The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry: A Movie Review

I was off work today, so I decided to run by the movie theater and check out the latest Evangelical movie making the rounds, the title of which is The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry. Since it's fresh on my mind, let me offer a few thoughts on it.

Set in small town America in 1970, the movie is based on a true story, and revolves around a young boy named Dustin, his two best friends, and an elderly man named Jonathan Sperry. Sperry takes it upon himself to strike up a friendship with Dustin and his two friends, and starts a Bible study with them, inspiring the boys to give the Gospel to others, which leads to more boys joining the Bible study. Much of the film surrounds Dustin's fascination with a young girl and his desire to date her. Then there is the town bully, who Sperry himself leads to Christ. Lastly, there is a crotchety old neighbor, whose role in the tale remains largely mysterious until the last few minutes of the film. For any who are planning on seeing the film, I will leave the rest of the plot for you to discover for yourself. Having said that, let me recommend that you don't go see this film.

In short, this is the worst film I have seen in a very long time. "Harsh words," you might say. An understandable response. I have heard from others who thought this was a fantastic film, which inspired me to go see it. I hate to question their taste, but I'm afraid it's unavoidable. My intention is neither to offend nor to stand in the way of something that might be used for the good of the kingdom of God. I just think it's time that Evangelical Christians stop supporting bad art made in the name of Christ.

And this film is bad art, if anything. Granted, there are redeeming qualities here. For one thing, the Gospel is present in the movie. One can hardly complain there. And the moral lessons of Scripture that are given are, of course, wonderful. But just as the some of the best of Evangelicalism is on display here, so is some of the worst.

First of all, the script is terrible. The dialogue was so bad it hurt (I mean that quite literally - it was painful to listen to). A disproportionate part of the film is spent listening to the three boys prattle on about Dustin's love interest, a young girl who was a classmate and who worked at a local diner that about half the film was shot in. And prattling it was. Certainly, we're talking about young boys here. And anyone can sound pretty annoying when fascination over the opposite sex kicks in. But this was incomparable. First they are in the diner, and Dustin is whining over the girl. Then they are walking across a bridge, and Dustin is whining over the girl. Then Dustin is calling his friends on the phone and whining over the girl. Then back to the diner... sheer misery. A couple of brief scenes would have been enough to get the point across. But the moping going on was beyond anything resembling masculinity, even young, immature masculinity. The movie may have been clean, but if I was the father of a boy, the last thing I would want to do would be to expose him to such garbage.

Almost all of the dialogue of the film was of this nature. Even the lessons which Sperry taught to the boys, lessons based in Scripture, were told in such a mundane fashion that they hardly resembled the depth one finds in Scripture itself. Was this a reflection of how the actual Jonathan Sperry spoke to the boys? I have no clue, of course. But I highly doubt that the boys (now adult men) who actually learned from Sperry remember his lessons word for word, leaving hope that the real Jonathan Sperry was a far more interesting teacher. He was evidently a man of great character; that doesn't say anything about his teaching, however. All in all, the basic outline of the story had great potential. But the script itself was nowhere near to doing justice to the ideas behind it.

Then there was the acting. The film featured two seasoned actors in Gavin MacLeod and Robert Guillaume. I didn't even recognize MacLeod, and only discovered it was him in watching the credits. I remember watching him on "The Love Boat" as a child, and he fit his role there. But any other time I remember seeing him act I found him less than interesting, and there was no exception here. Robert Guillaume was his typical splendid self, and was the only bright spot acting-wise in the film. And yet even he seemed hindered by the terrible script, though this was probably helped along by some bad directing as well.

The rest of the cast was fairly painful to watch. One can only expect so much from child actors, I suppose. But while watching them was torture itself, the other actors faired little better. The best word I can come up with is "wooden", though even that is insufficient. Words can't really express how bad both the body language and line delivery were.

There was throughout the film a prevailing sense of sentimentalism, something which is common whenever Evangelicals attempt to make art. It is interesting that Evangelicals as a whole tend to carry with them the feeling that ever since the 1960's, the pagans have taken over the culture, and morality has gone down the tubes. And in a minor sense, I suppose that's true. But a more accurate account of it recognizes that Evangelicals actually retreated from society, a retreat that started long before the '60's. And as nature abhors a vacuum, the pagans simply rushed in to fill in the void. This can be attributed to a number of things, though a large measure of blame, I would say, lies at the feet of Dispensationalism and its self-fulfilling prophecies of the downturn of society. So while it is a fact that small town America was a more moral place in 1970, it wasn't idyllic. Children go astray because their parents go astray. The rebellion of the sixties took place because Christianity had come to be defined as external conformity to certain behaviors deemed "Christian", and the Gospel had been replaced by the fear of man. So those who would return to mid-twentieth century America would simply be setting us up for another cultural revolution as ungodly and tumultuous as the one we have been through in the past thirty years. Not something to be desired, I dare say.

Then there is the whole purpose of the film. As is customary in Evangelical art, it was clear that the goal that the film makers had in mind was not to make good art, but rather to use the film merely as a vehicle through which to spread the Gospel. Once again, one can hardly criticize the desire to see people saved. But as inevitably happens whenever Evangelicals take such a route, the art suffers at the expense of sharing the Gospel. Part of this is due to the unbiblical and hokey way we tend to express the Gospel in the Evangelical church. As much as my Evangelical friends react against this, the Gospel is not "asking Jesus into your heart". It also is not "having a personal relationship with Jesus". These are sentimentalistic attempts at expressing the Gospel, and one will search in vain to find anything resembling these phrases in Scripture. According to Scripture, the Gospel is repenting of one's sins and trusting in Christ for salvation. There are other ways this is expressed, but none of them come even close to the above two phrases. Does this mean that I don't have a personal relationship with Jesus? Of course I do. But the phrase reflects a romantic and sentimentalistic approach that comes not out of Scripture, but out of Western culture, and as such is at odds with Scripture. Why we get so hung up on these Evangelical catch phrases and choose them over Scripture's way of speaking is bizarre to me. It suggests that we look to find our comfort not in Christ, but in the Evangelical subculture.

We seem to think that all God cares about is what we deem to be the substance of the Gospel. We think that form is irrelevant. But nothing is so unbiblical as that. The same God that said, "repent and be saved" spent pages and pages of His word detailing specifications for Noah's ark, the Tabernacle, the Temple, the ordination of the priesthood, the rituals of cleansing, the genealogies, the numbering of the tribes of Israel, and so on. God loves detail, and He has great concern for form and order. The fact that we pay little to such things is a demonstration that we have fallen far short of thinking with the mind of Christ.

And this is not limited to some segmented sphere we call "religious life". As God created all the world, and did so with deliberate form and order, so He continues to be concerned with these things throughout all creation. This includes the meals we eat, the order of our homes, the clothes we wear, and, yes, the art we create. Beyond this, why can't Christians just make good movies? Where does Scripture say that the only art we can make has to be for spreading the Gospel? It doesn't. God didn't have to slap a Bible verse on every tree in the forest, because His glory spoke through it as His handiwork. Even so should we imitate Him in our art. Paintings don't become Christian because they have a Bible verse underneath them. If it's a good painting, it will reflect God's glory.

What's sad is that pagans recognize this importance of form, while the church does not. As a side note, this in itself, I would suggest, has more to do with driving youth away from the church than we realize. It isn't because we aren't following the secular culture in our modes of worship. It's because we aren't following Scripture in even thinking carefully about our modes of worship.

So when we present the Gospel, the same is true, whether it be in a movie, or some other context. Truth and Goodness aren't sufficient. Our presentation must be beautiful as well, not by the ungodly culture's standards of beauty, but of God's. Here, The Secrets of Jonathan Sperry fails miserably.

And yet, with all of the Evangelical church's abandonment of secular culture, we turn and pander after it as if we are its servants. The presence of the two aforementioned secular actors in the film itself is an indicator of this. But then there is the actor who plays Dustin. While he has made a number of appearances on TV and as the voice of cartoon characters, he wasn't chosen, I would suggest, for his great resume. And I hope he wasn't chosen for his acting skills. His name, in fact, is Jansen Panettiere, and I think it should be obvious why he was chosen. He is the younger brother of actress Hayden Panettiere, who has appeared in numerous TV and movie roles, and is probably best known for her lead role on the TV show "Heroes". Evangelicals are so obsessed by pagan Hollywood that all it will take to get them to go see a Christian film is a recognizable name like that. Quick quiz: how many professing believers spend more time reading People Magazine than they do reading their Bibles? I'm scared to even guess the answer. It's one thing to appreciate some of the products of Hollywood - an appropriate thing, so far as they are allowable by Scripture's standards. It's entirely another matter that we think the only way we can get Christians to watch Christian movies is by using Hollywood stars and their younger siblings.

Some would say that this is an attempt to draw unbelievers in to see the Christian film, hear the Gospel, and hopefully be saved. This is a good desire. But isn't the definition of insanity to repeat an action and expect different results? This never happens on any broad scale. Sure, one might be able to name the occasional person who comes to one of these films and trusts in Christ. But where are the masses of people who are supposed to be saved this way? The silence is deafening. I suppose it would be a true miracle for an unbeliever to get past the bad art and hear and believe the gospel (though salvation itself is always a miracle, no matter the circumstances). But the fact that this is rare at best should make us reassess this approach, and reconsider how we allot the resources over which God has made us stewards.

So if I haven't made it clear by now, I didn't like this film. I don't question the motives of anyone involved in the making of it. I'm sure the intention was the salvation of souls and the glory of God. And by that intention alone, God will be glorified. The question here is rather whether or not there are better ways of glorifying God, and I would suggest there are.

And if you've dying to see a movie this weekend, rent WALL-E, or wait a few days for UP to come out on DVD. I can guarantee that they won't be a waste of money.

Martin Luther on Justification by Faith Alone

I greatly longed to understand Paul's Epistle to the Romans and nothing stood in the way but that one expression, "the justice of God," because I took it to mean that justice whereby God is just and deals justly in punishing the unjust. My situation was that, although an impeccable monk, I stood before God as a sinner troubled in conscience, and I had no confidence that my merit would assuage him. Therefore I did not love a just and angry God, but rather hated and murmured against him. Yet I clung to the dear Paul and had a great yearning to know what he meant.

Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the justice of God and the statement that "the just shall live by his faith." Then I grasped that the justice of God is that righteousness by which through grace and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise. The whole of Scripture took on a new meaning, and whereas before the "justice of God" had filled me with hate, now it became to me inexpressibly sweet in greater love. This passage of Paul became to me a gate to heaven...

If you have a true faith that Christ is your Saviour, then at once you have a gracious God, for faith leads you in and opens up God's heart and will, that you should see pure grace and overflowing love. This it is to behold God in faith that you should look upon his fatherly, friendly heart, in which there is no anger nor ungraciousness. He who sees God as angry does not see him rightly but looks only on a curtain, as if a dark cloud had been drawn across his face.

The Parallel Structures of Ruth 1 & 4

In our Wednesday evening Bible study group we just completed the Book of Ruth. As we were going to be finishing up ch. 4 the other night, I threw together this bare bones outline to show the parallel structures of Ruth 1 & 4. Ruth 2 & 3 also parallel one another, the result being that the book functions somewhat chiastically. In chapters 1 and 4, the Prologue in ch. 1 (I.) parallels the Epilogue in ch. 4 (III.). The Negotiation in ch. 1 (II.) parallels the Negotiation in ch. 4 (I.). And the Rest in ch. 1 (III.) parallels the Rest in ch. 4 (II.). The reader should also take note of the preponderance of "threes" in the outlines. This is something inherent to the text, not simply an arbitrary choice I made in outlining it. I would suggest also that this is a manifestation of the Trinitarian foundation of the Covenant, which plays a central role in the Book of Ruth, as in all of Scripture, and all of life, for that matter. But that is a discussion for another occasion. Lack of time has prevented me from doing either a basic outline of chs. 2 & 3, or an outline of the whole book. For now, at least, I thought I would post what I had.

********************************************

Ruth 1 - Structure


I.  Prologue of the Book of Ruth - vs. 1-5


II.  Naomi "arose" - Negotiating a relationship on the way back to Bethlehem

 A.  Naomi's First Speech - vs. 8-9a

  A'.  Ruth and Orpah's verbal and nonverbal response - vs. 9b-10

 B.  Naomi's Second Speech - vs. 11-13

  B'.  Ruth and Orpah's nonverbal responses - vs. 14

 C.  Naomi's Third Speech - vs. 15

  C'. Ruth's verbal response - vs. 16-18


III.  Rest in the Land

 A.  Naomi and Ruth arrive in the land - vs. 19a

 B.  Women address Naomi - vs. 19b

 C.  Naomi renames herself - vs. 20-21



**********************************************

Ruth 4 - Structure


I.  Boaz "had gone up"- Negotiating a relationship at the gate of Bethlehem

 A.  Boaz's First Speech - vs. 3-4a

  A'.  Redeemer's verbal response - vs. 4b

 B.  Boaz's Second Speech - vs. 5

  B'.  Redeemer's verbal and nonverbal responses - vs. 6-8

 C.  Boaz's Third Speech - vs. 9-10

  C'.  Elders' and People's verbal response - vs. 11-12


II.  Rest in the Land

 A.  Boaz and Ruth "arrive" in the land - vs. 13

 B.  Women address Naomi - vs. 14-16

 C.  Women name Obed - vs. 17


III. Epilogue of the Book of Ruth - vs. 18-22

The Subtleties of Statism

A couple of older pieces on His Holiness in D. C. The first is something I sent a year and a half ago to James Ostrowski, a contributor to the Lew Rockwell blog, who then honored me by posting this on said blog. The second is a response to a friend who emailed me to ask what problems I saw the President's speech to school children a few weeks back. A little past their date, perhaps, but still relevant. And when you write something that is only read by one or two people, you sort of feel compelled to put it out there in such a way that others can read it too. The first may not seem currently relevant, but actually remains so, when one is reminded of the President's recent rallies (read: revivals) to drum up support for a Socialized health care system.

*************************************

In a piece from the PBS Religion & Ethics Newsweekly, E. J. Dionne pointed out that Obama is actually speaking in the fashion of a revivalist. I’ve noticed the same is true of his wife Michelle. This seems to fit in nicely with the idea of Obama’s movement being a sort of cult following. Revivalism from the beginning has only thrived insofar as a single individual is the focus of the devotion of the faithful, and that individual is chosen based on his ability to stir up excitement in his followers. Objective truth and deep sustained intellectual reflection are substituted with shallow rhetoric and easily attained emotional fervor. So, in fact, Obama actually has more in common with Charles Finney than with any former president, in that his views on policy are largely irrelevant to his supporters. In the modern context, Joel Osteen comes to mind. People don’t care what he says, so long as he makes them feel good. But what we’re witnessing is a sort of resurrection of the Caesar cult. People believe that the government is to be their savior, and they think Obama would make a good messiah.

***************************************

The topic of Obama's speech may be a moot one now, but I still thought I'd respond to your question. Even though the speech is over, the topic is still relevant.

I think in a sense your assessment of McCain and Obama was correct, at least in terms of how we define "democrat" and "socialist" more popularly. But the truth is that they were both socialists. In fact, almost everyone who was running for President and was recognized as a legitimate contender was a socialist, except for Ron Paul, and maybe Dennis Kucinich. Whenever you support the idea of the government serving as a means to redistribute wealth, you are a socialist. It doesn't matter if you intend the wealth to be used for "universal health care", the National Endowment for the Arts, State parks and monuments, subsidized housing, subsidized farming, or so-called "free" education. As soon as a government begins to redistribute wealth, it becomes a socialist system. The question then is how socialist it is, not whether it is.

The act of taking money from one party and giving it to another is called "theft" by Scripture. Just because the one doing the taking has all the tanks doesn't make it okay.

So both major parties, Republicans and Democrats, are socialists. They just differ on what to do with the money once they've collected it. The Democrats are usually worse, of course, because their social policies are more so at odds with Scripture. But this doesn't mean that the Republicans are always wearing white hats.

Both parties are, for the most part, Statist. By that I mean that they believe that the supreme authority in the world is the State. It chiefly defines who we are. We are political animals. I am not first and foremost a Christian, or even a Lewis, according to Statism. I am first and foremost an American, and everything I do is to serve its goals and ends. If anything gets in the way of that, it has to go. Sure, the politicians speak of "family values". But that's partially because Statism is inconsistent with the world God has created, and there's no escaping the family. To some degree, however, this is merely lip service. Service of the State is the foundation of all of life for the Statist.

We fail to recognize this, so we have a hard time seeing it in something like the President's speech. But whenever he says things like, "you need to do your best for your country," or "if you quit school, you're quitting on your country," or "don't let your country down," that's the assumption behind those statements. He isn't saying that we just live together and therefore have an effect on each other's lives. He's saying we belong to the U. S. Government. In this, there are ultimately no individual rights, despite what the founding fathers stated and believed. That's the reason for Government-run schools. They don't exist to make sure everybody's educated. Government schools have always been a chief means of instilling propaganda in the citizenry wherever Socialism has existed. That's why religion is shut out of the schools. True orthodox Christianity provides competition with the supremacy of the State. This may not be a comfortable thing to hear, since you're a parent and send you children to the Government school. Most parents don't even think of such things, and just send their kids to the Government school because they're already paying their taxes for it, or because it's just what you do. And why don't we think of these things? Because the issues were never raised for us. And why were they never raised? Because we learned our history and political theory in Government schools, were we ourselves were propagandized. Let me make it clear, though, that I'm not criticizing parents in this, because I think most don't know better. I also think there are almost no teachers that think of themselves as "agents of propagandization". They're just doing what they were taught to do, and that's teach the curriculum.

The Government sets itself up as the Savior of its people. It says, "you have a problem? We'll take care of it for you." They then use that as a way of increasing taxation and legislation. But it's just a means of controlling the people and destroying liberty. We fall lock and step, and look to the State to take care of us, and it's gradually becoming cradle to the grave. So Statism actually is a religion. It's worship of the State. There's a reason that all the monuments and buildings in D. C. were designed to look like temples to the Greek and Roman gods.

In fact, the President himself believes that the children that live in the United States belong to him. They are "America's children", in the sense of possession. That's why the State can take your children away from you if they want to - because they belong to the State, not you. You're just raising them in the place of the State, because you're a servant of the State, too. And if the State wants to take your children away from you for six hours a day, and teach them things you disagree with, including evolution, or that all religions are created equal, or that certain "lifestyles" that clearly contradict Scripture are okay, they have the right to do so, because the children belong to the State. In the case of the President, he is America personified. That's why he can say, "I expect all of you" to do thus and such. Or "I'm calling on each of you" to do thus and such. But what the children do is, in reality, none of his business.

So there were content things in the President's speech, but not the kind we tend to look for. I get the impression that most Republicans thought that maybe he would say something like, "I'm trying to convince your parents that Socialized health care is a good thing, but they aren't listening to me. We all know they're wrong, right? How about going and convincing them for me." But he isn't going to do that. He's too smart for that. Content-wise, the problems in his speech lay in areas where Republicans and Democrats tend to agree.

But why did he even give the speech then? It was an act of propaganda. He hasn't been having much luck with the adults, so he turned to the children. They would pick up on the idea that their basic allegiance is to the State, though they generally couldn't articulate it. And they would walk away with the idea that that Mr. Obama is a pretty darn nice guy. "Hey look, he cares about me! He's going to make sure I have everything I need to get a good education. He loves me." This has been a common tactic of Socialist and Communist regimes. In Communist China in the sixties and seventies, they had what the West called "The Little Red Book", a collection of quotations from Mao Zedong. It was their Bible. Not only did adults read it, it was taught in the schools. You don't just indoctrinate adults. It's easier to convince children of something, and if you get them while they're young, they're less likely to question when they get older. In the case of Communist China, or the U. S. S. R., as well as Barack Obama, the goal is to create a cult of personality. That's how Obama won in the first place. He's just trying to increase the size of the cult.

So that's the sum of it. Sorry for this being so long. I just wanted to be clear. I'm sure this isn't quite the response you were expecting. I'm a Republican, but I fall more in line with the views of someone like Ron Paul, though I'm sure I wouldn't agree with him on everything. I voted for McCain-Palin, however, because of abortion issues.

No progress, I believe, is going to be made without questioning the President's intent. Republicans try to be nice and not judge people's motives, but I think it's mostly because they're cowards. They've bought into the cult of personality too. They are afraid because Obama comes across so confident and convincing, and, quite honestly, because they are afraid of looking like racists. Obama is a Socialist, if not a Communist, and he is intentionally carrying out a Socialist agenda. The goal is to take freedom away from us. He has been lying about the health care bill. His goal is not love, but power. I don't generally go around questioning people's motives. But I don't trust Barack Obama at all.

I'm not sure in anything I've said here that you'll find something that's convincing to Democrats. To most people, I know I'd sound like a lunatic. Beyond that, Obama (or his speech writer) designed the speech in such a way as to prevent critiques of single lines. A real critique requires some in-depth discussion of political theory, which is what I was getting at here, but which most people don't have the interest or attention span for.

Ancient Near Eastern Treaties and Covenant Structure

In our Wednesday evening Bible study group we are currently in chapter three of the Book of Ruth, after having studied our way through Deuteronomy 27-34, Joshua, and Judges over the past year and a half. Once we've finished Ruth in a couple of weeks, we will then move on bravely to the Book of the Revelation. A broader connection exists between all of these books than the fact that they are all in the Bible, though this connection is rarely recognized or discussed. With this in mind, I thought I would post the following piece which I put together for our group when we first jumped into Deuteronomy.

***************************************

Ancient Near Eastern Treaties

In recent years, scholars have learned of a general pattern found in treaties in the Ancient Near East. Called Suzerainty Treaties, they involve the covenanting of a suzerain lord (the conquering king) and a vassal (the conquered king).

“After a war, the victorious king would make a covenant with his defeated foe, making certain promises and guaranteeing protection on condition that the vassal-king and all under his authority would obey their new lord. Both lord and vassal would swear an oath, and they would thenceforth be united in covenant” - David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, pg. 14

It has been noted that the same basic structure is utilized in the Biblical covenants.

Five-point Covenantal Structure

1. Preamble (identifying the lordship of the Great King, stressing both his transcendence [greatness and power] and his immanence [nearness and presence]

2. Historical Prologue (surveying the lord’s previous relationship to the vassal, especially emphasizing the blessings bestowed)

3. Ethical Stipulations (expounding the vassal’s obligations, his “guide to citizenship” in the covenant)

4. Sanctions (outlining the blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience)

5. Succession Arrangements (dealing with the continuity of the covenant relationship over future generations)

Covenantal Structure of Deuteronomy

1. Preamble (1:1-5)
2. Historical Prologue (1:6-4:49)
3. Ethical Stipulations (5:1-26:19)
4. Sanctions (27:1-30:20)
5. Succession Arrangements (31:1-34:12)

Other elements of Near Eastern treaties are often included in the structure, such as The Invocation of Witnesses (cf. Deut. 30:19) and Directions for the Deposition and Regular Public Reading of the Covenant Documents (cf. Deut. 31:9-13). Adding these would, of course, make this a seven-point model. But there is much disagreement on this, as scholars suggest various ways of outlining the covenant documents found in Scripture and the various Near Eastern vassal states. Also, the five-point model is the one most commonly held by scholars.

“If a vassal kingdom violated the terms of the covenant, the lord would send messengers to the vassal, warning the offenders of coming judgment, in which the curse-sanctions of the covenant would be enforced. This turns out to be the function of the Biblical prophets…They were prosecuting attorneys, bringing God’s message of Covenant Lawsuit to the offending nations of Israel and Judah. And the structure of the lawsuit was always patterned after the original structure of the covenant. In other words, just as the Biblical covenants themselves follow the standard five-part treaty structure, the Biblical prophecies follow the treaty form as well.” - David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance, pg. 15

Four Biblical Covenantal Models

1. Pre-Creation and Post-Creation Covenants

A. Pre-Creation Covenants - Covenants made between the Persons of the Trinity
B. Post-Creation Covenants - All covenants made after God created the world

This is a common Reformed teaching, though it is hard to substantiate from Scripture.

2. Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace

A. Covenant of Works - This is the covenant God established with Adam in the Garden. It is also called the Covenant of Life or the Creation Covenant.

B. Covenant of Grace - Established in Gen. 3, all subsequent covenants between God and man fall under this categorization.

3. Old Covenant and New Covenant

A. Old Covenant - The term is used to refer to the entire covenant administration prior to the coming of Christ, though the New Testament at times seems to use the term strictly to refer to the Mosaic Covenant.

B. New Covenant - The covenant instituted with the coming, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.

4. The Six Historical Covenants

A. Creation Covenant (Gen. 1-2)
B. Adamic Covenant (Gen. 3)
C. Noahic Covenant (Gen. 6-9
D. Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12, 15, 17)
E. Mosaic Covenant (Ex. 19-24, Deut.)
F. Davidic Covenant (II Sam. 7)
G. New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34)