Saturday, June 28, 2008

From Dispensational to Covenantal: Part I

Ten years ago had I written a blog titled "Why I am Dispensational" I may have used carefully selected Bible verses to prove why I was convinced that Dispensational Theology was absolutely true, climaxing (naturally, considering pop cultural views of eschatology), in the various Tribulation theories that dominate our pop christian culture.

Contrary to the approach I would have taken above, the truth of the matter is that I knew of no alternative views to Dispensational Theology. So again: had I written a blog ten years ago titled "Why I am Dispensational", and had I of been honest with myself and others while doing it, I would have said that Dispensational Theology was "the tradition I was raised in, therefore this was the truth I believed". Not much of a foundation for coming up with an objective reason for being Dispensational, but it works for most people (cf. why is a Pentecostal a Pentecostal or a why is a Baptist a Baptist etc.; probably because it was the tradition they were raised in, therefore the "truth" they believe), and it worked for me.

The road travelled from Dispensational Theology to Covenantal Theology was not a short one. I did not wake up one day and decided to be Covenantal. I did not read books written by Covenantalists, indeed all the books I read where by Dispensationalists. I had few friends who were Covenantal (I didn't even know it at the time), while almost all my other friends, churches I've attended, family members and acquaintances were Dispensational. I did not choose to be Covenantal for convenience sake, indeed this position has been a most inconvenient one for me. As a matter of fact, I had travelled this road from Dispensationalism to Covenantalism for years without even knowing it; and one day I picked up a book by a Covenantal Theologian and after I finished it, sat back in my chair and thought "Wow! That's me. That's what I believe!".

This journey began, like all my other theological journeys, the year I became a Christian. I'll spare you the boring details and just hit the highlights of what happened to me one night when I was eleven and a new believer:

Travelling home that night on the city bus from a friends house, the only passenger on board, I sat near the front and played my Christian Music (Ray Boltz if I remember correctly) in a single speaker ghetto blaster. The bus driver, who could hear my music, asked if I was a Christian. She then began pelting me with questions; questions such as "Don't Christians believe in three Gods? How can Jesus be God if there is a distinct person called 'God the Father' and another distinct person called 'God the Holy Spirit'? It seems to me" she said, "that you Christians believe in three gods not one!"

How can an eleven year old new christian be expected to understand or explain the complex relationship of the Triune Godhead particularly in reference to the 'hyperstatic union' of the Father and the Son?

I stepped off the bus that night with a serious dilemma; I knew what I had experienced, but did I know what I knew? In other words, what if this new found faith of mine was a giant hoax or a mystical cult of some kind and I got lured in by my emotions! When I got home I called a friend who took the time over the phone to explain to me as much as he could about the trinity. But I resolved that day to probe deeper into the things I've been taught; to think critically, and whenever something didn't add up or make sense, rather then saying 'oh well, everyone else (in a particular circle) believes this so my thinking must be wrong', I would ask lots and lots of questions until I obtained some type of certitude on whatever it is that was the current subject, or else I would remain skeptical.

What does all this have to do with my journey from Dispensationalism to Covenantalism? Everything. As I probed into the things which I have heard and read I found the Dispensational system to be an inadaquate approach to major biblical motifs such as the Covenants, Election, Soteriology, Eschatology and others.

NOTE: As I follow these thoughts through it is important to keep something in mind: I never took a course on "Dispensationalism" (I don't even know if there is one per se). Like the great majority, we learned about end times or about covenants of Law and Grace or about Old Testament systems etc. without realizing that we are either Dispensational or Covenantal. In other words, we are naturally indoctrinated into systems of belief without necessarily being able to articulate what that system actually is. Therefore, when I talk about what I believed, or what I was told or read, some (but not all) of it could be classified as 'folk', or what I learned from common assumptions of Dispensationalism. So therefore, I make no pretense of claiming that everything that follows is perfectly accurate to what Dispensationalism as a professional theological system actually teaches. Having said that, I believe most of what I'll say on this subject is indeed accurate, and what may be less accurate still nonetheless accurately depicts what I learned from friends, books and even bible college.

Until next time, remain faithful to the Covenant God who has always been faithful to you.

Derek

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Israel: A Note From Wright

In my last blog I posed the question: Why did God give Israel the Torah as a Covenant Charter (Deut. 27-30). Today I'm not going to attempt to answer this question because I'm still formulating a response in my head, but I'll drop a hint as to where I may be going with this:

The most common answer I've been given to this question has been as follows: In rebelling against God and Moses in the desert the Israelites were declaring that they did not want a relationship with God based on faith. In essence (and to paraphrase a friend) the Israelites were telling God, "Just tell us what to do and we'll do it" - thus God gave them Torah. Some have suggested that it is at this point the Law was given so that it might 'keep' Israel from becoming as evil as her neighbors.

However, the answer given above suggests something which I am not convinced is the case, namely, that Torah was never meant to be a part of the Covenant Plan - This would be the natural conclusion to idea that God only decided to give Torah after Israel rebelled.

I want to note here that I am only brainstorming, I have not rejected the view above I have simply 'shelved it' in order to explore another idea.

Teaser: So where am I going with this question and what answer do I purpose? I'll tell you this, the Law does only one thing to the sons of Adam: accumulates, accentuates, amplifies and makes known sin - resulting in Death, Exile, and Curse! The Law did not 'keep' Israel from becoming as bad as their neighbors, on the contrary, because Israel had the Law they actually became worse then the pagan nations (cf. Habakkuk)! Furthermore I believe that the giving of Torah was neither a 'plan B covenant' nor a 'last minute decision' but rather it is an intricate part of the Covenant of Redemption (i.e. Abrahamic, Mosaic (Torah), Davidic, New). I also believe that the Covenant of Law did not supplant the Covenant of Promise as though because Israel rejected the Covenant of Promise God gave them Torah; rather I believe the Covenant of Law supplemented the Covenant of Promise. Then if we consider the fact that the sins of the World (not just Israel who had the Law) came upon the Cross (Curse, Exile and Death came upon the Elect One), and put all these factors together we may formulate the hypothesis that...

I'll leave the rest for another time.

For now I want to change gears a bit and quote N.T. Wright with regards to True Israel only because he succently articulates my position nicely on this point:

"And in this context of 'all Israel' [i.e. Romans 11:25-26] cannot possibly mean 'all Jews'. It is impermissible to argue that 'Israel' cannot change it's referent within the space of two verses, so that 'Israel' in v.25 must mean the same as 'Israel' in v.26: Paul actually began the whole section (9:6) with just such a programmatic distinction of two 'Israels', and throughout the letter (e.g. 2:25-9) as well as elsewhere (e.g. Philippians 3:2-11) he has systematically transferred the privileges and attributes of 'Israel' to the Messiah and his people. It is therefore greatly preferable to take 'all Israel' in v.26 as a typically Pauline polemical redefinition, as in Galatians 6:16 (though that is of course also controversial), and in line also with Philippians 3:2 ff.,where the church is described as 'the circumcision'. What Paul is saying is this: God's method of saving 'all Israel' is to harden ethnic Israel (cp. 9:14 ff.), i.e., not to judge her at once, so as to create a period of time during which the gentile mission could be undertaken, during the course of which it remains God's will that the present 'remnant' of believing Jews might be enlarged by the process of 'jealousy', and consequent faith, described above. This whole process is God's way of saving his whole people: that is the meaning of and so all Israel will be saved."

- Climax of the Covenant, (c) 1993, p. 250

Just a thought.

Derek

Friday, June 6, 2008

Why Torah as a Covenant Charter?

Something has always bothered me about the Covenant God made with Israel in the Old Testament having specifically to do with Torah, with the law. Basically, why give it? Here me out as I work this through.

I am already aware of a number of 'answers' and 'objections' to my question.

1. Israel was a new nation, and like all other nations she required laws in order to govern herself, for a nation without laws is a nation of chaos.
  • This is a practical and true answer.

2. The law was given in order to reveal our inability to keep it; therefore it drives us to the only one who ever did keep it perfectly, that is Christ.

  • This is an anachronistic but true answer (and packed with sermon material I might add)

3. The law was given so that Israel's obedience to it would be a beacon of hope to a lost world and a testimony that Israel is God's elect.

  • True also and closer to the point, but did it have to be this way? Could not Israel have been a light to the world simply by having a faithful heart to God (cf. Abraham) without having a series of 'do's and don't's' (i.e. Torah)?

All three of the answers above would have been (and are) correct answers if the question had been broadly, what is the purpose of the law? But the question I'm asking is much more particular, the question I'm asking is not in regards to the law in general, but to the law specifically in relation to the covenant!

In other words, if the covenant given to Abraham is a covenant of Promise obtained by faith passed down to Isaac, and from Isaac to Jacob (that is, Israel), then why is it that when the covenant is reiterated and confirmed to the children of Israel a new element, the Torah, becomes the Charter by which the covenant seems to hinge on? Why all of a sudden is the covenant dependent upon works of the law (Deut 27-30) as opposed to faith in the Promises given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (i.e. Israel)?

This apparent conflict seems visible, perhaps even to Paul, in Romans, particularly 1-4. The first chapter of Romans reveals the global dilemma, the depravity of the human condition. Chapter two seems to present the solution; that Israel, the elect of God, are a new creation of humans, through their righteous obedience to the Torah, were to be a light to the nations - but something has gone terribly wrong within the covenant people themselves, namely, their failure to keep Torah. So now the covenant people have become a part of the problem. It's not surprising then that in chapter 4 Paul turns his attention back to Abraham - the one in whom the covenant was made to in the first place - and draws all attention back to the covenant of promise based on faith.

Now since Abraham and his Seed, (and those who are 'in' that Seed) are the real solution to the evil condition that humanity has found itself in, it would seem natural that Paul would go from the explaining the problem (chapter 1) to presenting the solution (chapter 4) - chapter two with the apparent solution of Israel and the law would almost seem like an unnecessary hiccup which we might otherwise skip over as irrelevant. Not that Israel would be irrelevant, for Israel, the children of Abraham, were (are) the elect of God, they still were (are) a great part of the solution and of course the climax of it all is the Messiah who was born an Israelite.

But all of this leads us full circle back to my original question, while confirming and reiterating the Covenant of Israel (i.e. Jacob; also Isaac and Abraham), the covenant of Promise which is obtained by faith, why add Torah as a Charter to the Covenant?

?

Derek

http://www.pensees-derek.blogspot.com/

Followers