The Way to Universal Grace
Part 1: Christian

Dr. Weaver has commented that despite the limits of human understanding of grace, the concept itself seems to have been known throughout the ages by all religions and cultures. He asked me to look into that, so I took Claude AI’s help to find out what the Bible and other world faiths and beliefs have had to say on the topic. (Claude is an AI very similar to OpenAI’s CHatGPT. It was created by engineers who left OpenAI because of concerns over OpenAI’s liberal approach to safety. They formed their own company, Anthropic, which developed Claude.)

The Bible’s first mention of grace occurs in the story of Noah, which tells of a flood unleashed by God to punish a sinful world. It turns out that there are Noah-like flood narratives in many, if not all, other cultures and faiths. 

Their similarities to the story of Noah’s flood suggests that the concept of divine grace and redemption in the context of judgment and punishment—that is to say, in the context of a flood that punishes many for disobedience but with grace given to some—is a common thread in all human religious experience, transcending cultural and geographical boundaries. Grace is indeed a universally recognized concept.

I might have stopped there, mission accomplished. But AI has made me like a child again. I can’t stop asking questions, and persistent questioning of Claude about aspects of the Biblical accounts it brought out led me to the discovery that the Bible’s support for universal grace is not unequivocal, or at least, it was not, until the arrival of Jesus. I found myself in a fascinating theological labyrinth, going down paths that led me first to something I already knew about: the theory of “process theology”; and second to something I did not know about: Moltmann’s Doctrine of Hope.  

So I’ll start by telling you what I learned, and what I concluded, about grace and the flood from the Biblical perspective. If there is enough interest, in a future talk I can tell you what I learned about non-Biblical perspectives on grace during a flood.

The Biblical Perspective

According to Bishop Ussher, the 17^th century Irish prelate who constructed a Biblical historical timeline which began with Creation in about 5,000 BC. Noah’s flood occurred around 2350 BC. Scientifically, Ussher’s chronology is way off base, but it serves to indicate the general belief that Noah’s flood took place a long time before Christ. 

The story has it that everyone at that time was wicked and corrupt, except for Noah, who was “righteous and blameless”. So God chose to bestow his grace only on Noah. That is according to the KJV translation of Genesis 6:8-9—the NASB translation is “showed favor”, not “bestowed grace”. The grace, or favor, consisted of salvation from the flood that God unleashed upon the world. 

Furthermore, God covenanted with Noah—that is, he made a most solemn promise to Noah—never again to destroy the earth with a flood (Genesis 9:8-17). So the covenant was a package of grace and salvation from the judgment of the impending flood (Genesis 6:14-18)—but since only Noah (and his family and their successors) would be around to benefit from it, it was essentially a covenant only for Noah.

Fast-forward to about AD 30 and you will find that things have flip-flopped. Now, if you believe the apostle Paul (as I do), then everyone is saved—righteous and blameless or not. The only people not saved are those who outright reject grace and salvation. This grace and salvation for all (except the rejecters) came about through a new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah (in Jeremiah 31:27-34) and brought into effect by Jesus. God told Jeremiah to write this down:

“…they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their wrongdoing, and their sin I will no longer remember.” (Jeremiah 31:34)

As stated very specifically by Jeremiah, the new covenant would apply only to the houses of Israel and Judah, but when Jesus fulfilled Jeremiah’s prophecy by signing, sealing, and delivering the New Covenant with his blood (Luke 22:20), he also expanded it beyond the Jews, according to Paul, to include everyone. 

…so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him… (Hebrews 9:28)

… a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, and free, but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:11)

Opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the one who fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him.” (Acts 10:34-35)

For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;for “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:12-13)

So the difference between Noah’s covenant and the New covenant seems to be a matter of distribution: In Noah’s time, grace was distributed just to Noah; in Jesus’ time it was, is, and will forever be distributed to everybody on earth, according to Paul and to my own interpretation of the Gospel accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus.

So what happened to grace between 2350 BC and AD 30? How did it go from being highly select to being packaged free with your Corn Flakes? Did grace itself change? Grace was part of the covenant God made with Noah, so maybe it was part of other covenants, too. I decided then to examine the covenants, looking for signs of changing grace.

The covenant with Noah is in fact just the second of a seven-part series in which (according to generally accepted theology) God revealed his plan of salvation and grace, through covenants with individual men or with the whole of Mankind. I asked Claude to restate the covenants in modern legal language. (I first read all of them in the NASB translation of the Bible, and it seems to me that Claude captured their meaning well, but you are more familiar with the Bible than I am so please raise your voice if you disagree.) 

Here’s what Claude wrote: 

1. Edenic Covenant (Genesis 1:28-30; 2:15-17): The Creator hereby grants dominion over the earth to the human parties (Adam and Eve) and agrees to provide for their needs. [← Grace] In return, the human parties agree to refrain from consuming the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Violation of this clause will result in the termination of the agreement and the human parties’ access to the Garden.

2. Noahic Covenant (Genesis 9:1-17): The Creator hereby agrees to refrain from destroying the earth by flood [← Grace] and to maintain the natural order of seasons. As a sign of this covenant, the Creator designates the rainbow as a symbol of the promise. The human and animal parties agree to be fruitful and multiply and to abstain from consuming blood. (Claude might have got that last bit wrong. I can’t see that the animals were a party to the agreement, and in any case I can’t imagine a carnivore, or a leech, agreeing to abstain from consuming blood.)

3. Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 12:1-3; 15:1-21; 17:1-22): The Creator hereby agrees to make Abraham the father of many nations, to bless him, and to give his descendants the land of Canaan. [← Grace] In return, Abraham and his male descendants agree to undergo circumcision as a sign of the covenant. The Creator further agrees to bless all nations through Abraham’s offspring.

4. Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 19-24): The Creator selects the nation of Israel as His chosen people and agrees to bless and protect them. [← Grace] In return, the Israelites agree to obey the Creator’s commandments and statutes, as outlined in the Torah. Blessings will follow obedience, while curses will result from disobedience.

5. Priestly Covenant (Numbers 25:10-13): The Creator hereby grants a perpetual priesthood to Phinehas and his descendants as a reward [← Grace] for Phinehas’ zealous action in turning away the Creator’s wrath from Israel. This priesthood will be a covenant of peace and will endure as long as the descendants of Phinehas remain faithful.

6. Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:1-17): The Creator hereby makes an everlasting covenant with King David, promising to establish his throne forever. [Grace] The Creator further promises that David’s descendant will build a temple for the Creator. In return, David and his descendants must remain faithful to the Creator and obey His commandments.

7. New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Luke 22:20; Hebrews 8:1-13; Galatians 4:4-5): The Creator hereby agrees to forgive the sins of His people, to write His laws on their hearts, and to establish a personal relationship with each individual. The Creator will put His Spirit within His people, enabling them to live according to His will. By my own interpretation of the life and teachings of Jesus, this covenant is open to all people, regardless of ethnicity, and is established through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the mediator of the New Covenant. Participants in this covenant are granted eternal life and become part of the Creator’s new covenant community, the Church. [← Grace]

I call the seven covenants a “series” because there seem to be some common threads running through them and because the plot thickens, as it were, with each new covenant. What are the common threads? All are initiated by God. All provide grace or favor towards God’s “people”—whoever they happen to be at the time—an individual, a family clan, a nation, Mankind. All the covenants establish a relationship between God and “his people”, and all characterized by God’s faithfulness and love. All but the last—the New Covenant—demand some form of obedience or quid pro quo in return. 

We’ve already noted that as the covenants progress, they tend to become more inclusive in scope. The earlier covenants focus on individuals—Adam and Eve and Noah, then a family clan—Abraham’s—then they expand to the nation of Israel and, in the grand finale, in the New Covenant, they extend to all nations and peoples.

Taken together, as a series, the overarching narrative of the seven covenants seems to be the unfolding of God’s redemptive plan. In and of themselves, the covenants reflect God’s concern for the wellbeing of at least some people, otherwise why make them at all? Claude commented that “each covenant reveals a different aspect of God’s character and His plan for redemption, gradually building upon one another and pointing towards the ultimate fulfillment in Christ.” Personally, I think it is stretching it a bit to say that each covenant “reveals a different aspect of God’s character”, but I agree with Claude that the covenants gradually build upon one another. 

How are the covenants different? The first Covenant establishes that God’s ideal for human life is to be “righteous and blameless”. The second Covenant focuses on God’s commitment to preserve creation. The third Covenant introduces the concept of a chosen people and God’s plan to bless “all nations” through Abraham’s offspring. Chief among those nations is of course Israel, which the fourth Covenant establishes as a nation set apart for God and provides the law as a guide for righteous and blameless living. The fifth Covenant establishes a mediated relationship between God and His people—mediated through a select priesthood. The sixth Covenant introduces the promise of an eternal kingdom and a messiah. The seventh and final Covenant represents the culmination of God’s redemptive plan, offering forgiveness of sins, a personal relationship with God, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. 

As I see it—but please feel free to disagree with me—some of the discontinuities are quite significant. The covenants start by giving grace to two people (Adam and Eve), then to a family (Noah’s), then to a tribe (Abraham’s), then to a nation (Israel), and end up giving grace to all nations and individuals. That is at least consistent in terms of direction, of a thickening plot. But they also go from a direct, quasi-physical, relationship with God (Adam/Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses) to a mediated relationship (the priestly covenant) then back to a direct but spiritual relationship (with God implanted in every heart.) The relationship mechanism between humanity and God flip-flops from direct to indirect and back to direct. (One big question this brings to my mind is: Did the New Covenant abolish, or at least render redundant, the priesthood, and therefore any religion organized around a priesthood?)

According to Claude, I’m hardly the first to interpret the covenants as reflecting the unfolding of God’s plan. Theologians have long done that. But why would any plan of an eternal God need to be “unfolded”? Why doesn’t it just happen all at once? Why not dispense with the first six covenants entirely and instead introduce the New Covenant right there in the garden of Eden? Why was the ultimate expression or the fullness of God’s grace available only to the righteous and blameless in 2350 BC, but to sinners and all in AD 30? Why did it take God nearly three thousand years to get it right?

There is no answer. God unfolds His plan according to His own timing, as Paul told the Galatians:

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons and daughters. (Galatians 4:4-5) [Emphasis added]

So we may not know why it took so long but we do know how it unfolded. We can see it through the analysis of the covenants and we can also see it in the Gospels and the writings of Paul, who told the Hebrews: “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son,…” (Hebrews 1:1-2). Luke wrote: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (Luke 24:27); and John wrote: “You examine the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is those very Scriptures that testify about Me;…” (John 5:39) (emphasis added)—In other words, the Scriptures—the Old Testament—reveals the plan of ultimate redemption, ultimate grace.

I could not shake off my intellectual discomfort with the notion that any plan of an immortal Being would need to be unfolded. Unfolding a plan, like unfolding a blanket, takes time, and by definition time cannot exist for an immortal Being. But in the mortal realm, no plan unfolds all at once. Time is an essential component even of a plan that has only a single step. Your plan for today might be to go to church, but that single component itself takes time to unfold. Doesn’t this imply that while God may be an immortal, eternal Being in the heavenly realm, he is but a mortal, time-bound Becoming in the earthly realm? 

This of course sounds very much like the theory of process theology, to which as most of you know I subscribe, but with the difference that God is Becoming in the sense that our understanding of him is growing as the elements of a plan are unfolded for us. Perhaps this even explains the Second Coming: The first coming of Jesus marked the real beginning of God’s plan and his Second Coming will mark its culmination. 

I asked Claude if there was any theological support for my musings about process theology. It said that the influential German theologians Jürgen Moltmann (b.1926) and Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928-2014) incorporated insights from process theology into their work. Moltmann, Claude says, would probably agree that Christ’s second coming will mark the final fulfillment of God’s plan. Claude added that Moltmann “emphasizes the importance of eschatology and “the open-ended nature of God’s future”. That last phrase was bound to catch the eye of a futurist, so of course I had to pursue it. I asked Claude what it meant.

“In Moltmann’s theology,” Claude replied, “the future is not a fixed, predetermined reality but rather an open possibility that is shaped by the actions and choices of God and God’s creatures. This understanding is rooted in Moltmann’s doctrine of hope, which he develops in his 1964 book Theology of Hope. According to Moltmann’s doctrine, Christian hope is not a passive acceptance of the status quo but an active anticipation of God’s coming kingdom, which is already present in the resurrection of Jesus but not yet fully realized in the world. In other words, God’s future is not a static endpoint but a dynamic, unfolding reality that involves the participation and collaboration of human beings—and, Moltmann stresses, the church—as witnesses to and agents of God’s transformative future, working towards justice, peace, and the redemption of all creation.”

I can’t say I agree with Moltmann on any role for the church (you may differ!), but I am intrigued by his view that human agency may contribute to the Becoming of God. By seeking to understand God, and thereby gaining new insights over time, we uncover more and more of the supreme force that people call God.

In sum, then, Christianity seems to see the Bible as a gradual unfolding of God’s self-revelation and His plan of redemption. The Old Testament anticipates and prepares for the coming of Christ, while the New Testament reveals the fulfillment of God’s promises in Him:

…God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,in these last days has spoken to us in His Son,… (Hebrews 1:1-2) 

And who knows, there may be further unfolding of the plan to come. Personally, on the basis of my analytical projection of an emergent, conscious, intelligent machine that will take over the stewardship of the earth, I believe that the work of God the Becoming is far from done. 

I’d be very interested to hear your views about the ideas of process theology, the open-ended nature of God’s future, and the role of the church in that future. What do you think about the idea of God as both an eternal Being and a dynamic, unfolding Becoming? If you agree there is a Becoming aspect to God, to what extent does it involve human participation? Does God need us, or the church, to help him Become? Will AI help God’s Becoming? (After all, if God’s Becoming is a function of our understanding of God, AI can be partially credited for any additional understanding contained in my remarks today.) And finally, given continuing and indeed accelerating advances in AI, are we about due for another covenant, or was the seventh covenant—the “New” Covenant—really the last covenant for all time? And if an eighth covenant comes, what will change? Will grace still be grace?

Kiran: The comment that God and humans have an open-ended future reminded me that the Bible depicts Jesus as a bridegroom and the church as his bride. We generally don’t consider marriage as something rigid or predetermined. Marriage is seen as a new beginning. In marriage, you and your partner become equals, exploring a new future together.

In a similar way, the church becomes the bride of Christ, starting a new life with Him. For a long time, I viewed this as a fixed scenario: you go to heaven, experience luxuries, and have constant entertainment. But if that’s all there is, it sounds quite boring. I want to do something meaningful, have a purpose. This new perspective of being Christ’s bride, starting a new future, and having a new purpose is much more appealing. It makes the idea of heaven exciting.

With regard to the concept of unfolding: Is it unfolding for the benefit of humans? Maybe we still struggle to comprehend the true meaning of grace. Often, we mistakenly think of grace as a license to sin without consequences, but understanding grace is deeper than that. Perhaps God needed multiple covenants to help us grasp this concept fully. The seventh covenant seems particularly drastic. It feels as though God recognized that no matter how much support He gave or how present He was, the chosen people still couldn’t behave as He desired—being obedient to His commandments. So, He decided to be within them, to change their hearts, so they could finally align with His will. This seventh covenant is quite radical compared to the previous ones.

Donald: Constant change is a key aspect of having children and grandchildren, making life dynamic and unpredictable. This ties into our conversation about the sequence of grace and how it unfolds.

I have some questions that may reveal my lack of biblical understanding, but I think they are worth asking. Then I’ll conclude with where we might find ourselves today.

1. Did Adam and Eve actually know the consequences of eating the fruit from the tree? I know they were told not to, but did they fully understand the consequences? It seems ambiguous. “You will surely die” in 700 years or 84 years is different. I’m not sure they really grasped the full consequences, so it might have been a bit like a child’s understanding—Eve was curious, knew she was doing something wrong, but didn’t fully comprehend the outcome.

2. Noah preached and tried to convince others of the coming flood, despite people not knowing what rain was. This seems like another instance where people couldn’t fully comprehend what was being asked of them. I’m not sure if this fits into the idea that only Noah’s family had access to the ark (salvation).

3. Does God change, or is it our understanding of God that changes? This question might not be critical, but it’s worth pondering.

4. From an Adventist perspective, we seem to have a detailed understanding of end-time events. We are trying to convince others how it will play out, which is quite specific compared to other denominations. Non-denominational groups, for example, don’t focus on timelines and specifics as much. This makes Adventism unique, particularly with the emphasis on the Seventh-day Sabbath. However, our detailed end-time scenarios are more defined than other Christian churches.

Reinhard:I think Adam and Eve understood the consequences of eating the forbidden fruit. When Satan, in the form of the serpent, told Eve, “You will not surely die,” it implies they knew death was a consequence. Perhaps when Eve ate the fruit and didn’t immediately die, Adam thought she might still die later and decided to join her, reasoning that if she was going to die, he would rather die with her. It’s an interesting perspective on Adam’s mindset at that moment.

The discussion on eschatology and the future brings up thought-provoking points. Life on earth can sometimes seem boring, which makes people wonder about the concept of everlasting life. For instance, some people mock the idea, questioning how one could live forever without getting bored. However, the key idea in Christian eschatology is the dynamic nature of eternal life. The unfolding of grace and the continual becoming suggest that heaven will be anything but boring.

The Bible hints at unimaginable experiences awaiting us in heaven, suggesting it will be a place of continual growth and challenge. The absence of death and sickness doesn’t imply a static existence; instead, it indicates a vibrant, dynamic life filled with new and exciting experiences. This perspective aligns with the idea that heaven will be a place where we continue to explore and grow, making it an enticing and fulfilling existence.

Our discussions, like this one, help us explore these concepts further, preparing us for what is to come. It’s a fascinating topic, and there’s much more to uncover about the dynamic and purposeful life that awaits in heaven.

C-J: If we consider trauma as sin, which causes separation and skewed perspectives, and hold the promise of God as our Counselor or Prince of Peace, we see God as the one who restores us to a right relationship with the divine. If we view God as dynamic—fluid and ever-changing—then we understand that people working in mental health always approach from a place of trauma. We cannot expect a person coming from trauma to be perfect. Instead, we meet them where they are.

For someone like me, who has walked with God for many years and studied the narratives, I understand the expectations and try to comply. However, for someone new to faith, they will constantly compare and question until the Holy Spirit reveals that it’s not about which road or chosen faith they pick, but about the relationship with the divine, which transcends all paths. Grace, therefore, is not something we earn; it is freely given by God, who meets us in our shortcomings and lack of understanding.

This life, as perceived by my finite mind, is merely a blink in time. I don’t hold God accountable for past events but remain open to His presence in every moment—whether it’s smelling a flower, talking to a stranger, or engaging with others who share my belief system. We must always come before God, acknowledging that we have experienced trauma through sin, and it is through God’s grace and promises that we find dynamic restoration.

Michael: It’s very hard to say whether God is changing or whether it’s our understanding changing, The fascinating question is why the new covenant is so very different from the ones previous to it but. I Christianity seems to keep going back to earlier covenants instead of taking the new covenant seriously and being the mediators of this covenant.

Don: The concept of God limiting Himself or being limited is indeed a difficult one to fully grasp. It reminds me of the classic paradox, “Can God create a rock so big that He can’t move it?” Similarly, can God forget our sins so completely that He can’t remember them? The idea that God might have limitations is challenging to understand.

Jesus Himself said that He didn’t know when He was coming back, only God did, not even the angels knew. This suggests that there are limitations to knowledge even within the Trinity, which is a strange concept. When God speaks to Abraham about Sodom and Gomorrah, He says He will go down and see for Himself, implying a need for empirical confirmation of His knowledge. This notion of God having limitations is intriguing.

It becomes even more interesting when considering our potential responsibility for God’s limitations. Ellen White commented that due to the lack of effort and belief among Adventists, God has not yet returned. There’s an idea that God is waiting for us to do the necessary work of proclaiming the gospel and preparing people for Jesus’ return. This suggests that our actions can influence God’s timeline, which fits into the concept of an unfolding plan.

The idea that God’s plan might have limitations based on our response is indeed provocative. It suggests a dynamic interaction between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, highlighting the importance of our role in the divine plan. This perspective not only underscores the significance of our actions but also emphasizes the collaborative nature of our relationship with God.

David: I want to emphasize that the idea of God being limited in any way is not what I meant. The “process theology” concepts of God as Being and Becoming are human constructs, ways for us to intellectually engage with the divine. The perceived limitations are actually our own limits in understanding God. If God were to fully reveal Himself now, we wouldn’t be able to recognize or comprehend His fullness. However, we are on a journey towards better understanding.

Our class is a prime example of this ongoing search for God, striving for a deeper understanding or a better relationship with God. It’s not a finished process; we must continuously seek and work towards it. In this sense, the notion of God Becoming reflects our evolving comprehension, not a limitation on God Himself, but on our capacity to understand Him. And we are actively working on building that capacity.

Michael has pointed out to me that much of our modern understanding of the new covenant hinges on the apostle Paul’s interpretation of it and of Jesus Christ’s life, message, and mission. While I still question some of Paul’s interpretations, I agree with his extension of the new covenant to cover all people, which is not stated in the gospels. Jeremiah spoke of the new covenant covering only the Jews, and traditionally, that was seen as the limit.

We rely heavily on Paul for this broader understanding, which to me signals our responsibility not so much to believe him as to follow his example. Like Paul, we should continually seek to question and interpret the gospels, rather than accept doctrinal answers that may seem (and may be!) un-Christian. Paul didn’t accept Jeremiah’s limitation of the covenant to the Jews; he extended it to everyone based, I believe, on his understanding of the character of Jesus. We should aspire to do the same, continually looking beyond the surface to find deeper meanings and applications.

C-J: When we embrace other ways of experiencing the divine, it broadens our understanding and enriches our perspective. Paul had a relatively short period to spread his revelations after his experience on the road to Damascus, and he relied on others to continue his mission. Through various traditions, whether through commerce, open markets, intermarriage, or other circumstances, people naturally discuss their beliefs and ways of living. This sharing of experiences and traditions pushes us to see the infinite possibilities of how God interacts with us.

When we incorporate other belief systems, rituals, and traditions, we expand our understanding of the divine. This diversity in experiences and perspectives helps us see God’s infinite nature. Without this, there would be no dialogue, and if we all had the same experience and understanding, it would be monotonous. Instead, our varied experiences are like light through a prism, reflecting different aspects of the divine. We choose what to focus on: is God judgmental, or is He a minister of healing, restoration, and grace?

Our faith is demonstrated through our actions and how we live our lives. For example, looking at conflicts like the one in Gaza between Palestine and Israel, it’s easy to become bitter and question God’s presence. But rather than getting angry at God, I choose to see the situation differently. The world is watching, and it’s a call for global leaders to step up and say, “Enough.” The constant destruction and loss of life demand a response beyond just anger.

I am grateful for my faith and strive to serve, despite my flaws. When I see such situations, I don’t get angry at God or feel betrayed. Instead, I ask, “What are you doing, Lord? What am I doing?” When people question me about my beliefs or my stance on issues, I realize that my relationship with God is revealed through how I live and speak. My faith is reflected in my actions and the voice I use to share my understanding of God, which is rooted in grace, benevolence, and healing, rather than hate and revenge.

So, our diverse experiences and the way we live our faith help us process and push out an infinite understanding of how God meets each of us where we are. This ongoing dialogue and search for understanding make our faith dynamic and ever-evolving, helping us to grow closer to the divine.

Don: In 1 Corinthians and in Colossians, Paul speaks about the mystery of God being a God for all mankind. Interestingly, when David and I compiled a book of blogs from our class and sought external reviews, one Christian reviewer was highly critical of this idea. To that reviewer, the notion that God is the God of all mankind was unacceptable. This ties into Michael’s question about why the Christian church still clings to the old covenants when the New Covenant is clear and ready to be embraced. It seems we find the old covenant precious because we identify with it, making us reluctant to include others in the new covenant.

Carolyn: The concept of grace and its unfolding in the future is something I keep thinking about. Will our understanding of the new covenant change completely? Are we ready to expand our expectations to fully grasp what God is planning? Our minds may not be big enough to comprehend it all, leading to ambiguous feelings. The idea of starting over, like a new marriage, is appealing, but I also hold onto the belief that Jesus came to save the whole world. The covenant is present throughout scripture. While I appreciate timelines, the essence of grace is simple: believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. That, to me, encapsulates grace and its unfolding.

Kiran: When Eve and Adam ate the fruit, it must have broken God’s heart. We rarely consider God’s suffering. He created this new creation, provided everything, and made promises, only to see them eat the fruit. It must have hurt deeply. Throughout all the covenants, God, who warned that they would die if they ate the fruit, continually delayed their death, pursued them, and tried to rescue and restore them. This relentless pursuit demonstrates His immense love for humanity. 

It’s puzzling why humans often reject this love. God’s persistent efforts to reach out, despite repeated rejections, show overwhelming evidence of His grace. What more proof do we need that God is gracious and will take care of us? I don’t understand why we have this innate need to turn away from such profound love.

Donald:We all come from different perspectives, and it’s fascinating. As a photographer who has seen the world, I’ve tried to understand others’ contexts even if I can’t fully see the world through their eyes.

This conversation is vital, yet it will be interpreted in countless ways based on individual experiences. People from rural areas and cities within the same country already have vastly different experiences. When you expand this globally, the differences become even more pronounced. Trying to share my experiences with someone from a different context can feel nearly impossible. However, having a meaningful conversation with someone from a different background can be one of the most rewarding experiences.

Even within families, where we expect shared experiences, understanding can be elusive. You think you should connect easily with someone close, but it doesn’t always happen. Sharing this important conversation and striving for understanding is challenging, but we do our best. 

The complexities of conflicts like those between Israel and Hamas highlight how diverse our experiences and understandings can be. Even neighbors can have completely different perspectives. This conversation stretches our minds, and we must seek grace in these discussions, being grateful that grace is available.

Reinhard: Reflecting on God’s unlimited power and omniscience, it’s intriguing how certain outcomes remain a mystery. It seems that in every generation, God deals with humanity in unique ways, tailored to that specific time period. For instance, when Adam fell, although he didn’t die physically at that moment, the consequence was that he wouldn’t live forever. This raises the question of what would have happened if humans had not transgressed. God, knowing human nature, anticipated rebellion and always had a Plan B.

From time to time, God shapes His plans based on human behavior and responses to their Creator. After Jesus came, the path to salvation became open to everyone who follows God. In ancient times, people lacked the knowledge of God’s broader plan that we have today, which makes us quite fortunate. Imagine living during Noah’s time with limited understanding of God. Yet, even then, God had a plan and reacted to human actions.

God’s omnipotence doesn’t negate human choice; rather, He responds to human decisions while still guiding history. For example, in the case of the seven covenants, the covenant with Phinehas, the grandson of Eleazar and Aaron, was an almost immediate reaction from God. The other covenants seemed more premeditated. This shows that God acts based on the reactions of individuals or groups at specific moments.

God gives people the freedom to choose their paths, but He also watches closely and leads humanity through history. Current events, like wars and conflicts, often result from human ego and decisions. God doesn’t always intervene directly, allowing human actions to unfold naturally. However, He remains in control. For those who know the truth, it is crucial to trust in God and His ultimate plan, even when human nature seems to lead us astray.

Michael: Sometimes, reading Paul, you get a sense that he’s bipolar, as if he suspends his cause and effect thinking. Is that possible, and if so would it help us to understand concepts such as grace better? Could we try to do that in class—try and suspend our cause and effect thinking—and see how such concepts would then look to us?

Donald: Having had the opportunity to experience many cultures in my life photographically, I did suspend cause/effect thinking. I tried to learn about them in order to really picture them. You try to learn their context. Otherwise, you’re just framing them inside your own context. Travel pushes us into places that we’re good with for a couple of weeks. I love to see it. I want to see it. I want to see it different, but then I want to go home, where I want everybody to be the same. If we didn’t have that opportunity to go home, I think travel would not be so attractive. Changing citizenship and moving into another culture is a big step. But I didn’t try to change anybody. I wanted to actually understand them, and it’s so important to do that.

C-J: I don’t think that Paul was bipolar. He left his culture at the threshold so that he was able to be effective knowing his audience. He had to modify all that he was as a Jew, a Pharisee. He had to hear them so he used the language that they would be receptive to. I think he was very talented in that. He traveled the Mediterranean as a Roman representative, buying goods and services to make tents for the Roman Empire. He was very much a statesman, a politician, and he brought his faith with him, his new revelation. I think he was remarkable.

Don: He was remarkable. But if you read Romans 7, you might come away with an idea that he’s a bit schizophrenic.

Next week, David will talk about grace in the context of flood myths from around the world.

* * *