What Does Sin Deserve and How Good is the Lord?

The question that many can answer, yet fully understanding the answer is often hard to grasp. One of the clearest examples in the Bible to aid in understanding how offensive sin is to God can be found in Genesis 6 during the time of Noah. Here because of man’s sin one can read of the The judgment of God upon mankind’s great sin. Genesis 7:17-24 reads,

17 The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days.

But, as the Psalmist says in Psalms 100, “For the Lord is good; his steadfast love endures forever, and his faithfulness to all generations.” How could the Lord be “good” in the Genesis 7 flood judgement?

Genesis 9:8-17 reads,

8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, 9 “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” 12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: 13 I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

The Noahic Covenant was initiated and dictated by God. The sovereignty of God is clearly seen in this covenant. While some ancient covenants were the result of negotiation, this one was not. God initiated the covenant as an outward expression of His purpose revealed in Genesis 3:20-22. God dictated the terms of the covenant to Noah, and there was no discussion.

The Noahic Covenant was made with Noah and all successive generations: “And God said, ‘This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creation that is with you, for all successive generations;’” ( Genesis 9:12). This covenant will remain in force until the time when our Lord returns to the earth to cleanse it by fire (II Peter 3:10).

This is a universal covenant. While some covenants involve a small number, this particular covenant includes “all flesh.” That is, all living creatures, including man and animals: Now behold, I Myself do establish My covenant with you, and with your descendants after you; and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that comes out of the ark, even every beast of the earth (Genesis 9:9,10).

This covenant was God’s promise never again to destroy the earth by a flood: “and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh” (Genesis 9:15). God will destroy the earth by fire (II Peter 3:10), but only after salvation has been purchased by the Messiah and the elect are removed, even as Noah was protected from the wrath of God.

The sign of the Noahic Covenant is the rainbow: I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. And it shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shalt be seen in the cloud and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh (Genesis 9:13-15). Every covenant has its accompanying sign. The sign of the Abrahamic Covenant is circumcision (Genesis 17:15-27); that of the Mosaic Covenant is the observance of the Sabbath day (Exodus 20:8-11; 31:12-17). The “sign” of the rainbow is appropriate. It consists of the reflection of the rays of the sun in the particles of moisture in the clouds. The water which destroyed the earth causes the rainbow. Also, the rainbow appears at the end of a storm. So this sign assures man who the storm of God’s wrath (in a flood) is over. Most interesting is the fact that the rainbow is not designed so much for man’s benefit (in this text, at least) but for God’s. God said that the rainbow would cause Him to remember His covenant with man. What a comfort to know that God’s faithfulness is our guarantee.

God shows his grace to mankind in essence by promising to never wipe all of mankind again. Although he could have continued to do so by means of a flood, fire, earthquakes, etc. and have been very just in doing anything He pleases. But as the psalmist writes in Ps. 100, the “Lord is good” and so the judgment by which we are saved is actually not by flood and fire upon us, but by our Covenant Head the Lord Jesus Christ taking this judgment for us so that we may be saved. This Noahic administration of the Covenant of Grace is a wonderful picture of God’s grace to mankind, and in essence it points to that Mediator whom God promised in Genesis 3:15 would come.

Earthquakes, Tsunamis, Japan and Psalms 46

Question: Why Did God allow an 8.9 Earthquake to Strike and trigger a Tsunami crushing Japan? A question that arises in times of tragedy such as the one last week. A question that came to me this past weekend – I gave the simplest answer I could think of.

Answer: Because of Adam’s sin that took place in Genesis 3:1-7 (which represented all of mankind) God states to Adam in Genesis 3:17-19 this,

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Then reading why these things happen because of man’s sin… it dawned on me just how good God really is. While mankind, in Adam fell into sin, reaping the repercussions of that sin on this earth, God would then promise not leave mankind in what it deserves but making covenant with man in Genesis 3:14-15 of a deliverer to come and save them.

“Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

My prayer for Japan is that they may see that deliverer that God promised mankind, Jesus Christ. Then they can sing with the Sons of Korah Psalms 46.Psalms

God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way, though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam, though the mountains tremble at its swelling. Selah There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy habitation of the Most High. God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved; God will help her when morning dawns. The nations rage, the kingdoms totter; he utters his voice, the earth melts. The Lord of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress. Selah Come, behold the works of the Lord, how he has brought desolations on the earth. He makes wars cease to the end of the earth; he breaks the bow and shatters the spear; he burns the chariots with fire. “Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth!”  The Lord of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress. Selah

What is Immortality?

Which of the following definitions best answers the question?

The Philosophical Presuppositions of Contextualization

Question: Dewalt, what are the philosophical presuppositions of contextualization, and where and how can it be useful; what place would a biblical program of hermeneutics give to contextualization or what would be its substitute.

Answer:
Contextualization is different today then it was when it started. Contextualization is the process of assigning the meaning of a text, passage to culture and people. To me, that sounds like doing great application. However when Contextualization started, it was from the roots of rationalism and mainly Relativism in which the Reformed circles was scared of, and disliked. These starters so-to-speak of contextualization allowed words to change and the meaning of text change. This brought a different meaning to the Scriptures and allowed for multiple meanings to be taught in their circles.

As far as what would be its’ substitute, I am going to take a “non-traditional reformed view.” I believe whole heartily and would die on the grounds of what the actual definition of “contextualization” is. I would say that proper contextualizing is applying the application of the text to the listener that is hearing the teaching and preaching of the Word. To the traditional reformed circles, I say this is doing proper application in their teaching and preaching. We don’t give the same applications form a text to a crowd of prisoners, homeless, windows, poor, church circles, or new believers. However that seems to be the case that I see among the conservative Reformed circles (we can meet on this is you would like). Contextualizing is giving the right kind of application to the right group in which is being taught to. I know, the roots of it may be scary, but I am not fighting for “contextualization” as it started, but fighting for proper application in which reaches cultures, peoples, nations, cities, people groups and individuals that are all different in themselves. I say it like this, One observation of the test, One meaning of the text, Many applications of the text. 

The Principle that Scripture has a Single Meaning?

Question: Dewalt can you please defend the principle that Scripture has a single meaning? How do you go about trying to draw out that single meaning? Illustrate in the case of Genesis 22. Can you have a single meaning here and still bring in Christ?

Answer:
Scripture has one single meaning? Yes! To the dispensationalist, the die on that hill (which I love) but only understand it to mean original writer to original reader. However, the church today can see the one-single-meaning of the text (original writer to original reader) but more so, see how it fits into all of the Scriptures. What was said to Moses or Abraham, writer to reader is our first and foremost meaning of Scripture, but seeing how that is played out in all of Scripture and our biblical theology progresses in time with promises in covenants are where dispensationalist fall. Let me give an example:

Dispensationalism – One meaning- Meaning 1. A is to the reader then as it is today. (One-fold)

Reformed/Covenantism – One meaning- Meaning 1.A is to the reader then as it is today, 1.B is to the reader sees the OT in the NT, 1.C is to the reader as we see today through out all of Scriptures. (Multi-fold)

How I draw this out and you ask for Gen.22 so I’ll try to do that, however other passages would be easier.
Gen. 22 The Sacrifice of Isaac
1.A is that Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son, and God provided redemption else where.
1.B is that in the New Testament and today’s church we can see some similarities that lie in this event that seem to be a shadow and a type of example of which God did with his Son, Jesus Christ in dying at the cross.

Now, have we in the reformed camp change the one meaning no, but do we seem systematically in how Scripture has one progression in to show its goal of redemption throughout all of the cannon, yes. 

Hermeneutics and Some Problems

Question: Michael would you please describe and defend to me the view of hermeneutics current in the Reformation and show how it is different from views found by those in Emergent Church.

Answer:
Views in the current Reformation – Was one that during the end of the Middle Ages came back to the importance of the authority of Scripture, namely John Wycliffe. John saw the importance of the text of the cannon being reliable and firm in its’ authority among its’ day. The reformers saw the importance of using the logic of Scripture and comparing Scripture along side the rest of Scripture for hermeneutics. A number of men to look at on this are Calvin, Luther, Owen, Brakel and the Westminster Divines. In the “just” of what these men did though, was finding the truth in which lied in the Bible and even though it was not the popular belief at the time, stood for that. All of these men saw of importance maintaining a humble attitude when approaching the Scriptures and allowing the Holy Spirit to shape and mold their theology according to the Lord’s.

The Views in which Differ today in the Emergent Church – Views today in the emergent church however are exactly what the Reformers went against, namely the mystical idea of Scripture. Although the middle ages kept the Scripture from the individual, today postmodern age allows the Scripture to be in the hands of many, but allowing many meanings to a verse, a word, a passage and the whole of the Bible. Instead of having one way of study, one way of finding the truth in the gospel, they have simply allowed a way that not only allows multiple meanings but not multiple religions to live how they want, do what they and read what they want, and not follow the Law of the Lord. The major issue with the emergent church is they do not have a different hermeneutic, they have several different hermeneutics which change from person to person and church to church. So explain one difference is impossible to categorize them as a whole, however the problem is that truth is not there. Rationalism has taken a new toll on the postmodern mind which then allows one to believer what ever he well pleases, and doesn’t allow the Spirit like the Reformers did to humble their minds and conform the heart to the bible. 

biblical theological method in Ruth

Question: Dewalt, how does the biblical theological method allow you to draw out both objective and subjective lines from the book of Ruth?  How is this different from the moralizing or spiritualizing approach?

Answer:
Objectively– Looks at the Book of Ruth seeing what the goal of biblical theology is and the progression of the over arching premises of the Old Testament in revealing the one who was to come and fulfill the covenants, Jesus Christ. This then gives the historical overview of the Old Testament, which enlightens its real meaning. I think actually proper Objectivity can be and should be proper the Biblical Theological Method.

Subjectively– How this differs because it allows the one to pick and chose the exact matters in which they will look at, why they feel exactly what they want to look at and allowing themselves to deal with what they wish instead of looking at the text for its own value.

How is this different? – Oh, how often I wish I could beat this drum, but seem impossible at times among the conservative traditional reformers. This should be done differently then that of spiritualizing the text, however I think at times it is not at all. Spiritualizing the text is nothing more then the practice of objectively viewing the text. Often times those that spiritualize this text, is because of their experiences, reasoning, or what they have been taught for 40 years in their pews, so instead o valuing Scriptures and freedom in Christ, nothing occurs but one continuing to sit where one feels happy with, and take the scriptures further away from the original meaning then they should. Perfect example… The Puritans! The Puritans saw that in time, their communities, families, the Bible, law, etc was meant for everyone. (Now is the Gospel meant for all, and should we preach it to all? Yes! Are we to pound upon unsaved people the law of god and make sure they live by it? No!) Exactly, this is what happen, the Puritans saw that the Law was for unsaved and saved, and I personally believe close to thonomist, however when then reading the bible, they would often spiritualize the text in trying to crate a culture and society that brought to usher in the kingdom or God, bringing all to the gospel. This however was not right, nor did it work, but ended up in their death 150 years later. 

Symbolic Speech

Question: What are the  four kinds of symbolic speech and give me an example for each one. Is there ever any cross-over between any of these kinds within one passage?

Answer:
Mention of the 4 Symbols 
1. People Types – examples like Adam, Moses, and David
2. Occasional Types – examples like the burning bush and the Aaron’s rod
3. Ceremonial Types – sabbaths, circumcision, offerings and festivals
4. Civil Types – The Law, judges and kings

Crossover, yes. Examples are the following:
Moses/Law/burning Bush
David/king
Abraham/circumcision

pre-diluvian & post-diluvian??

Question: Dewalt can you compare and contrast the pre-diluvian and post-diluvian periods from a biblical theological perspective?

Answer:
pre-diluvian – My terms and the way I may use are different accordingly to my theology then which you may be used to. However this time period before the flood, theology was like that of what was given to Adam, and the Lord’s people. However the traditional reformist believe that it was here in this period that worship, laws, sacrifices and redemption ordinances were brought about and carried out during this time. Also, church/The Lord’s people here held to the promise of God given to Adam amongst their believes and looked forward for who would save them. However whatever time frame that it may have been, it is easily seen by the fourth chapter of Gen. that sin and the fall had corrupted the world to the effects of killing and a numerous amount of sin in which sicken the Lord so much, that he then would destroy what he had made. This is the beginning process of the reveling of the grace in which is given to man after the fall and sin of Adam.

post-diluvian – This here is the time after the flood and how redemption is played out after Noah beginnings the process of carrying out that plan of redemption throughout time. Here is where the reformed place a large emphasis upon covenant in showing the progression on it and how God’s promises are held and kept throughout not only here but only a beginning of it for the next 38 books in the Old Testament. By this time the covenant is seen in how it is made with man, who God is, how it works, his promises made to man. Also, the covenant is showing fully (not like before) how man is viewed from creation and in government among living. Also, this then is showing man, how Sabbath worship, sacrifices, and family etc. all played out. 

If I Wrote a Biblical Theology Book?

Question: Dewalt, if I asked you to write a biblical theology (OT section).  Give the basic chapter titles and explain how and why your method would be different than if you wrote a systematic theology.

Answer:
Book Title: The Gospel Given in Progession in the Old Testament
1. The Gospel in Creation
2. The Gospel of Redemption Given to Adam (Covenant)
3.The Gospel of Grace Given to Noah
4. The Gospel of Faith & Covenant Gievn to Abraham
5. The Gospel in the Law Given to Moses
6. The Gospel shown in Judgment given to Israel
7. The Gospel in the Kingdom of David
8. The Gospel Preached by the Prophets

Ready for a long sentence…As far as in how this would differ from that which is done in systematic theology, is instead of touching on doctrine(s), then showing the doctrines’ overview throughout all of the Scriptures, this here would be looking the progression of the doctrine (the plan of redemption) given to man in covenant throughout all of time, namely the Old Testament.