condition and covenant

How we describe the biblical covenants is of great theological significance. What we mean by ‘conditional’ and ‘unconditional’ and to which element of the covenants we apply those adjectives is very important. 

How we conceive of God’s action in history and in us is also bound up in the use of words like ‘unconditional’. There are pastoral contexts in which we speak more of God’s ‘unconditional’ grace (to a tender conscience or someone struggling with assurance) and contexts in which we speak more of scriptural warnings and exhortations and on the role played by obedience in our relationship with God (in cases of indifference or flagrant sin).

Precisely what ‘unconditional’ means and for precisely whom it means that lies at the heart of Christian Zionist and Dispensationalist interpretations of the Old Testament land promises.

What about the texts before we look too much at the details of the theologies above? Are there any conditions, implicit or explicit, in the texts themselves? I’ll post some detailed observations on this at some point, but for now, some gleanings from commentators on the Abrahamic covenant. Notice how the texts do rather seem to contain various kinds of conditions at various stages...

Genesis 17:9

When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly." ...And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. ...And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. ... Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

“Whereas inaugurating the covenant was entirely the result of divine initiative, confirming it involves a human response, summed up in v 1 by ‘walk in my presence and be blameless’ and spelled out in the demand to circumcise every male.” 

[Gordon Wenham, Genesis 16-50, WBC 2 (Dallas, 1994), p.20]

“Although in chapter 15 Abraham was a passive partner to whom God unconditionally committed himself, this supplement calls Abraham into active partnership. Just as Noah lived righteously and was rewarded with the Noahic covenant by the Lord, Abraham must “walk before” the Lord (living in fellowship with him and being taughtby him) and be blameless (living with integrity) in order to enjoy the covenant blessings. In fact, only after Abraham shows his total commitment to the Lord by his willingness to offer up Isaac as sacrifice does God take an oach to fulfill this covenant (22:15-18). From henceforth the covenant supplement is unconditional. Nevertheless, the formulation suggests that for Abraham’s descendants to increase and be a blessing they too must walk before God and be blameless. The suggestion becomes explicit in the blessings and curses in the Mosaic covenant (Lev. 26; Deut. 28).”
[Bruce Waltke, Genesis: a Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), p.263.]

Genesis 22:18

And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice."

“A promise which was previously grounded solely in the will and purpose of Yahweh is transformed so that it is now grounded both in the will of Yahweh and in the obedience of Abraham”
[R.W.L. Moberly, ‘The Earliest Commentary on the Akedah’, VT 38 (1988), 320]

Back to tradition - clericalism

Torn as I am between two stimulating branches of Protestantism (‘high’ Postmillennial Presbyterianism and ‘low’ evangelical Anabaptism) I have been circling around the question of clergy-laity for the last few months. Ordination has never been theologically explained to me: yes, I can see precedent for setting someone apart in some way, even in the ‘low’ house churches of the apostolic age but why load this with quite so much thelogical freight?

Trying out various strands of argument, the other month I presented a weak [?] argument for the priesthood, kingship and prophethood of all believers in an evangelical Anabaptist house (at NTI) but pot shots were fired at me. It’s possible that that line of thinking has gone down in flames. But I was surprised to appear more ‘left’ than Tim Chester!

That simmered away for a few weeks until two essays by James Jordan rekindled the ‘brain’ (as I like to call it):

http://biblicalhorizons.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/the-triune-office-reconsidered/#more-114

and

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-86-liturgical-man-liturgical-women-part-1/

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-87-liturgical-man-liturgical-women-part-2/

Jordan places theological considerations (more properly ‘liturgical’ considerations, as ‘theological’ is just too vague and noncommittal) above biological/psychological considerations in determining church practice. Having done a lot of research for the Jubilee Centre last year on gender (to put it simplistically, the nature-nurture debate regarding sex/gender differences) I am convinced that the biological/psychological considerations are not so clear cut as conservatives might wish for. That’s a BIG fat topic for another day, btw.

Remarkably, however, for a conservative chap, Jordan’s approach cuts across the evangelical complemantarian-egalitarian debate by suggesting that a woman may teach men ‘publically’ from the Bible (occasionally) in Christian gatherings so long as she does not lead or preside over the sacramental worship. So, Adult Sunday schools or sermons (in the evening, apparently!) are OK, women just shouldn’t be the voice from the front in the ‘covenant renewal’ meeting (which has to be in the morning, I take it). Sacramentalism and clericalism [should that be sacramentism and clericism?!] are bound up here big time. Jordan wishes to dethrone the sermon (fair enough, says the Anabaptist Tim Chester, an evangelical complementarian and thus more ‘conservative’ than Jordan here – oh, go on then, I agree with Tim so I shan’t hide behind him!) but wishes to enthrone the liturgy of covenant renewal, and for that he thinks he needs a man.

Jordan’s arguments sound to me like some Orthodox and Roman Catholic discussions about church offices. But ever since R.Paul Stevens’ The Abolition of the Laity I have not been too chuffed with the distinctions traditionally made, as indicated at the start of this post. Teasing these things out will be a major concern of mine over the next few weeks as I have to go north to the Anabaptists to discuss church leadership in the NT. Of course ‘leadership’ is not a precisely ‘liturgical’ category, just to muddy it all the more.

And it’s no armchair debate in comfortable America and the UK. James Dretke (in A Christian Approach to the Muslim: Reflections from West Africa, pp.199-201, and esp. 234) pointed out a long time ago (1979) the urgency of empowering the ‘laity’ for mission, especially in a context in which Islam has spread as a ‘lay’ phenomenon

The World We All Want and what is wrong

Last week at TWWAW, which we are running at Hope Community Church, we had some really interesting discussion of Genesis 1-3 and the Bible’s aetiology of what is wrong [shorthand, ‘sin’]. It’s always rewarding to look at these foundational passages – and doing it with people who aren't Christians added a freshness and insight to our discussion.

One thing that a friend returned to several times was that people may do lots of bad things but they don’t always do them in order to do bad. In fact they often act for the 'right' reasons, or at least in the absence of conscious malice.

I was reminded of this again a couple of days ago when I looked at David Bosch’s Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in the Theology of Mission (New York: Orbis, 1991) and read his verdict on the Medieval Catholic paradigm. In similar manner the missionary wars, direct or indirect, and the entire project of Western colonization of the rest of the world were – in spite of all the horrors that went with them and even if we, today, find them totally incomprehensible and indefensible – expressions of a genuine concern for others, as Christians understood their responsibility in those years. (p.230) That is a little generous, I suspect – didn’t greed have rather a lot to do with it at, especially for the agents even if not for all the authorizers? However, the important insight is there, too – as we sin, we do not always have full consciousness of the evil of our actions, and often our plans and activities are carried out with ‘good’ intentions.

On the one hand this reveals the power of sin to delude and darken our minds. Calling it good in our heads, even doing so 'innocently', doesn't make it good in the final analysis. On the other hand, what place is there for conscious rebellion, such as Paul speaks of in Romans 1? Even if it doesn’t manifest itself in the ‘visible’ noetic scaffolding of our every activity, it must be there at the heart of who we are. Psychologically it may not be frequently experienced at a conscious level (though the struggles with our consciences that we frequently go through are surely part of this attempt at suppression) but does it not nevertheless lie beneath all our projects? Those projects are as filthy rags in God's sight, after all…

Genesis 4 and interpretation

Commentators on texts differ. That's not my most original insight, it has to be said. But why they differ is often quite interesting. Particularly so when there doesn't seem to be an obvious, or even hidden, reason. Neither theological persuasion, relative immersion in the Documentary hypothesis, publishing house style or anything else seem adequate to explain why A chooses a and B chooses b in the following examples of commentary on Genesis 4. Nor why A chooses b' and B chooses a' (where a and b are the interpretations I find more convincing in each case...!)

Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man." ² Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. ³ In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. ⁴ But Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, ⁵ but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

Eve's words in verse 1 are heard by Ross (1988: 156) as expressing hope and faith in God's ongoing provision, but Waltke (2003: 96) claims that they reveal an underlying poor theology of divine sovereignty that borders on the synergistic. Ross gives his most generous nod to the first clause, while Waltke focuses on the second.

The brothers' career choices are considered fairly immaterial by Waltke (2003:97), but Ross claims that there is the barest hint in the text that Cain's closer connection with the soil and with plants puts him more dangerously close to the substance (fruit of a tree) that was the formal cause of the expulsion from Eden (188:156).

Ross and Waltke agree that the material offerings in themselves were equivalent: Ross does not even really address the issue of plant vs. meat, moving straight to the clear problem in Cain's heart, though Waltke takes the time to acknowledge that Gerhard von Rad suggests that "the sacrifice of blood was more pleasing to Yahweh". Against both Ross and Waltke, there is the colourful James Jordan, who argues forcefully (1985:159) that the principle of substitution had been articulated by Yahweh already (the provision of animal-skin coverings at the expulsion) and that Cain should have raised or purchased a lamb for the purpose of this offering.

This third point does appear to have more theological stuff packed into it - it's a question of how tightly and richly you want to weave your biblical theology. But on the first two differences of opinion I am at a loss to explain the reasons for the choices made.

James Jordan, Judges: God's War Against Humanism (Tyler, TX: Geneva Min., 1985).
Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988).
Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001).