The Missing Link
I will caveat this post for the onset that I am utilizing large brush-strokes and maybe some generalizations in order to raise a theological question. What I have heard re-iterated time and time again from my dispensationalist professors (minor excursus: If you have not inferred it yet, let me be explicit at this juncture: I am not a dispensationalist! The closest camp that I have been able to align myself with is Covenant Theology, without the Covenants.) is that there is no explicit text concerning a change in the “land” aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant, ergo you cannot abrogate it or relegate it to a “spiritual” fulfillment in Christ. I will not take the opportunity at this juncture to rehearse my official rant about how this is a foul in the use of their logic concerning subjecting theological inferences; rather, necessity has constrained me to mention what I believe is a much excluded text from the argument.In the context of Romans 4, Paul has been arguing for sola fide via a theo-historical rehearsal of Abraham’s faith. In v. 12, Paul describes the universality of Abraham’s paternal relationship with all those, circumcised or not, who follow in his faith. Paul immediately supports this proposition in v. 13 through stating a thesis that the modus operandi of the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham or his decedents would only be via faith. What interest me at this juncture is “What is the content of the promise?” Look closely at v. 13. The content of the promise is “The world,” and not “The land.” A quick Bibleworks search reveals that this is not a LXX substitution but a Pauline or maybe OT expansion (the latter require verification). A perusal of Romans will reveal that the most natural use contextually and theologically for world here is the physical land and all that goes with it.
Some may immediately respond, “Well, your point is moot seeing that Abraham’s descendants are his physical descendants in this context.” Initially, I thought this was not just a valid interpretation but perhaps ever the proper one. But to continue to hold to such a view seems to not deal with the contextual definition of “descendants.” In v. 16, Paul reiterates the result of a salvation that is sola fide, viz. the promise—remember v.13’s definition—would be universally enjoyed by all of Abraham’s descendants, including the goyim. Paul even supports the universality of this enjoyment by citing a fraction of Gen. 17:5.
So what are my conclusions? To be frank with all of you, I do not have an answer to that question articulated in my mind as well as I would like to have it. I will posit this though for the blogsphere to digest and discuss, viz. that Pauline theology relegated all the promises made to Abraham, specifically in context the land promise, to his true descendants, those of faith, not to his physical descendants.
Labels:
Abrahamic Covenant,
Romans
5 comments:
I am still not sure what to make of this text, though I must hand you the prima facie argument.
I do see Eph. 2-3 teaching that the promises to Israel are now inherited by the church in as much as the church was formerly "alienated from the promise" (ch. 2) and has become partakers of the promise in ch. 3. I think the dispensation interpretation that the "mystery" here refers to the church is inaccurate -- it seems more likely that the mystery is the equality of the Jews and Gentiles in this body.
Russell,
I was wondering if you could help me understand something. You have made clear that you're not a dispensationalist. In fact, you've admitted that you really have no clue what you are, but you are close to Covenant theology without the covenants. What exactly does this mean? The whole of Covenant theology (presuppositions, hermeneutics, interpretation--the whole kit-and-kaboodle) is based on the theological construct of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. Any covenant theologian who understands his system admits, no, unashamedly proclaims this. Forgive me if I misunderstood what you meant by your definition of your theological leanings, but you have left me baffled. Thank you for your gracious clarification to come.
A Confused friend
Eklektos,
I apologize for my delinquency in giving you a response. Life has been crazy, which is no excuse, just a reason. As you have already noted in your post, I am not quite sure what I am. Let me clarify that comment though. Just because I do not align myself with a specific camp, i.e. Covenant or Dispensational (if we keep a two party system), that does not mean I do not know what I am. I have quite an acute understanding of my own cognitive beliefs. To clarify what I meant by positing, "The closest camp that I have been able to align myself with is Covenant Theology, without the Covenants,” I was merely expressing my affinity for the proposed continuity of the system without conforming to the entire system, i.e. the affirmation of the two (occasionally, three) covenants. I will watch my overstatements in the future.
Let me now briefly provide some clarification to my posting. My primary, over-arching hermeneutical principle is a Christological, New Covenant fulfillment of the Old Testament. Please understand me at this point. I am stating this principle in very board strokes without the fine nuances that it requires. The implications of this are many. I see some form of sensus plenior, many typological fulfillments, salvation-historical redemptive connections, and other various forms of fulfillment that utilizes the “thickness” of the Old Testament text (Beale) by expanding, escalating, or reapplying it within the New Covenant context.
I believe a brief illustration is needed at this juncture. The following illustration is not original with me. Although I borrowed this from Beale, I have expanded it in a few areas. At the turn of the century, a father stated that I will provide my child some day with a horse and buggy. Time passes, and the man has a daughter and provides her with a car. Did he fulfill his statement? Most certainly! Though not fulfilled “literally,” we find that the original statement does provides some elasticity in meaning and referent. This is the general idea I believe is reflected in the New Testament and in my hermeneutic.
I hope this helps, at least initially. Please understand that this is very incipient and I by no means intend this to be exhaustive. On a closing note and exhortation, anonymity is something that is a privilege on the internet but is not something that is well respected within the “blogasphere.” With that stated, I do appreciate your comments as they were quite useful in further clarifying my viewpoint and my ability to express it concisely. I am still working on the latter.
Russell
Russel,
I miss talking to you, and I enjoyed the posting. Keep it up.
Stacy
Russel,
I’ve been following links to old NBBC veterans today, and I ended up here. Anyway, let me be the first to congratulate you that you’re not a Dispensationalist. But I’m still not sure what your hesitance is with Covenant Theology’s two or three covenant idea. Granted, there is a sense in which there are multiple covenants, but may they not all be subsumed under the general headings “Covenant of Grace”/”Covenant of Law”?
Also, let me recommend to you Horton’s new work, God of Promise – it really is a phenomenal defense of CT. But anyway, don’t feel compelled to respond to this, unless you want to. I am just foraging for fodder and occasionally braying, as any other jack-ass would do.
Blessings from the Cross,
Pitch
P.S. I'm posting this under my wife's blogger account since I don't have one of my own.
Post a Comment