Tag: covenants

Book Plunge: The Widening of God’s Mercy Chapter 5

Did God change His mind on war? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Christopher Hays says there is no better example of God changing His mind in the text than on looking at the way the Bible presents war.

So there’s a history here of war in Israel and then Christopher drops this on us:

Why would Isaiah have been concerned about a reaction against Cyrus? Perhaps because his anointing as king was a violation of the Mosaic law, which said: “you may indeed set over you a king whom the LORD your God will choose. One of your brothers you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother” (Deut 17:15).10 That was the word of the Lord—but now the Lord has changed his mind.

Hays, Christopher B; Hays, Richard B. The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story (p. 88). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

I must have missed that part when Cyrus sat on the throne of David in Jerusalem…

Largely, what is in this chapter is an emotional appeal. If God’s plan was for the salvation of these people, why would He go to war against them? Well for starters, He did. Second, God’s plan was for things to come in the fullness of time. That would include having to protect Israel from those who wished to destroy her as well.

At this, many will go to the New Testament, which Christopher does not do, which is fine since he is focusing on the Old Testament. I personally do not think the New Testament is meant to give us instructions on warfare and when it is right to go to war or not. Most of us will never be in that position. Here in America, only 45 different people have ever been president and had to make the decision to send us into war or not.

The New Testament is more written to the average every day person. We do not know what foreign policy advice Jesus or Paul or any of the apostles would have given to a king if need be. We do know what rank and file people were instructed to do, but even then, instructions to turn the other cheek were not given in response to life-threatening violence, but to personal insults, meaning to stop the cycle of retaliation.

Ultimately, something that needs to be pointed out is that if God could change His covenants like Christopher says He did with Cyrus, how could anyone trust Him for salvation? He made a covenant promise with Israel and then broke it on His own? Why should I not think He won’t do the same with me someday if God changes His mind? If God can change His mind on what marriage is, then maybe God will change His mind and say you can marry your minor cousin someday and hey, who could say otherwise?

Christopher’s god is one that I do not recognize. I am thankful the God of Scripture is not like that.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Book Plunge: Political Church

What do I think of Jonathan Leeman’s book published by IVP? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

It’s said that there are two things that should never be talked about and that’s politics and religion. If so, then Jonathan Leeman has stepped into dangerous waters by writing this book. Churches can often have their own share of squabbles and religion can have a bad reputation today with new atheist soundbites running throughout our culture. Now you tie that in with politics, which comes from the word poly, meaning many, and ticks, referring to blood-sucking organisms.

Leeman points out that politics is unavoidable and we all come into the arena of debate with gods. The difference is the Christian comes with a big one and the secularist comes with several little gods that aren’t metaphysical claims and thus pass the muster. It could be then that when we argue on the grounds of appeal to conscience, we’re setting ourselves up for trouble. Whose conscience will win the day? If we say our conscience is tied to our God, then our opinion will be cast aside in the end and the more “objective” person will be the ones whose gods aren’t so readily apparent.

Leeman wants us to see what the making of covenants means for us today and that politics has been with us from the beginning. As soon as you have relationships going on, you have politics. People have to learn to live orderly in a society somehow. Unfortunately, we’ve often gone with a more pragmatic approach instead of an approach rooted in truth.

Leeman also brings this to how it affects our Christian relationships and I think this is the most important part of the book. This gets to the doctrine of forgiveness. What does it mean to forgive and how does that relate to politics? Forgiveness is in fact all about our relationships with one another and much of the material here can be quite convicting, especially if you have a hard time forgiving someone.

The book also comes from an approach that I think is gently Calvinistic and presuppositional, but the good part is if you don’t agree with that perspective, you can still accept the conclusion which is where many of us will end up about God being necessary for the good society. I found myself disagreeing with how Leeman reached some conclusions, but I agreed with the conclusions. I suspect many readers would be in the same boat.

Also, I thought criticisms of the New Perspective on Paul were not that strong. I don’t think they offer anything that would go against justification in the sense that we usually see it. The difference is more about what it means to be justified. I myself lean towards the New Perspective and I did not see the problems that I think Leeman thinks he sees.

Still, this is a good book to read and certainly thorough. It’s difficult to think about how a book could be more thorough on the topic. The experiential aspects are also quite helpful as you can learn to see forgiveness in a whole new light and really think about how you relate to your fellow man.

In Christ,
Nick Peters