Archive for the ‘Covenantal Structure’ Category

Was Adam an Historical Figure?

March 3rd, 2010 by Camden Bucey
Was Adam an Historical Figure?

Pete Enns continued his series on creation in the Old Testament as cosmic battle for the BioLogos Foundation. The latest is titled Adam is Israel. Enns writes

But there is another way. Maybe Israel’s history happened first, and the Adam story was written to reflect that history. In other words, the Adam story is really an Israel story placed in primeval time. It is not a story of human origins but of Israel’s origins.

Everyone has to decide for themselves which of these readings of Genesis has more “explanatory power.” I (and other biblical scholars) come down on the second option for a number of reasons, some having to do with Genesis itself while others concern other issues in the Bible.

Read the rest of this entry »

A Five Minute Introduction to Meredith Kline

December 23rd, 2009 by Camden Bucey

Camden covers Meredith Kline and a few of his books during this episode of Theology on the Go.

Kline on Daniel’s 70th Week

December 14th, 2009 by Camden Bucey
Kline on Daniel’s 70th Week

Daniel 9:20-27 is one of those passages that gets the covenantal/dispensational fires going. It seemed discussions would constantly find their way to this passage back when I was having regular discussions with dispensationalists. I happened to be reading Meredith G. Kline’s “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week” recently and thought I would pass this quotation along. Understand that Kline is arguing for a very close relationship between Gabriel’s prophecy in verses 20-27 and Daniel’s prayer in verses 1-19.  As such, the debated verses focus directly on Messiah and his work in providing an eschatological fulfillment to Daniel’s prayer. Read the rest of this entry »

The Law is not of Faith on Office Hours

November 17th, 2009 by Camden Bucey
The Law is not of Faith on Office Hours

The latest Office Hours is out and Bryan Estelle, David VanDrunen and John Fesko speak with R. Scott Clark on The Law is not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant.  The discussion was engaging.  This is a very difficult subject and the participants gave a great overview of many of the issues in the discussion.

I hope I’m not reading too much into this episode, but I had the sense there were several thinly veiled references to John Murray. For one, I think it is unfortunate Murray rejected the covenant of works.  It’s something that continues to baffle me, though I still gather throughout his writings that he affirmed the substance of the covenant of works.  I believe his treatment of the imputation of Adam’s sin is first rate, but for some reason, Murray had a problem with the traditional language. Read the rest of this entry »

Some More Thoughts on The Mosaic Covenant

July 31st, 2009 by James J. Cassidy

I am thankful to my good brother Camden who has provoked some nice thoughts about the Mosaic Covenant in this post. Also, of recent interest, especially in light of a provocative review by Mark Karlberg in the recent JETS, is this book on the same subject.

I continue to have some reservations, however, about the idea of the republication of the CoW in the Mosaic economy with reference to national Israel and their possession of the land. Especially with reference to Deut. 9. In this passage a few things are very clear to me which at least challenge the republication theory (although I have no doubt in my mind that in at least some respects and in some places the CoW is clearly republished – for instance, in the giving of the ten words; a la Francis Turretin). Perhaps someone who has a greater understanding of the republication theory, with reference to the retention of the land, can explain to me how they handle these things:

1) Deut 9 makes it clear that Israel, as a nation, is given the land not because of what they have done, or who they are, but because of God’s free grace to them.

2) The covenant with Israel with reference to the land, in this chapter, is very closely connected with the Abrahamic covenant. God gives the land to them because of the promise he made to Abraham.

3) But also, the retaining of the land is also by grace. God says when Israel sins – and they will sin – he will remain faithful to his covenant and forgive them of their sins.

4) Yet, as we see later in redemptive history Israel does sin.  And they sin so severely that God does remove them from the land. However, this hardly seems a typological picture of eschatological judgment. It looks more like discipline in which God deals with Israel in a corrective way.

This need not break the valid connection there is between Adam, Israel, and Christ – especially with reference to Christ’s obedience, particularly in the wilderness where he clearly obeys exactly where Israel fails. We can say this because, yes, the CoW was operative under Moses. I believe that the CoW is always operative. It binds all men everywhere. I’m just not yet convinced that the land and nation of Israel serve in the way explicated by many proponents of the position. But I am open to being convinced. In fact, I prefer the position because it provides a nice neat theological structure to the covenants and redemptive history. However, I first need to get through Deut. 9. Help, any one?

Is Pentecost Repeatable?

July 20th, 2009 by Camden Bucey
Is Pentecost Repeatable?

I believe that Pentecost was a once-and-for-all event and is therefore not repeatable.  Some would consider my view to be dangerous for the life of the church.  Quite frankly, I am persuaded that presenting Pentecost as a repeatable event is the dangerous view.  Pentecost served as a unique event in redemptive-history.  Pentecost was the pouring out of the promised Holy Spirit upon the eschatological people of God.  The movement in history has been from a promise of consummated life to the receiving of that very promise.  Adam’s fall into sin modified that plan, as it were and it now must pass through the last Adam (eschatos Adam cf 3:15).  Though the plan has been modified, the telos (goal) of Scripture is still the same.

Eschatology precedes soteriology in the sense that God had a plan and a promise of eschatological life even before man fell into sin.  After Adam sinned, he and Eve were banished from the garden and the cherubim stepped in to protect the garden from the unholiness of sin.  As redemptive-history unfolds, Christ serves to secure the blessings that the first Adam failed to secure while at the same time undergoing the penalty and curse due to Adam and his progeny (Rom 5; Gal 3; 1 Tim 3; 2 Cor 5).  After dying and being raised, Christ secures the promised Holy Spirit who is then poured out to his people as a blessing and pledge (arrabwn) of consummated life that awaits at the second coming-consummation (parousia-sunteleia).  This is the redemptive-historical nature of Pentecost.  Given what it is it cannot be repeated.  There is no second Fall into sin, there is no second death and resurrection of Christ, and therefore there is no second Pentecost to be secured by Christ and given to his people, the Church.

Furthermore, the Trinitarian design of Pentecost also suggests the once-for-all nature of the event.  It is important to situation this event economically as it relates to redemptive-history and the divine decrees.  The eternal Son of God humiliated himself to redeem his people (Phil 2:6-11).  He did this at the appointment of the Father.  He was anointed with the Holy Spirit for his Messianic work (Lk 3) and continued his ministry in teh Spirit’s power and guidance (Lk 4).  Having died obediently, he was raised since it was impossible for death to hold him (Acts 2:24).  The Father made him Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36) and he was declared such in the power of the Spirit (Rom 1:3-4).  The Triune-God was at work at Pentecost in redemptive-history.  Christ has since finished his work and there need be no second Pentecost.

Moreover, Pentecost had a uniquely ecclesiological character.  This era is unique because it is the ingrafting of the Gentiles into the people of God (Rom 9-11).  This ingrafting is again a unique event that marks the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise (Gen 12) wherein the nations are blessed through him in his seed (Gal 4).  The dividing wall between Jew and Gentile has since been torn down (Eph 2:16) and there is no longer any distinction between them (Gal 3:29; Acts 11).  Pentecost testifies to this fact as the Spirit is poured out on Gentiles.  Since the hostility has been removed and the Spirit has been poured out, Pentecost need not occur for a 2nd, 3rd or xth time.  Rather, the repetitions you find in subsequent portions of Acts should be seen as reverberations or waves of a singular outpouring.  This massive eschatological event occurs in stages to Jews, then Gentiles, and then spreads.

Finally, the declarative nature of Pentecost is not conducive to repetitions.  Pentecost was a once-for-all forensic event in which God sealed his people with the Spirit and made them eschatologically citizens of glory.  They were redemptively transferred to a new order as the church was raised – eschatologically – into the heavenlies (Eph 1) to reign with Jesus, the LORD and Christ (Acts 2:36).  This unique event stands in relation to other unique events and should not be – yea cannot be – repeated any more than the Fall into sin or Christ’s death and resurrection.

I am incredibly indebted to the writings and teaching of Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. on this topic.  This post is largely a reflection on the notes from his class Acts & Paul at Westminster Theological Seminary.  You can purchase the recordings of these lectures from wtsbooks.com.  Dr. Gaffin’s insights on this subject may also be found in his book Perspectives on Pentecost.

The Exodus of Abraham

July 15th, 2009 by Nicholas T. Batzig

Genesis 12:10-20 sets out the remarkable account of Abram in the land of Egypt. It is remarkable on several accounts. It is the first instance of the sinfulness of Abraham. This is generally the focus that many expositors place in their explanation of the passage. God uses sinful men and women, who even go so far as to fear man and forget the promises of God. As Paul tells Timothy, “If we are faithless, He remains faithful. He cannot deny Himself.” This is certainly one of the focal points of the text. Then there is the clear example of God’s protection of Abraham. God has promised to protect His elect. This He does in regard to Pharaoh’s attempt to take Sarai to be his wife. The promise that God will give Abraham a seed, through his relationship with Sarah, must be fulfilled. In order to fulfill this promise God goes to great lengths to protect His chosen one, Abraham. God makes Abraham prosper throughout this account as well. This shows that God is interested in blessing His people on account of His grace. But the overall focus of the text is not on any of these particular details, important as they may be, rather it is on the exodus of Abraham.

Genesis was written to the children of Israel, immediately after their deliverance from Egypt. The Lord is recounting the historical and theological foundations of the covenant people. In doing so, He reminds them of His dealings with the father of the Israelitish nation. The Lord had called Abraham, given him exceedingly great and precious promises, and promised to bless the nations in His seed. In the course of events Abraham is driven down to Egypt by a famine. When in Egypt his life and liveliness is at stake. The Lord intervenes by sending plagues on Pharaoh and his house. Abraham is brought up out of Egypt. God has shown His covenant faithfulness by redeeming Abraham out of Egypt.

In Israel’s history the Exodus from Egypt is the great redemptive act of God. It serves as the typological picture of the redemption that He provides for His people spiritually from the hand of the world, the flesh and the devil. In as much as Israel was to understand the Exodus as a type of the spiritual redemption in Christ, God reminded them of His covenant redemption of Abraham back in Genesis 12:10-20. Israel was to look back at the one God had established this covenant of grace with, and look forward to the seed of Abraham who would fulfill that covenant for His people. Abraham is Israel. Israel comes from the loins of Abraham. Jesus is the true Israel. Jesus comes from the loins of Abraham, as well as from the bosom of the Father. Abraham is a type of Christ. Israel is a type of Christ. Jesus, we are told, went down into Egypt and was brought up again out of Egypt (Matt. 2:15). In Luke’s account of the Transfiguration we learn that Jesus’ death is the true “Exodus” (Luke 9:30-31). In His death and resurrection, the Son of God delivers His people from the bondage to Satan that they found themselves oppressed by since birth. Jesus thus fulfills the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant, as well as the typological nature of the nation of Israel. The blessings of Abraham are ours through the One who is Abraham’s Son and Abraham’s Lord. We, who have trusted in Him, are the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3) and heirs of the promise.

The Song of Solomon: A Covenantal Approach

July 3rd, 2009 by Camden Bucey
The Song of Solomon: A Covenantal Approach

In the Spring 2000 issue of the Westminster Theological Journal, Iain Campbell wrote a wonderful article detailing a covenantal approach to interpreting the Song of Solomon.  Dr. Campbell was featured on Christ the Center episode 67.  Given the seemingly dominant trend of interpreting the Song as a sanctified sex manual, Campbell’s approach is quite refreshing.  Students of reformed biblical theology will greatly appreciate Dr. Campbell’s insights.

Listen to the interview

Thoughts on the Mosaic Covenant

June 10th, 2009 by Camden Bucey
Thoughts on the Mosaic Covenant

Understanding the relationship of the Mosaic covenant to the overall working of God with his people in history is a difficult task. Dispensationalists view the relationship between the Abrahamic and Mosaic dispensations as being sharply distinguished. Some classic dispensationalists have even suggested that Israel should never have agreed to the Mosaic terms since they were under a better situation in the Abrahamic era.  Being dissatisfied with this type of approach, other covenant theologians smooth out the differences.  O. Palmer Robertson is a moderate example of making the progression to the Mosaic administration a little more flat. Theonomists are perhaps the “flattest” by incorporating the most continuity.  Theonomists try to maintain the Mosaic law in all its moral aspects as well as the civil aspects that have not been explicitly repealed in the New Testament.

For those who have been struggling with the issues of these systems, Meredith Kline presents an interesting alternative as he understands the Mosaic administration on two levels. For Kline, the covenant operates on a national and then on an individual level. At the national level, the covenant can be seen as a republication of the Covenant of Works. When Israel breaks the covenant, they are eventually exiled from the land just as Adam was exiled from the garden. The nation is God’s typological son and called to perfect, perpetual and personal [in some sort of national sense] obedience. This can be seen as continuous with the Adamic administration and discontinuous with the Abrahamic. Read the rest of this entry »