http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/kingdom-through-covenant.html
But this book has proven tobe unexpectedly controversial, so I’m going to spend more time interacting withsome of the arguments.
The book has even beenboycotted in some quarters. I think that’s unnecessary. The position of theauthors is a respectable position. And they make a case for their position. Soeven if you disagree with them (as I do), their argument ought to be takenseriously.
The authors label the oldcovenant as the “covenant with Israel” (635). The implication of thisdesignation is that the new covenant is not a covenant with Israel. Yet theirOT prooftexts for the new covenant consist of passages in which God is speakingto Israel. Where God is making promises to Israel. For instance, Ezk 36:22-36is explicitly and specifically addressed to Israel. In terms of the historicsetting, moreover, God is addressing the Jewish exiles in Babylon. God isevidently referring to their postexilic restoration.
As noted above, the oldcovenant has a built-in tension. God demands obedience from Israel, yet theydisobey. The law holds out life, but due to sin it cannot ultimately save.There is nothing in the law-covenant that changes the human heart, which iswhat the people desperately need (639).
But don’t we see the sametension in the NT church? Don’t many NT epistles bear witness to a similartension?
Isn’t this tension inevitablein a fallen world? In inaugurated eschatology, we have a foot in both thefallen world order and the new world order.
In the New Testament, it isclear that the new covenant texts are applied to Christ and the church (cf. Lk22:20; 2 Cor 3; Hebrews 8, 10). Even though the new covenant is made with the“house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Jer 31:31)…the NT applies it tothe church through the mediatorial work of Jesus Christ (645-46).
i) The authors spend a lot oftime exegeting the OT. But they need to show how their application arises fromtheir OT prooftexts.
ii) It’s one thing to saytheir OT prooftexts apply to the church, quite another to say their OTprooftexts include the church to the exclusion of Israel, even when their OTprooftexts have specific reference to Israel. How can they use their OTpassages to erect an antithetical contrast between Israel and the churchdespite the setting and the wording of the very passages they adduce? Even ifyou say Israel typifies the church, those are not polar opposites. And from aPresbyterian standpoint, “the church” is another phase in the history of theGod’s people.
Their OT prooftexts don’tsingle out the church to the exclusion of Israel. It wasn’t given as a promiseto the church rather than Israel. At least, that’s not something you can derivefrom the OT passages on their own terms.
iii) The mediatorial work ofChrist can apply to Israel as well as the church. That’s not a differentialfactor that uniquely selects for the church. Jesus is Israel’s Messiah, as wellas the Savior of the nations.
iv) They appeal to Heb 8-10,but that’s arguably a Jewish church. A messianic congregation. That’s how manyscholars and commentators classify the audience. Because the members of thatchurch were messianic Jews, they were tempted to revert to Judaism (i.e. theMosaic covenant) in the face of persecution. Unlike Christianity, Judaism was areligio licita.
It’s counterintuitive toinvoke Heb 8-10 as a way of contrasting Israel to the church when that veryletter was addressed to Jewish Christians.
[The new covenant] willindeed have a (human) covenant mediator, namely Jesus Christ, who is prophet,priest, and king in one person. In the old covenant community, these covenantmediators sinned and the community suffered because of faulty mediators. In thenew covenant, however, our covenant mediator is without sin and as a result,the community will never suffer because of a faulty mediator (510).
i) But this fails todistinguish the Baptist position from the Presbyterian position (e.g. WCF). Presbyterians can draw the samedistinction.
ii) In addition, thisdistinction can stand on its own. It doesn’t need to be grounded in a theory ofimmediate revelation.
Under the new covenant allwill know the Lord, not in a mediate but in an immediate fashion, and all willhave the law written on their hearts and will experience the full forgivenessof sin (649).
It’s unclear what the authorsmean by this:
i) Christians don’t enjoyinnate knowledge of the gospel. Knowledge of the Gospel is mediated by thewritten word (i.e. the NT). And that’s something the new covenant shares incommon with the old covenant.
Indeed, why to the authorsspend so much time prooftexting their position from Scripture if the HolySpirit gives Christians direct knowledge of the gospel? Their methodologycontradicts their argument.
ii) Inscribing the law on theheart is a picturesque metaphor. They seem to think it denotes regeneration(649). Does that mean they think regeneration was mediate under the oldcovenant, but immediate under the new covenant? Surely they don’t believeLevitical priests mediated regeneration.
Therefore in the new covenantcommunity there will no longer be a situation where some members urge othermembers to know the Lord (510).
Really? Christian parentsshouldn’t urge their kids to know the Lord? A pastor shouldn’t urge hisparishioners to know the Lord? We can just take that for granted?
The newness of the newcovenant, at its heart, is found in the promise of complete forgiveness of sin(650).
That’s unclear. Weren’t OTsaints completely forgiven? Are the authors suggesting the old covenant onlyoffered partial forgiveness whereas the new covenant offers full forgiveness?If OT saints weren’t completely forgiven, did they go to hell when they died?
Fact is, the sacrificialsystem didn’t actually confer forgiveness–not even partial forgiveness. Rather,it symbolized forgiveness, and prefigured forgiveness. It’s not a difference ofdegree. OT saints were fully forgiven through the retroactive merits of Christ.
The church, unlike Israel, isnew because she is comprised of a regenerate, believing people rather than a“mixed” group. The true members of the new covenant community are only thosewho have professed that they have entered into union with Christ by repentanceand faith… (685).
i) Profession, regeneration,and faith are not mutually inclusive. It’s possible to be regenerate, yet lackconscious faith. It’s possible to have conscious faith, yet lack profession.Consider infants, the retarded, or the senile.
ii) How does their claimoperate at a concrete level? As a rule, families form the core constituency ofchurches. Nuclear families or extended families. “Tribal groupings.” This is noless true in Baptist churches than in Presbyterian churches. And it’s often thecase that some family members are pious while other members are impious. Thisgives rise to a distinction between the invisible church and the visiblechurch.
There are ways of finessingthis distinction in practice. A church can reserve communicant membership forthose who make a credible profession of faith.
iii) It’s unclear how ourauthors define membership. Do they mean formal church membership? A public riteof initiation (e.g. baptism)? Or do they mean what God does to constitutemembers of the covenant community, irrespective of what we do by way ofmembership ceremonies?
Under the new covenant, whatwas true of the remnant (elect) within Israel will now be true of the entirecovenant community and in greater ways (688).
Remnant themes aren’tconfined to the OT. The same themes are sounded in the NT. Cf. G. Hasel,“Remnant,” ISBE 4:134; M. Elliot, “Remnant,” New Dictionary of BiblicalTheology, 725.
First, the “mixed” communityinterpretation of the warning passages assumes that the nature of Israel andthe church is basically the same, but this begs the question (692).
i) It doesn’t require thatassumption. For passages like Heb 6:4-6 & 10:26-39 have reference to thechurch. That doesn’t necessitate comparing the church to Israel. Rather, thatstands on its own two feet.
ii) But as a matter of fact,the author of Hebrews does compare NT apostates to OT apostates. He begins withOT apostates (Heb 3-4), then draws a parallel with NT apostates. So the oldcovenant community and new covenant community are analogous in that respect. Itsupplies an ominous precedent.
To the extent that theydiffer, it’s a difference of degree, not of kind. NT apostates are even moreculpable than OT apostates.
Second, this interpretationcontradicts biblical teaching regarding the nature of the new covenant church(692).
That rejoinder begs thequestion. The nature of the new covenant church is the very issue under review.And the apostasy passages are part of the evidence we use in defining thenature of the new covenant community.
No one disputes the fact thatapostasy takes place in the new covenant age. What is at dispute is the statusof those apostates. Should they be viewed as “new covenant breakers” (assumingthey were once full covenant members) or, as those who professed faith, whoidentified with the church, but who, by their rejection of the gospel,demonstrated that they were never one with us? (692-93).
i) That’s a false dichotomy.
ii) Doesn’t the author of Hebrewsdescribe the would-be apostates as covenant members on the brink of becomingcovenant-breakers (e.g. Heb 6:1-5; 10:26,29)? If that’s not the language ofcovenant incorporation, what terminology would he use to describe covenantincorporation?
When apostasy takes place, wereevaluate the person’s former profession and thus their covenant status (693).
Why bundle those together?Certainly we reevaluate their former profession, but must we also reevaluatetheir covenant status? The authors assume what they need to prove.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder