Tag Archive: Without Excuse



Galatians 3:16-17, “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say, ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.”

image

In a previous entry I discussed the righteousness of Abraham, which he was granted by God because of His faith. This was not only due to his belief in God, but his faith that God’s promises were steadfast. In addition, I discussed the “offspring,” promised and made known to Abraham. This offspring was to be a singular person, and through Him the world would be offered the reconciliation unto God. Here, in Galatians, Paul presents the argument of the singular seed that was to come by and through Abraham’s bloodline. As profound as this is, Paul goes further, dipping a bit into history to reveal the true nature of the covenants.

image

Within the philosophical and theological boundaries of the Christian “religion,” we tend to separate the covenants of Moses and Jesus, and break the Bible down, in a general sense, into both the Old and New Testaments. Man loves to put things and ideas into categories or groups, that by their division, they may be easily sorted and understood. Concerning the division of the Old and New Testaments, as well as the old and new covenant, I conclude there is nothing specifically wrong with this. However, one stumbling block does arise that I have witnessed, but this is the fault of man. It usually concerns those new in the faith or exploring it. It doesn’t seem too uncommon for those whom Christ is calling to be curious about the differentiation between the God of the Old Testament and the New, rather than looking at it as a complete revelation from and of God.

image

We need to remind our brothers and sisters in Christ, and in fact everyone, that the Scriptures represent a singular narrative that explicitly shows God and reveals He is the same yesterday, today and forever. Why the wrath shown in the Old Testament? Paul gives us a clear answer:

“These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us . . .” -1 Corinthians 10:11

image

So am I saying its wrong to refer to old and new? Not at all! In fact, the Lord Himself declared prior to Christ that a new thing was being done, and a new covenant will be established with Israel. The Book of Jeremiah says in Chapter 31, Verse 31:

“‘The days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.'”

image

Yet, if it was shared with Abraham, what is it that makes it new? Simply, it is new in human, temporal terms. It is not as if man, who is subservient to God, caught God unaware and He had to hatch a new plan to save man. Rather, God’s plan was destined from the beginning. God, let it be known that it is a new covenant, because this is truly what it is in the context of time. Time has no bearing on God, for God controls time, and since time is under God’s belt, to God it is already finished. If anyone believes differently, then one cannot believe in the omniscience of God, for God would be subservient to time. Furthermore, if He is subservient to time, He could not be God, and our faith would be meaningless, for by and out of God came Christ. Yet, to God, it is time that has no meaning. The breadth of its meaninglessness is shown by eternity. We usually think of eternity as it corresponds to time, that time will stretch forever, but in actuality, eternity is a place where time doesn’t exist. The extent of the meaninglessness of time to God is made clear in 2 Peter 3:8:

“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”

image

Therefore, according to time, which we all are subservient, the law came before, and Christ after, and in temporal terms it is new, or more recent. Yet, that’s not all, by this new covenant it gave the law unto the hearts of man, and revealed God unto the world, so that no man or woman is without excuse. Yet, God did promise the new covenant unto Jeremiah and Abraham, and because He refers to it as “new” to Jeremiah, we see that though the promise was made known, and though the revelation of Christ to come preexisted some 430 years prior to the Law, it doesn’t negate the temporal relativity of the coming of Christ and the Spirit. In addition, as Paul says, the two don’t cancel each other out, but instead, they compliment each other to such perfection, they become united and fulfilled in Christ.

image

It is not necessarily disrespectful or wrong to conclude that the two covenants, outside time, represent one great covenant, where man can be saved through faith, as Abraham was. This, I would argue, when approaching this issue in human linguistics, that the covenants represent old and new revelations, through which God’s attributes and power were proclaimed to man. First, His nature, commandments, and wrath. Secondly, His grace, love, and peace.

image

The plan of God was singular, but we can differentiate between the covenants, because of what they revealed to man and by the manifestations of God. Under the old covenant, God spoke through the prophets, yet in the new, God came to earth, became man, taught to a multitude, was crucified, and rose again. By this, man does not need to turn to a prophet to know God, but now, His Son and Sprit dwell within our hearts, upon which the law is now written.

image


“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. -Romans 1:20


It’s often that a Christian is approached by a non-believer challenging them to prove the existence of God. Usually, it’s not because they truly want to know, but rather it pleases them to see a Christian get tripped up when trying to answer them. This is apparent when one has an answer for them and their response is one of anger.


In an attempt not to go too far off the subject, the question makes the supposition that physicality and existence are not proof enough. Thus, it’s hard to find a proof, empirical proof, that would sway this hypothetical challenger.

The Bible, the very Word of God, is not silent when it comes to this issue, of not just proof of God’s existence being represented in nature, but also of who He is, that is His very being. So why the apparent contradiction in the verse,what are those qualities that are both invisible, but also clearly seen? The verse tells us it’s his divinity and eternal power that are made evident in the creation.


Truth is, that things like power and dominion cannot be understood unless its effect is manifest elsewhere. A king in his own being though granted power is powerless of his own accord unless it is exercised. It is by action that one can empirically determine the traits that reside in mere people. The bible declares that you can know a person due to the fruit he bares (Matthew 7:16, see my note, “On Judging Man and Scepticism”). You can see those qualities in a human being that otherwise may not be seen by his influence on the world around him.


It is the same with God, we gain valuable insight into not only His existence, but also His nature, that is who He is.

Let us suppose for a moment that you want to paint a picture, write a book, some poetry, or a piece of music. Like it or not, whether your a fan of allegory and it is conscious or not, you cannot help but include a piece of yourself in what you create. It may not be exact, but a person can be going through an art gallery and if they have eyes to see can tell quite a bit about the artist by the mere composition alone.


Likewise, God put a piece of Himself in everything, but if you have eyes to see, you can see God even in the most mundane of things. The fact the scriptures confront us with is that this truth is so obvious that no man, none, will be without excuse.

There is no spontaneity concerning something that is created, so to believe such is a contradiction according to Samuel Clark. We see things only coming into being through causality and to suppose at the very beginning there was nothing suggests a contradiction that cannot be resolved. So not just existence itself, but the particulars that make up the cosmos are great places to look if anyone ever wants to see God, for He, among other things, is both obvious and apparent.

%d bloggers like this: