New Covenant

Oct 2

Posted by Mike Stallard in New Covenant | 5 Comments

One of the areas which traditional dispensationalists debate the most is the relationship of the Church to the New Covenant predicted in Jeremiah 31:31-34.  As a result, we recently convened the Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics at Baptist Bible Seminary in order to discuss the interpretation of the New Covenant among traditional dispensationalists.  Over 120 guests attended for the presentation of several papers with much discussion after each presentation.
                No paper represented the two New Covenants view.  To my knowledge no one in the audience defended this view at any time.  However, as I listened to the discussions, I could see why someone would opt for that view to try to resolve some of the issues.  Among the positions discussed, I would say that there were three major views:

  1. There is one New Covenant in the Bible and the Church has no relationship to it whatsoever.
  2. There is one New Covenant in the Bible and the Church is related to it indirectly through its relationship with Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant.
  3. There is one New Covenant in the Bible and the Church is related to it directly by application in New Testament passages.

I myself have tended to lean toward # 2 in my own understanding.  As I listened to the presentations and discussions, another thought that did occur to me was this – the views may be closer together than one might think.  Some of those who held to # 1 also supported the idea that the Church enjoys blessings now that are analogous to the New Covenant blessings that Israel will one day receive in the coming kingdom.  Practically speaking, this view ends up at the same place as the others in terms of the Church’s experience.  I could say the same thing about the relationship of views # 2 and # 3.  In the end, the views are not arguing about the nature of the Church’s present experiences.  They are debating the best way to label the Church’s current experiences and how such experiences are related to Israel’s New Covenant.  All traditional dispensationalists want to be precise in their understanding of the Bible’s teaching.

Perhaps the single most intriguing issue that came up for me was during Roy Beacham’s presentation entitled “The New Covenant of Scripture in ANE Covenant Context:  A Preliminary Presentation.”  The issue was how to take passages like Ezekiel 20:34-44.  In verse 37, the text says “And I shall make you pass under the rod, and I shall bring you in the bond of the covenant.”  On the basis of ANE studies, this is language for the cutting or ratifying of a covenant.   This is not the hard part.  The hard part is the context which seems to be set at the time of the tribulation and then entering into the kingdom.  In short, it is possible to see this passage (there are others later in Ezekiel) as indicating the making of the covenant in our future – i.e., it is yet to come.  If this is the New Covenant as Beacham argues contextually within Ezekiel (recall Eze. 36), then how can the Church have a relationship to something that is not in existence yet.  It has been predicted; that is all.  In this view, it has not been cut, ratified, or even inaugurated.  This was an interesting presentation which was contrary to my own position.  I have never seriously incorporated the earlier Ezekiel passages into my theological assessment on this issue.  Thus, I am indebted to Beacham for making me think and be more comprehensive relative to the passages in question.  I don’t know if I’ll come to agree with him on this issue, but I think I am better for having listened to his ideas.

 Some might think that the disagreements among traditional dispensationalists on this issue demonstrate a weakness to their overall viewpoint.  However, I would hazard an educated guess that even among nondispensationalists, there is quite an array of viewpoints in how the details are put together.

Gospel-centered, God-centered, or Christ-centered?

Sep 8

Posted by Mike Stallard in Gospel-centered | 8 Comments

 Recently in chapel at Baptist Bible Seminary, I spoke briefly on the topic of gospel-centeredness.  I took my short sermon from that day and reworked it for this blog entry.  Perhaps it may be of benefit to the reader.

 Over the last few years I have been doing some thinking about being “gospel-centered.”  Much of the motivation for such talk within evangelicalism is positive.  This has taken on the aura of a mantra in many quarters.  The rise of conferences like Together for the Gospel and the Gospel Coalition have value in calling the evangelical world back to the significance of the gospel of Christ and away from the vapid and vacuous forms of Arminianism that dominate much of the landscape, especially of the Electronic Church.  I am not lambasting all Arminians, just those who are radical in their orientation and who present no clear gospel.  For example, I often watch Joel Osteen on television to see if he is ever going to present the gospel of Christ so that people will understand it.  I have not yet heard it.

            On the other hand, I want to expand the discussion somewhat with the following question:  “Should we be gospel-centered, God-centered, or Christ-centered?”  Arguments can be made for each of these for doing theology.  In doing ministry, especially at the local church level, one can see that the gospel would or should be prominent as the church reaches out to its culture.  After all, the Apostle Paul told the Corinthians, “For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2, NASB).  However, should the gospel itself – understood here as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-8) – be the central interpretive motif for our entire theological worldview?  I think that is a different question than ministry focus.  Paul is not excluding or diminishing the value of other areas of doctrine.  Nor is he necessarily saying that one’s entire worldview is built upon the gospel alone as the core.

            Some would argue for God-centeredness.  Culturally, the need is great.  We live in an era where Islam is resurging and New Age mysticism with its Hinduistic ideas has such an influence in the Western world.  The issue here is the nature of God.  Within evangelicalism there is the open theism debate which also highlights the very being of God as crucial in our time.  The debate over sovereignty has heated up with the Reformed resurgence.  Biblically, can anyone imagine any theological category in the Word of God that is more important than God?

            However, as I think about central interpretive motifs and know that people have a penchant for having them, I remember all the attempts to find the center of the message of the Bible.  Some of the candidates for the unifying theme of the Bible have been kingdom, covenant, promise, redemption, dispensation, holiness, already-not yet, the glory of God, etc.  To highlight one is sometimes to diminish the others.  Does any one of these concepts actually integrate all the others?  There exist also agenda-driven theologies such as feminist theology, the social gospel, black theology, and other attempts to take one issue and view all of theology through that one lens.  Such an approach to doing theology does not take the text as it was meant to be taken and may devalue other teachings that the Word of God gives.

            Lately, I have been talking more and more about Jesus-centered theology although I have an open mind as I continue to consider this issue.  The advantage of a Jesus-centered approach over a gospel-centered approach is that it is inclusive of all that Jesus has done, is doing, and will do for His people.  Does this succeed as a central interpretive motif?  Probably not.  However, it does fit with several passages that give gospel appeals.  Even in 1 Corinthians 15, the resurrection chapter, the gospel lends itself to the discussion of the future resurrection of believers.  Eschatology along with some of its details is not far behind Paul’s famous definition of the gospel (see 1 Cor. 15:20-28; 50-52).

Of special interest to me is Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill in Acts 17.  The outline of the content of Paul’s message is clear:  God is the creator; men must repent of their sins against Him; if they don’t, they will be judged; if they are judged, they will be judged by the man (Jesus) whom God raised from the dead (see 17:22-31).  The framing of the gospel presentation includes some eschatology.  There is a future time of judgment to come.  In this way, the entire gamut of what Jesus does is highlighted, not just the Cross-work. The Cross is certainly the basis for the forgiveness of sins.  One must depend upon the finished work of Christ on the Cross to be saved.  However, the Bible often speaks of the “package” of all that Jesus does across time. 

One other major passage which speaks of the career of Jesus, so to speak, would be Romans 8:29-39.  There the promise is given that God finishes what He starts based upon the various aspects (past, present, future) of the ministries of Jesus.  It is also interesting that both Peter and Paul highlight a future focus as the hope of oppressed Christians (1 Peter 1:4-5, 7, 13, 5:4; 2 Thess. 1:5-12).  I doubt that Peter was actually devaluing the Cross when he made the following statement:  “Therefore, gird your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:13).  This focus on the Second Coming was necessary and commanded with clarity.  Yet theologically, one might be criticized in today’s theological climate as overdosing on eschatology if one emphasized this truth.

So, I have come to a conclusion.  To emphasize the Second Coming at the expense of the First Coming is to spit on the Cross.  However, to emphasize the First Coming and the Cross at the expense of Christ’s future glorious work is to deny the glory of the God that we worship.  So, at least for the time being, you will find me emphasizing more and more a Jesus-centered theology that glories in all that Christ is and all that He does throughout all of history.

 

Tags: