. . . . I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.� He was also thinking of Habbakuk 2:4, which he quotes in Romans 1:17: �the righteous will live by his faith.�

Paul has in mind two different lifestyles: first, one in which people strive vainly to live by a detailed Law code in order to be earn God�s acceptance; and second, on in which people who have already been justified by faith can live by faith, the law written on the heart, and the guidance and assistance of God�s Spirit. This latter way is the way the Christian should live. Paul is confident that those who live this way will fulfill the Law, even though they are not serving in the old way of the law. For example, he says, �the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature, but according to the Spirit� (Romans 8:4). He also writes, �Do we then nullify the law by this faith [which justifies apart from the law]? Not at all! Rather we uphold the law� (Romans 3:31). We uphold the law in living by faith and met the requirements of the Law in this way of living �according to the Spirit� or of �serving in the new way of the Spirit.� Just as Ezekiel and Habbakuk wrote, Paul taught that the purpose of living by faith or by the Spirit is none other than to obey God�s Law. Paul is clear that only those led by the Spirit serve apart from the law, for otherwise the law would not be met. He writes, �if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law� (Galatians 5:18), because the actions of that Spirit break no law (Galatians 5:22).

Paul is decidedly pro-Law. He is often accused of being anti-Law, and therefore teaching doctrine contrary to the Old Testament and to Jesus. This is not so. According to Paul, the �law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good,� filled with �righteous requirements� (Romans 7:12, 8:4). The problem arises when the law becomes a way of life, the legalistic way of life. Compared to his Christian life of serving in the new way of the Spirit, Paul considers the early part of his life, when he serving in the old way of the written code as �rubbish� (Philippians 3:8), despite the fact that he obtained a faultless legalistic righteousness (3:6). Paul is only anti-Law in the sense that he is anti-Law-lifestyle, because that lifestyle which cannot really meet the righteous requirements of the law (Romans 8:3-4). Why not? First, the law is weakened by the sinful nature without the Spirit, so the requirements cannot be met (8:3). Second, since the old way of the written code aims at securing a righteousness of one�s own apart from God and others, it cannot love; and since �love is the fulfillment of the Law� (Romans 13:10), the old way of the written code is unable to fulfill the Law. So, Paul is anti-Law-lifestyle precisely because he is pro-Law in the same way that Jesus was pro-Law. Jesus, too, recall, taught that love was the fulfillment of the Law, and that the spirit of the law, accomplished by love, superseded the letter of the Law. Paul uses the phrase �freedom from the law� to describe this state. The Law is only �a curse� (Galatians 3:10), �slavery� (Galatians 5:1), and �imprisonment� (Galatians 3:23) when it is turned into a lifestyle and a way of earning a righteousness of one�s own.

The deity of Christ was taught most strongly in the passages of the Davidic Covenant, and the corresponding passages in which Christ claimed to fulfill the Davidic Covenant. Christ taught the doctrine himself several times in several ways.

1) Direct claims:

��Before Abraham was, I AM [YHWH]! At this, they picked up stones to stone him [for blaspheming]� (John 8:58). Here Jesus claims pre-existence and uses the sacred name of God for himself.

��I and the Father are one.� Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, �I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?� �We are not stoning you for any of these,� replied the Jews, �but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.� . . . �Why then do you accuse me of blaspheme because I said, �I am God�s Son�? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father�� (John 10:31-33,36-38).

�Jesus said to them, �My Father is always at work to this very day, and I, too, am working.� For this reason they tried all the harder to kill him; not only e Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God� (John 5:17-18).

��If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.� Philip said, �Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.� Jesus answered: �Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, �Show us the Father�? Don't you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?�� (John 14:7-10).

2) He claimed to forgive sin, something only God could do (Mark 2:7-10).

Other parts of the New Testament also teach the deity of Christ include: �our great God and Savior Jesus Christ� (Titus 2:13-14); �Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!� (Romans 9:5).

A common misconception of Jesus is that he basically just taught everyone to love each other and to tolerate others and not to judge other people. This misconception is very important to address, for it lies behind the larger accusation that the Hebrew and Christian Gods are different: �Hard� and �Soft,� respectively. The truth is, the Hebrew God punished sin as well as forgave and acted with compassion, just as the Christian God forgives and acts with compassion as well as punishes sin. If anyone doubts that the Hebrew God is gracious, long-suffering, and forgiving, he should review the section on the Old Testament prophets. If anyone doubts that the Christian God punishes sin, he should reread the previous passages on final judgments as well as this passage on Jesus. We will see that like the Hebrew God and the Heavenly Father of the New Testament, Jesus was soft and hard both: compassionate, gracious, and forgiving, as well as just and hard on unregenerate sin.

John the Baptist said of Jesus, �His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire� (Matthew 3:12). This does not sound like the soft Jesus critics describe. Jesus told his audience at one point,

This appears to contradict the Isaiah�s teaching the Messiah would be the Prince of Peace. But Jesus� teaching is building on an important truth: there can be no meaningful, substantive peace except at the price of conflict, for only by caring about something (in this case, enough about Jesus) enough to die for it does it become capable of giving true peace. This kind of commitment always engenders some conflict, which is minimal compared to the peace. Even more to the point, the peaceful reign of Christ awaits his second coming.

Remember that Jesus was crucified; prophets of tolerance and kindness are not crucified. Jesus had to have made some enemies in Jerusalem, and looking at what he said to the Jewish leadership, it is not at all surprising that he did:

Jesus had no tolerance for evil or hypocrisy, especially among the religious leaders in Jerusalem. They were leading people astray, giving false teaching, and he judged them and confronted them. Also in this passage, Jesus talked about condemnation to hell. Critics of the amiable Jesus stripe often overlook these passages. In Matthew 25, as we have seen Jesus foretells his judgment of all the nations, when he will say to the damned, ��Depart from me you are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels�� (25:41). Jesus wanted to forgive people, but he could not forgive the unrepentant: �unless you repent, you too will perish� (Luke 13:5). He warned people, �anyone who says �You fool!� will be in danger of the fire of hell� (Matthew 5:22), and �if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where �their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched�� (Luke 9:47-48). He told the Parable of Rich Man and Lazarus about hell, too: �The rich man died and was buried. In hell where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, �Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger into the water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire�� (Luke 16:22-24). Jesus� nature is continuous with that of the Hebrew God of the Old Testament and the Heavenly Father of the New Testament: sold and hard both, quick to forgive, punishing the unrepentant with justice.

Paul writes, �we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord�s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit� (2 Corinthians 3:18). Christians are to progressively grow into the image of Christ, i.e. to grow in holiness, love, and moral integrity. Sanctification is not a gift that occurs instantly by God�s overriding human will to make us holy through the Holy Spirit�s living in our place (as Wesley taught, and Keswicks, Pentecostals, and charismatics still teach). Sanctification is the result of human will, assisted by the Holy Spirit, who helps us in our weakness. Sanctification is strenuous, difficult, and painful. Those who teach otherwise are modern proponents of the antinomian heresy, also called cheap grace.

Jesus taught that those who follow him must give up everything, must die to themselves, and follow him on a path of persecution for doing good. He preached,

This is a prime example of the central paradox in Christ�s teaching. Paradoxically, we can only have life by dying to ourselves. Jesus does not intend that his disciples hate their families, for love permeates his teaching; he means that they must not let any human relationships stand in the way of their following Christ�s path. John�s parallel passage is often quoted: �unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies it produces man seeds. The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Whoever serves me must follow me� (John 12:24-26). Obedience to Christ�s commands is the sign that a disciple really love him: �If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you know the truth, and the truth will set you free . . . [for] everyone who sins is a slave to sin . . . So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. . . . If you love me, you will obey what I command. . . . Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me� (John 8:31-32,34,36; 14:15,21).

So, according to Jesus, a sanctified life is the mark of a true Christian. According to Paul, believers can choose between two ways of life: the way of the sinful nature and the way of the Spirit (Galatians 5:16-17). To those who live not by the Spirit but by the sinful nature, in �sexual immorality, impurity, or debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissentions, factions, and envy, drunkenness, orgies, and the like,� Paul offers this warning: �those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God� (Galatians 5:19-21). So, evil-doers are not true believers and will not inherit God�s kingdom. This does not teach that Christians are saved by their good works; it teaches that Christians are saved by faith to do good works, and that good works are always present in the life of a true believer. Faith cannot be contained in a few words of repentance or coming forward at a revival meeting, for it is a movement of the heart repudiating the sinful past to live a new life of holiness for God, which may or may not be expressed in certain words or gestures. This movement of the heart is often a process, not a conversion-event. Many who have recited a �sinner�s prayer� as if it were a mystical incantation and then gone their way sinning believing they are saved are not true believers; they are still in their sin and will not inherit the kingdom. Jesus taught precisely the same thing:

True believers, who have undergone an inward transformation, cannot live lives of sinful depravity. Many self-proclaimed believers will find out on the judgment day that Jesus never knew them; there was never any true faith, even at the beginning. Those who follow Christ�s path of righteousness will be assisted by God�s pruning (not his overhauling human will with the Holy Spirit�who is a helper, not a bulldozer of human free will). This does not mean that believers will not fall into temptation and sin; it does mean that this will not be the characteristic mode of being for them; �those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.� God is eager to forgive, but only those who are genuinely repentant, i.e. who have chosen to single-mindedly repudiate the sin they have committed, and change their ways: �If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us form all unrighteousness� (1 John 1:9).

God does not violate human free will in sanctification, but he does play an important role. The passage above describes this role as pruning. Philippians describes it as God�s work: �he who began a good work in you will carry it on until the day of Christ Jesus� (1:6). God does not sanctify believers in the sense of doing something for them or to them; he works with them, through the helping agency of the Holy Spirit. Sanctification is both a human and a divine work.

The doctrine of salvation to a sanctified life pervades the New Testament. Here are a few examples: �produce fruit in keeping with repentance� (Matthew 3:8); �go and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you� (Matthew 28:19-20); �we have received grace and apostleship to call people from among the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith� (Romans 1:5); �so that all nations might believe and obey him� (Romans 16:26); �we are God�s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works� (Ephesians 2:10); �the grace of God that brings salvation . . . teaches us to say �No� to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age� (Titus 2:11-12). More examples can but need not be multiplied; the sensitive reader should have no trouble seeing in virtually every chapter of the Bible that moral effort and sanctification are part of relationship to God.

Christ taught that he was leaving his peace with the disciples: �Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you� (John 14:27). Here, he is speaking of an inner peace or rest, whereas Isaiah seemed to be describing an external peace. Jesus also offered inner peace/rest when he gave the invitation, ��Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light�� (Matthew 11:28-30). But this doctrine of inner rest is found in the Old Testament as well: �Today, if you hear [God�s] voice, do not harden your hearts as you did at Meribah . . . where your fathers tested and tried me, though they had seen what I did. For forty years I was angry with that generation; I said, �They are a people whose hearts go astray, and they have not known my ways. So I declared on oath in my anger, �They shall never enter my rest�� (Psalm 95:7-11). This passage is quoted in the New Testament in the book of Hebrews. The writer of Hebrews observes:

The last line makes it clear that the inner rest comes from knowledge that one is accepted by God on the basis of belief and does not need to strive vainly to earn salvation by works. There is continuity between the Old and New Testaments on this point.

Finally, the Gospels provide Jesus' Great Commission, his commissioning the apostles and the Church to the purpose of worldwide evangelism. The Great Commission is the most direct and powerful mandate for missionary work in the entire Bible, but as we have seen, this was not a new command, but a restatement of God�s historic purpose of universal redemption through a particular people in a covenant relationship to him. Indeed, the Abrahamic Covenant is an early version of the Great Commission. Isaiah 49:6 is sometimes called the �Great Commission of the Old Testament.� So, the Great Commission is the marching orders for the Christian Church, but it is entirely continuous with God�s purposes since the very beginning.

Matthew�s account of the Great Commission is the most familiar: �All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age� (28:18-20). In Matthew�s Great Commission passage, the authority for missions (28:18), the method for missions (28:19), and the empowerment for missions (28:20) are specified. Another form of the commission is found in Matthew 24:14: �And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.� Here, Jesus teaches that the end of the world is contingent on the worldwide preaching of the gospel. If the consistent message of the Bible that God�s central purpose in history is the redemption of a people from all nations, we would expect that the end of history would be related to the fulfillment of this purpose. Mark�s account of the Great Commission is part of 16:9-20, which is found only in late manuscripts and was probably not originally part of Mark�s gospel. Luke�s account is as follows: �This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sin will be preached in all nations, beginning at Jerusalem� (24:46-47). While Matthew presents the commission as a command, Luke presents it as a teaching about what was written in the Scriptures that had been fulfilled (the suffering, death, and resurrection) and would be fulfilled in the coming age (the gospel preached in all nations) (24:44-45). Luke�s account thus emphasizes the continuity of God�s universal redemptive, evangelistic purposes in history. John�s version is short; Jesus tells his disciples, �As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.� The commission is recorded a fifth time at the beginning of the Acts of the Apostles: �you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth� (1:8).

The coming Kingdom of Christ, as foretold by the Hebrew Prophets, will contain peoples from "every tribe and language and people and nation" (Revelation 5:9). God desires for every people to be reached (2 Peter 3:9) and will make a people for Himself from every nation of the earth.

According to both Jesus� teaching in the Gospels and the Apostles� teaching in the epistles, the Church (composed of believing Jews and Gentiles, was the Israel of God, the spiritual Israel (as against carnal Israel, i.e. the physical descendants of Abraham). This important doctrine was already addressed in the section on Messianic Prophecy.

Paul, however, calls this doctrine a mystery hidden in past ages: �the mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Jesus Christ� (Ephesians 3:6; see also 3:2, Romans 16:25, Colosians 1:25). However, as we have gone through the Old Testament, this theme of the worldwide meaning of God�s promises, covenants, and plan was not a mystery, but was very clear. Nonetheless, by the time of the New Testament, it had become a mystery, so that the Great Commission was something of a surprise. How did it become a mystery? Probably by unregenerate refusal to play her designated role in God�s evangelistic purposes, the Jews were blinded to this insight about their responsibility and their co-heirship with the Gentiles (see the section on blinding with relation to Pharaoh�s heart).

The early Church struggled for some time to understand the cultural dimensions of the new Israel. There was a sect of �Judiazers� who wanted the Gentiles to be circumcised, and obey the Law of Moses in its non-moral dimensions, which were part of Jewish culture, but alien to the Gentiles who were becoming Christians. Peter and Paul struggled on this issue, when Peter compromised doctrinally with the Judaizers and Paul �confronted him to his face� (Galatians 2). This incident is sometimes takes as evidence that Paul was teaching a different gospel than Peter, who like Jesus, was trying to stay loyal to Judaism. This is not true; Peter received special revelation that the Gentiles were included in God�s people (Acts 10). Moreover, at the Council of Jerusalem (where the Apostles met to settle the issue), Peter was one of the primary spokesmen of the supposedly �Pauline� doctrine that the Gentiles did not have to be circumcised or obey the Law of Moses to be Christians: �Now why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the [Gentile] disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe that it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are� (Acts 15:10-11). The ceremonial law had been fulfilled by Christ; the civil law, along with circumcision and the Sabbath, were part of Hebrew culture; the moral law was still normative, though not as a way of life or as a way of righteousness.

Mention of the Holy Spirit is made in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), but Christ�s teachings on the Holy Spirit are the most detailed in John�s Gospel. In Matthew, John the Baptist told his audience that Jesus would �baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire [a reference of judgment; see previous verse]� (3:12, Mark 1:8, John 1:33).

Some readers accuse Christians of inventing the Holy Spirit as a doctrine totally discontinuous with the Old Testament. While it is true that the Holy Spirit is not mentioned as much in the Old Testament as in the New Testament, it is not in the least true that the Holy Spirit is not mentioned thereat all. The Old Testament speaks often about �God�s spirit� or the �Spirit of God� starting with Genesis 1:2: �the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.� Looking at a concordance shows dozens of references to God�s Spirit in the Old Testament. Here are a few more examples: Genesis 6:3: Exodus 31:3; Numbers 11:25; Judges 6:34, 11:29, 13:25; 1 Samuel 10:10, 16:13-14; 2 Samuel 23:2; Nehemiah 9:20, 9:30; Job 33:4; Psalm 104:30, 106:33, 139:7, 143:10; Isaiah 11:2, 30:1, 32:15, 44:3, 61:1, 63:10; Ezekiel 36:27; Joel 2:28; Zechariah 4:6. The words �Holy Spirit� are even used in Psalm 51:11 and Isaiah 63:10. Most importantly, recall that the prophets foretold that the pouring out of the Spirit would be part of the coming Messianic Age, which is completely in agreement with what the New Testament teaches.

The major difference between the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament and the Holy Spirit in the New Testament is that God is present in New Testament believers in a residential mode called the �baptism of the Holy Spirit� while Old Testament believers generally lacked this immediate presence of God, for God �resided� in the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle or Temple. The New Testament gives this explanation of the Holy Spirit; the Old Testament does too. The New Testament passage in which the curtain of the temple guarding the Holy of Holies is torn from top to bottom is typically interpreted as God�s presence leaving the Holy of Holies forever to dwell in the hearts of believers. John�s gospel records, �Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, �If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.� By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified� (7:37-39). Believers in Christ received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2), when the Holy Spirit came upon the believers gathered in Jerusalem. Thereafter the �baptism of Holy Spirit� is part of the regenerative process that begins when one becomes a Christian.

The ministry of the Holy Spirit in the believer as described in the New Testament includes empowerment for evangelism and missions (Acts 1:8) empowerment for love and self-discipline (2 Timothy 1:7), help in living �according to the Holy Spirit� and not the sinful nature (Romans 8:12, Galatians 5:16-25); sustenance in our weakness as we await redemption (Romans 8:23-26), counseling (John 14:16-17,26), guidance into all truth, as we become capable of receiving it (John 16:12-13), and enablement to understand God and his ways (1 Corinthians 2:10-12).

The baptism of the Holy Spirit is NOT a �second grace� received after conversion, as many Methodists, Keswicks, Pentecostals, and charismatics have taught. Note that in the passage from John above, Jesus says, �whoever believes,� not whoever believes and has the experience of the second grace. Paul states this emphatically: �if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ� (Romans 8:9). Paul teaches that God has �set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in us as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come� (2 Corinthians 1:22). Paul makes no mention of a second grace; the Holy Spirit is a sign of belonging to God. Unless it will be denied that conversion is the basis of eternal destiny, it must be granted that all believers have this deposit. Paul makes the point even stronger in his letter to the Ephesians: �Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God�s possession� (1:13-14). The Holy Spirit, writes Paul, comes to all believers, when they believe, and does not leave until the redemption, when the Holy Spirit is no longer necessary as a deposit guaranteeing the future state. In his letter to Titus, Paul writes that Christ �saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs of the hope of eternal life� (3:5-7). Here Paul links the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on believers with justification, not with any second grace. He also describes the purpose of the Holy Spirit as giving the believer hope of eternal life, in accordance with his teaching in the other verse from 1 Corinthians; the purpose is not a special grace such as speaking in tongues, as Pentecostals teach. Pentecostals also teach that the baptizing of the Holy Spirit is an ongoing process of filling and emptying. If, as the New Testament teaches, the Holy Spirit is present in all believers from the time of conversion, and not merely a select group who have had special religious experiences, it would be absurd to hold that the Holy Spirit comes and goes in a pattern of emptying and filling.

Like the Mosaic Law, Jesus taught the importance of social justice. In his teaching on the final judgment, Jesus says to the saved,

Jesus specifies here the ways Christians are to be involved in helping the poor, oppressed, and hurting. Jesus emphasized repeatedly the vagaries of wealth. He taught, �No servant can serve two masters. . . . You cannot serve both God and money� (Luke 16:13). A rich young man who came to Jesus was too attached to money to follow Jesus, prompting Jesus to say, �it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again, I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God� (Matthew 19:24). Wealth can easily become a trap and a master, and the poor suffer when this happens.

Like the Prophets, Jesus speaks of the coming Kingdom as a time of great social justice. There is disagreement among Christians about when the Kingdom will come, probably due to the ambiguity in Jesus� teachings between the kingdom as a present reality and as a future condition. Some Christians believe the Second Coming will occur after the �Millennium,� i.e. the reign of Christ on earth described in Revelation 20:2, which will be Christ ruling through the Church and Christian institutions for an indefinite period of time up till the second coming. These �postmillennialists� place heavy emphasis on progress and on Christianizing society and the social structure; they often teach versions of utopian socialism such as liberation theology. Other Christians, �premillennialists,� believe the world will get worse and worse until the Second Coming, at which time will commence a literal thousand-year space-and-time rule of Christ on earth. Premillennialists tend to emphasize evangelism over social work. Both views place the general resurrection, the final judgment, and the eternal state after the millennium and the second coming.) Since this matter is not altogether clear, it is best to notice that all we need to know is clear, namely that both social work and evangelism were extremely important to Christ and indeed throughout the Bible. However, Jesus never called for a socialist utopia of any sort. He taught, �You will always have the poor among you� (John 12:8). Jesus was most likely alluding to the Law at this point, which says, �There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land� (Deuteronomy 15:11). That there will always be poor people is not an excuse for not helping the poor; it is a reason though, for, distrusting the dreams of utopian and Marxist socialists.

Christ�s resurrection was foretold in Isaiah 53, as we have seen, and described extensively in the New Testament. The New Testament clearly teaches a bodily resurrection, as will be seen in the following analysis of the general resurrection, which depends on Christ�s resurrection for its possibility and meaning.

The doctrines of the resurrection from the dead and heaven are first introduced in the Psalms. David writes, �But God will surely redeem my life from the grave; he will surely take me to himself� (49:15). The first part seems to refer to resurrection and the second part to heaven (i.e. dwelling eternally with God after death). In another psalm, he writes, �my body will also rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. You have made known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand� (16:9-11). As in the other verse, David speaks of both resurrection first, then of heaven, which he identifies with eternal pleasure and the presence of God. In a third Psalm, David writes, �You guide me with your counsel and afterward you will take me into glory. Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever� (74:24-25). But is this just David musing? No, for the prophets have the same message. Hosea records God�s promise, �I will random them [the Israelites] from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. Where, O death, are your plagues? Where, O grave, is your destruction� (Hosea 13:14). While this might be understood as referring to the nation of Israel and not to individual Israelites, the questions seem more likely to refer to the crisis individuals face at death. In a Messianic passage, Isaiah prophesied, �On this mountain the Lord Almighty . . . will swallow up death forever� (25:6,8). Daniel prophesied, �Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever� (12:2-3). Daniel states that the resurrection will occur in the distant future, as though the dead were awakened from a sleep. Both the righteous and the wicked will rise and go to reward or punishment, respectively. Daniel also foretells the glorification of the righteous, who will shine like stars. Despite these passages, the Jews did not have a very clear conception of the afterlife. Starting in Genesis, the Old Testament is filled with vague references to Sheol as the place where the dead go. Job describes Sheol as a place of sleep and rest (3:13), but this may just be his own personal view. In Jesus� day, the two major Jewish sects were the Pharisees and the Saducees, who were chiefly divided on the matter of the resurrection: the Pharisees believed in immortality of the soul and reward or retribution after death; the Saducees denied both resurrection and a future life (Acts 23:8). Orthodox Jews today reject the resurrection. The Talmud mentions both paradise and Abraham�s bosom (see Luke 23:43 and 16:22) as homes of the righteous to which the righteous go to await vindication in the future (which is compatible with Paul�s teaching below).

The New Testament teaches a general resurrection. As seen just above, this is not the introduction of decidedly new doctrine. The New Testament teaches bodily resurrection as a progressive revelation, i.e. the clarification and development of a doctrine that was only revealed in shadowy form earlier. In the New Testament, Jesus clearly taught a resurrection at the end of time of believers who had died. He taught,

Peter quotes Psalm 16 and Paul quotes Hosea 13 and Isaiah 25 (see above) as Old Testament evidence of the resurrection. Paul explains bodily resurrection in detail:

In this important passage, Paul�s teaching is in agreement with the Old Testament as far as describing the resurrection as an awakening from sleep, and as occurring at the end of time. Paul also gives important new information about the resurrection body: it will be a �spiritual body� like the resurrection body of Christ. Some scholars use this passage to argue backwards, that since the resurrection body is spiritual, Christ�s resurrection was a spiritual, but not a bodily event. However, the Greek word translated spiritual in 15:44 does not mean ghost-like but spiritual in a moral sense. Moreover, the phrase �spiritual body� would be rendered nonsense if spiritual was taken to mean immaterial. According to Paul, there is continuity and discontinuity both between the natural and resurrection bodies, just as between a seed and the full-grown plant it turns into. Furthermore, Christ�s resurrection was not described as immaterial, but as bodily, though in a transformed kind of body. It was surely bodily, for his disciples touched him (Matthew 28:9, Luke 24:39, John 20:27), he walked and talked with two of them (Luke 24:13-32), he ate a piece of fish (Luke 24:41-43), Mary clung to him (John 20:17), he breathed on his disciples (John 20:22). There was enough continuity that he was recognizable (e.g. Matthew 28:9), though he could also keep himself from being recognized if he wanted (Luke 24:16). There was discontinuity, too, in the he could pass through closed doors (John 20:19) and teleport himself (the ascension, Acts 1). Thus should we reason forward rather than backward to determine what the resurrection body will be like.

But why would God leave such an important doctrine as bodily resurrection unclear for all the time up till Christ? To answer this, it is essential to understand the meaning of Christ�s resurrection. By his crucifixion, Christ had atoned for sin, but by his resurrection he defeated death, the consequence of sin. It was not until he had defeated death that he truly overcome sin, for sin still reigned through death, so long as death was not defeated. His resurrection is the source of Christian hope, as Paul states:

Christians would still be in their sins if Christ had not defeated death because, as suggested by the next verse, once they died they would be lost, just as those who had already died were already lost. In the former passage, Paul stated that Christ�s resurrection was the firstfruits of a general resurrection; he brought resurrection to the human race which had been bound to death since Adam. So, before Christ was raised, there was no basis for belief in resurrection, for since Christ had not yet been raised, death was still reigning. God could hardly have introduced a deceptive doctrine at the time of Abraham stating that people would be raised, for resurrection was not yet a possibility. Only a few shadows were provided, but enough was provided to establish legitimate continuity between the Old and New Testaments.

But Christ was not the first to be raised from the dead, for Elisha raised the widow�s son (2 King 4:8f), Jesus raised Lazarus (John 14:43-44), and �many holy people who had died were raised to life� when Jesus died (Matthew 27:52). Then, after he died, Jesus� disciples raised the dead, too, and this was before the end of time, when both Jesus and Paul taught that the resurrection would occur. The key to answering this objection is to realize that these resurrections were temporary; the widow�s son still died after he was raised; Lazarus still died after he was raised; the holy people in Jerusalem still died after they were raised; those raised by the disciples still died. Both before and after Jesus� resurrection, these resurrections were given as signs to authenticate the prophetic ministries of Elijah, Jesus, and the Apostles; their purpose was not to raise a few isolated individuals to eternal life. Christ�s� resurrection was totally different, for he was raised with an imperishable resurrection body, never to die again. He, and not the others, had defeated death. Nor can these other examples be taken as evidence that so-called resurrections were common events in the Judaic world, so as to discredit the miraculous nature of Christ�s resurrection, as some scholars argue; no, these were rare events themselves, and were qualitatively different in nature and meaning than Christ�s.

There is some ambiguity about judgment between the testaments. Judgment in the Old Testament is generally earthly judgment based on works, as seen in the flood, Sodom and Gommorah, etc. The New Testament recognizes both earthly judgment and eternal (final) judgment, but most of the teaching on judgment refers to eternal judgment. One example of earthly judgment is Galatians 6:7-8: �Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. If he sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.�

We already looked at Matthew 25 (the �sheeps and goats� judgment) when considering Messianic prophecy as an example of final judgment. This passage presents a judgment based on works to eternal punishment or eternal life. The same thing is described in the book of Revelation as �the great white throne judgment�:

These two passages most likely refer to the same event. But judgment to eternal life or punishment based on works seems to contradict the doctrine of justification by faith from both testaments. Is there a resolution? In light of what we have seen about sanctification, it is clear that saving (justifying) faith is always accompanied by works. Also, �without faith, it is impossible to please God� (Hebrews 11:6), which presumably means that one cannot do righteous works acceptable to God independent of faith. So, true faith is always accompanied by works; false faith is recognized by the absence of works; and acceptable works never come without faith. Therefore, the final judgment recognizes true faith on the basis of works and eliminates those of false faith who say �Lord, Lord,� but to whom Jesus will say, ��I never knew you. Away from me you evildoers!�� (Matthew 7:23). Not only is this consistent with justification by faith, it is also consistent with Old Testament teaching that true faith is to be distinguished from false faith by works.

Can we establish more firm continuity between the testaments by finding final judgment for eternal destiny in the Old Testament? The Messianic prophecies about a righteous Judge do not necessarily refer to an eternal judgment, for they could refer to only a eternal just earthly reign. Only one passage in the Old Testament refers beyond question to eternal reward and punishment:

While Daniel does not explicitly mention a final judgment, on which the destiny of the two groups is based, it is fair to infer such a judgment given that God�s just (not arbitrary) judgment based on works is a major Old Testament theme [e.g. �Fear God and keep his commandments for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil� (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14); �Surely you will reward each person according to what he has done� (Psalm 62:12); �I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve� (Jeremiah 17:10).] While Old Testament passages promising future judgment, such as the three above, may refer to an eternal judgment, it is not clear that they do. The passage from Daniel, though, effectively teaches a final judgment to eternal life or eternal contempt, just as the New Testament teaches, establishing continuity between the Old and New Testaments.

In addition to the final judgment for eternal destiny, the New Testament gives indications that there will be also be final judgments for rewards and punishment on the basis of good works. Paul writes,

The last line indicates that this is a separate judgment from that of eternal destiny because it states that a believer may still be saved, without any reward, escaping only through the flames. But does this suggest that a believer can be saved if his faith is not accompanied by works? No. In context, �work� refers to evangelism and church-planting. It is conceivable that many Christians may neglect the work of evangelism and still live godly lifestyles. They do so against God�s instructions, and miss out on co-laboring with God, as well as the reward here promised, but do not forfeit their salvation.

The New Testament also speaks of rewards and punishments in addition to eternal destiny. Jesus urged his listeners to �store up for yourselves treasures in heaven,� suggesting a quantifiable reward independent of eternal salvation, a qualitative grace (Matthew 6:20). Paul wrote that �we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad� (2 Corinthians 5:10). Paul is very clear in Romans that we deserve death, but salvation is the free gift of God�s abundant grace; so here he must be talking of a separate judgment for reward or punishment on the basis of works. Paul also wrote, �we will all stand before God�s judgment seat. It is written, ��As surely as I live,� says the Lord, �every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God�� [Isaiah 45:23]. So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God� (Romans 24:23).

Many people disparage Christian morality for offering rewards and threatening punishment, turning morality into an egoistic chasing of a carrot on a stick. This is not a valid caricature. First, eternal salvation is not by works; it comes grace appropriated through faith in Christ�s atoning death and salvific resurrection. The driving motive for Christian morality is always love for God and indebted gratitude. If God offers rewards and punishments to provide additional encouragement when we become weary of doing good or are tempted to do evil, this is not a cheapened morality.

The Old Testament mentions heaven extensively as the designation of God�s dwelling place, for example �heaven, your dwelling place� (Deuteronomy 26:15, 1 Kings 8:30); �Heaven is my throne� (Isaiah 66:1); �you will hear from heaven� (2 Chronicles 7:14); �I have spoken to you from heaven� (Exodus 20:22). Also, the Old Testament records at least one person who were taken up to heaven at the end of his life, Elijah: �suddenly a chariot of fire appeared . . . and Elijah went up to heaven in a worldwind� (2 Kings 2:11). Additionally, Genesis records that �Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away� (5:24). This verse is part of a genealogy in which it is said of everyone except Enoch, �X lived Y years, and then he died.� So, Enoch apparently did not die, but was taken by God, presumably to be with him, since Enoch �walked with God.� Thus, when the Psalms speak of the resurrection to God�s presence, they are speaking of resurrection to heaven. The New Testament teaching about heaven is entirely in agreement with this picture of a heavenly afterlife dwelling in God�s immediate presence. Jesus taught about heaven: �In my Father�s house, there are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. And if I go to prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am� (John 14:2-3). Jesus taught about righteous living to store up treasure in heaven (Matthew 6:20, 19:21, etc.). Paul wrote of heaven, �if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling� (2 Corinthians 5:1-2). Paul also wrote, �our citizenship is in heaven� (Philippians 3:20). Revelation speaks of a new heaven and a new earth and the New Jerusalem which will be the eternal dwelling of the saints (Revelation 21). The New Testament doctrine of heaven is consistent with the doctrine as introduced in the Old Testament, demonstrating genuine continuity, and not invention or distortion.

This paper has explored the continuity of themes in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. The two parts of the Bible reveal that He is a missionary God and that His redemptive purpose is the essence of the Bible. They reveal that God's redemptive plan extends to every nation of peoples. They also reveal that human history is the time frame for the working out of God's plan. Finally, they reveal the remarkable and humbling fact that God's plan is to use a chosen people to work through to accomplish this purpose. Here is a summary of the doctrinal continuity, with clarification of the continuity where it not perfectly the same between the Old and New Testaments:

Doctrine of Creation

Humans in God�s image

Human task of creative work

Free Will and Accountability

Dominion

Marriage and Sexuality

God�s nature: Compassionate, Gracious, Loving, and quick to forgive, but a just Judge of unrepentant sin

Earthly Judgment for disobedience

Abrahamic Covenant: Promise/ Fulfillment

Election: God has chosen to bless a certain people and use them to be a blessing to all nations: carnal Israel/ spiritual Israel

God�s universal concern for all people/ Non-favoritism

Missionary task of God�s people

Justification by Faith and Credited Righteousness

God�s Providence

Covenant of Circumcision: physical/ spiritual

Blinding and Hardening the results of persistent sin

God�s Sovereignty: God is in control and his purposes will prevail with or without human cooperation

Sinaic Moral Law: always in effect, codified at Sinai

Law of wholehearted Love is the summary of the law

Spirit of the law paramount over letter (�Mercy, not sacrifice�)

Test of true faith: Sanctification and holiness

Social Justice

Sinaic Ceremonial Law: Shadows/ Reality

God�s rejection of Insincere or empty religious ritual

Sinaic Civil Law: Sign for Jews/ Not for Gentiles

Sinaic Dietary Law: Sign for Jews/ Temporary and Overturned by Christ

Atonement for sin: Bulls and goats/ Once-for-all sacrifice of Christ

Priestly Covenant: Promise/ Fulfillment

Davidic Covenant: Promise/ Fulfillment

Messianic Prophecy: Promise/ Fulfillment

Messiah as King, Messiah as Suffering Servant: Unresolvable contradiction/ Resolved by the Two Comings

Forgiveness based on repentance

Messianic Age/ Kingdom of God/ Eschatology

A new People of God: Promise/ Fulfillment

Inclusion of the Gentiles: Taught but Lost through blinding/ Re-revealed as a mystery

The Holy Spirit: Promised/ Poured-out

Serving in the �New Way of the Spirit�: Promise/ Fulfillment

Christ�s Resurrection: Predicted of Messiah/ Fulfillment

The Final Judgment for Eternal Destiny: Mentioned (Shadow)/ Further revelation (Reality)

The General Resurrection: Mentioned (Shadow)/ Further revelation (Reality)

Heaven: Mentioned (Shadow)/ Further revelation (Reality)

So, the Bible shows remarkable continuity on every major doctrine and shows no cases of clear discontinuity. Therefore, it is at the very least a unusual book. Written by dozens of people, many of whom did not ever meet any of the others, over a period of 1600 years, with gaps of several hundred years between different parts, the Bible holds together amazingly. It does so in substantial, significant ways, too, in its key doctrines and themes. No other book has these characteristics. For those who believe in Christ and the truths of the Christian religion, this is why they accept the Bible as authoritative: it consistently teaches the truths they have accepted. It bears the mark of being inspired by God, i.e. the amazing continuity and consistency, as well as claiming for itself to be inspired. Certainly there are problems with the present text in the form of contradictions of very minor historical details and numerical data, but these minutia have no bearing on the question, Can the Bible be relied upon to teach truth?, the question at stake in the question of Biblical authority. The witness of the continuity of the Bible challenges the naturalist. Not only that, but many of the Messianic prophecies challenge the naturalist. Naturalistic explanations, as we have seen, are far less likely than the Christian explanation in several places. The message of the Bible speaks to everyone and challenges everyone. What do you think of it?