Psalm 147 is a prime example of how the Psalms can be both 'nature' psalms and songs celebrating God's covenant with Israel at the same time. Are we talking about God building up Jerusalem, or about God creating and maintaining the stars? Is the theme that God's word melts the ice, or is it that God's word is sent to Israel for their obedience? Ultimately these things cannot be unpicked. Here are some slightly jumbled thoughts on the Psalm.
1. Creation is not in itself the covenant. There is a particularity about what God does for Israel which is lacking in creation - "he has not dealt thus with any other nation". That God chooses Israel to be the witness of his glory (not least his glory revealed in creation!) is not just another part of the unfolding of creation itself, but is something subsequent and new. (Although sometimes it seems to be prior and older - the building of Jerusalem takes precedence over the creation of the stars!)
2. Creation is not a neutral sphere within which the covenant is enacted. Israel is governed by God's word - "his statutes and rules" - but so, in its own way, is the snow and ice and water - "he sends out his word, and melts them". There is continuity in the way God works, and he is absolute Lord over all he has made.
3. Creation and covenant derive from the same power and evoke the same praise. The greatness of God is revealed in his healing the broken-hearted of Israel, and in his giving the stars their names and number.
4. Creation exists for the covenant, but there is 'gratuitous' overflow. God fills Israel "with the finest of the wheat" - creation is geared up to provide covenant blessing. But then, he also feeds the young ravens! Though God's delight is in those who fear him and hope in his love, that same love overflows to those who cannot fear him and hope in him.
5. It is pleasant to sing praise to God for his glory in creation and covenant. When creation is seen in the light of God's dealings with Israel, there seems to be a return to the 'it was good' of Genesis 1. Here is a positive delight in the works and ways of God which it wouldn't hurt us to imitate!
Showing posts with label covenants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label covenants. Show all posts
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Kingdom Through Covenant
I recently finished reading this book by Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum. In essence, the book is an attempt to show a 'third way' between dispensationalism on the one hand and a Reformed covenantalism on the other. If that immediately confuses you, think of it like this: this is a debate about how much continuity and discontinuity there is along the Biblical storyline.
For dispensationalists (although there are various flavours and varieties), there is a great deal of discontinuity. The way God deals with human beings changes over the course of salvation history. The discontinuity is greatest when we reach the 'new covenant' in Christ, when in the classical dispensationalist scheme the church is understood as a sort of parenthesis in God's plan, which is really still focussed on the Jewish people. For dispensationalism, the covenant with Israel and the covenant with the church are totally different things.
In the classical Reformed scheme, on the other hand, there is one covenant, and it is common to talk about the 'unity of the covenant of grace'. (Actually, on some versions of Reformed thinking there may be a couple of other covenants, notably the 'covenant of works' broken by Adam - but these are not hugely relevant here). This is why many Reformed folk are keen on infant baptism, and not keen on Christian Zionism - the covenant is the same, so if infants were circumcised they are also to be baptised, and the people of God is also the same, so non-Christian Jews cannot still be related to God via a different covenant with different terms (although the covenant of grace may still have implications for them).
Gentry and Wellum's middle way has a lot to commend it. The book itself I found quite hard going, but I think that is just because there was a lot of very, very detailed exegesis. I struggle with that level of detail! Actually, the book itself promised to be a mix of Biblical and systematic theology, but in fact it was almost entirely the former with a slight consideration of some of the headline implications for the latter. But that is by the by,
The system itself is clear: the Biblical storyline is driven by the covenants, which really are different (contra the Reformed), but which all point in the same direction (contra dispensationalism) and all find their climax in the death and resurrection of Christ. This is, I guess, a 'Reformed Baptist' hermeneutic, so it's no surprise I found it fairly convincing. One of the most useful points I took from the book as a whole is the nature of all the covenants as both conditional and unconditional. Whereas there has been a tendency to divide the covenants into those which are unconditional - God will uphold them no matter what - and those which are conditional - they depend on human obedience for fulfillment - Gentry and Wellum helpfully show that a large part of the narrative of Scripture is driven by the fact that all the covenants require human obedience, and yet underneath that requirement is God's sovereign determination to establish his covenant. It is the tension which this introduces, given the constant failure of the human partner, which drives the narrative forward, and is only resolved in the perfect human partner, Christ. This also helpfully highlights the need for a clear doctrine of Christ's active obedience.
On the whole I found the book more convincing when tackling dispensationalism, but that could just be my bias. I'd like to see more attention given to the implications of this Biblical Theology to Dogmatics/Systematic Theology. Maybe that would be another book; this one is long enough! But if you're up for a thorough examination of the issues, you could do much worse than this.
For dispensationalists (although there are various flavours and varieties), there is a great deal of discontinuity. The way God deals with human beings changes over the course of salvation history. The discontinuity is greatest when we reach the 'new covenant' in Christ, when in the classical dispensationalist scheme the church is understood as a sort of parenthesis in God's plan, which is really still focussed on the Jewish people. For dispensationalism, the covenant with Israel and the covenant with the church are totally different things.
In the classical Reformed scheme, on the other hand, there is one covenant, and it is common to talk about the 'unity of the covenant of grace'. (Actually, on some versions of Reformed thinking there may be a couple of other covenants, notably the 'covenant of works' broken by Adam - but these are not hugely relevant here). This is why many Reformed folk are keen on infant baptism, and not keen on Christian Zionism - the covenant is the same, so if infants were circumcised they are also to be baptised, and the people of God is also the same, so non-Christian Jews cannot still be related to God via a different covenant with different terms (although the covenant of grace may still have implications for them).
Gentry and Wellum's middle way has a lot to commend it. The book itself I found quite hard going, but I think that is just because there was a lot of very, very detailed exegesis. I struggle with that level of detail! Actually, the book itself promised to be a mix of Biblical and systematic theology, but in fact it was almost entirely the former with a slight consideration of some of the headline implications for the latter. But that is by the by,
The system itself is clear: the Biblical storyline is driven by the covenants, which really are different (contra the Reformed), but which all point in the same direction (contra dispensationalism) and all find their climax in the death and resurrection of Christ. This is, I guess, a 'Reformed Baptist' hermeneutic, so it's no surprise I found it fairly convincing. One of the most useful points I took from the book as a whole is the nature of all the covenants as both conditional and unconditional. Whereas there has been a tendency to divide the covenants into those which are unconditional - God will uphold them no matter what - and those which are conditional - they depend on human obedience for fulfillment - Gentry and Wellum helpfully show that a large part of the narrative of Scripture is driven by the fact that all the covenants require human obedience, and yet underneath that requirement is God's sovereign determination to establish his covenant. It is the tension which this introduces, given the constant failure of the human partner, which drives the narrative forward, and is only resolved in the perfect human partner, Christ. This also helpfully highlights the need for a clear doctrine of Christ's active obedience.
On the whole I found the book more convincing when tackling dispensationalism, but that could just be my bias. I'd like to see more attention given to the implications of this Biblical Theology to Dogmatics/Systematic Theology. Maybe that would be another book; this one is long enough! But if you're up for a thorough examination of the issues, you could do much worse than this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)