the one who came to supersede the old covenant
From whence comes the idea that Jesus superceded (supplant, replace) the former eternal covenants, and in particular the Mosaic / Sinaic / deuteronomic one? I’m not sure this is a googly, so much as a no ball, Peter!
I think the relationships between the various eternal covenants which are revealead in scripture are more complex than the frequently flouted idea of “all summed up in Jesus” gives credit for (that is not to say you, Peter, put it so crudely; I am deliberately broadening my critique). No doubt one day that will be true, since everything will be summed up that way, but for now, even though the former covenants are “passing away” they remain in force. (Hebrews 8.13) Yes, the New Covenant is superior, but scripturally it does not replace, supplant, supercede the former covenants. (I am grateful to David Stern, JNT Publications for these insights)
The old covenant is obsolete
I would add that, if the Mosaic covenant remains in force, then Jews are still required—on pain of death—to do such things as circumcise their boys, sacrifice lambs, stone adulterers, etc.
You correctly note that the law of Moses is called “eternal.” Yet so was Canaan (Gen. 17:8), the priesthood of Aaron (Exodus 40:15), the passover (Exodus 12:14), the Sabbath (Exodus 31:16-17), and the Davidic dynasty (2 Sam. 7:12-29). I submit that all of these—including the old covenant—have ended. Some try to spiritualize their continued existence, but I don’t think this is how they were meant to be understood. Rather, the Hebrew “ad olam” can just mean “in perpetuity,” or in this case “as long as both sides agree” or “as long as you keep covenant.” The Sinai covenant was open-ended.
I think this conditionality has to be understood as implied, or else Numbers 14:30 contradicts Exodus 6:8, Deuteronomy 28:68 contradicts Exodus 14:13, and Jeremiah 18:7-10 and 1 Samuel 2:30 must be disregarded. This conditionality is expressed in Deuteronomy 4:1-2, 1 Kings 9:2-8, Malachi 2:8-9, Jeremiah 31:32, and Deuteronomy 27:26=Gal. 3:10.
My conclusion based on a covenant-oriented reading of the New Testament is that every element of the old covenant is obsolete—the parties to the covenant, man’s obligations, and God’s promises. Whatever else was “finished” when Jesus said “it is finished,” the Mosaic covenant certainly was—the temple veil ripped (Mt. 27:50-51) and the law was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14-17). While Jesus did not come to abolish the law—to break covenant with Israel—he certainly came to fulfill it, and it was fulfilled in full.
old ideas now "passing away"
There was not “something wrong” with the first covenant. God made no mistakes in giving it to his people and he didn’t give them a faulty product. It was not made obsolete, it was not superceded. It was surpassed, in that the new covenant did what the first could not, in that it “wrote Torah upon the heart(s)”
In this passage, Paul argues that the Jews were released from the demands of Torah by dying. It is not the Torah which dies, it is the Jew who trusts in the Messiah. Such a True Jew is released not from every aspect of Torah, but specifically from (a)its capacity to stir up sin in an individual (v. 5-14); (b) its capacity to produce irremediable guilt feelings (v. 15-25); (c) its penalties, punishments and curses (Ro. 8.1-4).
This only concurs with the statement that the new covenant surpasses the first one. It does not establish the supercession.
Jesus came to free them from the legalistic perversion of Torah, not from Torah itself. Torah was God’s grace to the Jewish people, the light of the world (Ro. 9.4-5).
The Jews are required to submit to Torah. The Goal at which the Torah aims is the Messiah (Ro.10.4). Jews must submit to the New Covenant that has been given to the house of Israel and Judah. The whole of the book of Hebrews is primarily presenting this argument.
The import of the Covenant being Eternal is that God upholds his Covenant purposes. What God promised to do through the tribe of Israel, he will do, because of his faithfulness. A great deal of that which he promised is indeed carried out faithfully by the mediation of the new covenant, confirming Torah, confirming the first covenant. Your citation of Jeremiah 31.32 is actually an example that supports the argument that, in spite of the faithlessness of his people, God will always maintain his own covenantal purposes. (Viewed from my perspective, I saw little or no evidence of contradiction in the passages you cited, b/t/w, Chris. I say this, not to provoke, merely to point out how an alternate reading / understanding provides different insight into the message presented by passages such as these)
I submit that “whatever else what finished, when Jesus said, It is finished” it was definitely not a reference to the cessation of any of the covenants of Torah. The abrogation old covenant is never in view in the new testament scripture, in spite of the nuances of traditional protestant translations and concomitant assumptions - I refer to not less than, but certainly more than, the dramatic flourishes (curtain, law, cross, fulfilment) with which you complete your post, Chris.
For example, re. Colossians 2.14-17, it was not the Torah, the covenant, which was nailed to the cross, but the list of crimes which was customarily attached to the execution stake (as happened to Jesus - Jn 19.19-22), thus it was the “bill of charges against us” - the sins we have committed that the writer has in view.
The point, in all of this, is to establish that Torah upholds the Messiah and Messiah upholds Torah. They are not in competition. Jesus did not come to end the Torah / Law, though he did change and extend Torah - “the Torah of the Messiah” being an alternative terminology for what we think of as the new covenant. (For Jews this certainly does include requirements that do not extend to Gentiles, just as it includes requirements for Kings different to subjects, slaves / masters, men / women. Unlike our modern catch-all gospel, the scripture addresses people of all kinds as they really are.)
Admittedly these are complex issues, that is in no small measure why the writer of the book of Hebrews (“Messianic Jews”) wrote the letter he did; I do not expect to convert those who have “never heard such preposterous thinking.” I do hope you will consider these things deeply, as I have over many years and at least, accept that there is another integrated way of looking at these issues, Chris, and those who sympathise with his determined, dogmatic cry for the obsolesence of covenants preceding the “new covenant.” For any who may be serious about such a quest, I recommend the Jewish New Testament and Commentary, both by David Stern, where these deeply important issues are taken up.
Why are they important? Not just for Jewish evangelism, as some might imagine. Nor also for Jewish - Christian relations, though these are vital issues. But for a proper understanding of God’s covenant faithfulness, to correct centuries of misunderstanding concerning the role of the Eternal Torah in the outworking of God’s Eternal Purpose. (Others rightly champion Tom Wright for doing this, I champion David Stern!)
start another thread?
John, you’ve alluded to this position before, and I am in interested in working through some of it more with you. I have questions and continued dialogue that are probably more appropriate for a different thread (maybe Andrew can move these comments there?). I guess my biggest hurdle to seeing what you are describing as integrated is that I actually agree wholeheartedly with most of what you say (Torah and Messiah are not in competition, fault was with the Israelites, not the covenant) including when you indicate that the purposes of God in the covenant are eternal. To which I respond “Amen” and now those purposes are met in the Messiah and his new covenant. Therefore (seems to be Jesus’ and Paul’s thinking) it is appropriate to set aside that which is good and holy but really only appropriate for a different age (stage in the plan). Do you have issues to raise with any of that? That is what I mean to say with things like “the end/fulfillment of Torah.”
loose threads
This is the normal assumption that is made. Andrew has challenged us in other parts of the site to rethink the reasons for example about why we think Jesus life / death / ministry has universal implications. We are sure it does, but answering Why? asks us to investigate the reality. That’s not so different to what I’m saying.
A simple metaphor: the meeting of the purposes of God in the Messiah and the New Covenant are like the icing upon the cake. You can’t have the icing without the cake; equally, the cake without the icing is incomplete and those who wish to pick the icing off the cake, well that’s just not allowed.
Your argument is that the old covenant is historical in import only. I’m arguing that the its an essential part of an ongoing narrative and complex arrangement of parts. To change the metaphor slightly, I’m arging that the whole covenant purposes of God are one cake (forget the icing), with many vital ingredients. Try to remove one part and you misrepresent the one who wrote the recipe and don’t be surprised if the cake doesn’t ‘rise’ in the oven.
It’s also a matter of accuracy, as I said before. I simply don’t believe the scriptures attest to the end / fulfilment of Torah in the sense of cessation, abrogation. The implications of that will need careful investigation and comprehension. But first accuracy, then understanding.
Happy to pursue these things, Eric, thanks for the encouragement (also re. my creeds post!)
Shalom! - John
The old wineskins were for the old wine
John, I hope you can clarify some things for me. I understand you to be wanting to address the issue of whether Jesus superceded/supplanted/replaced the former covenants, particularly the Mosaic/Sinai one.
Regarding the difference between the new and old covenants, I understand you to be saying that the new covenant is basically the old covenant written on people’s hearts. It is basically the Mosaic covenant, modified. In other words, the law of Moses and the law of Christ are one and the same law, properly understood (i.e. with a proper understanding of how the Sinai covenant was revised to become the new covenant in Jesus’ blood).
Specifically in regards to the old covenant, I understand you to be saying that the Jews (or at least “true” Jews) are released from the demands of the covenant (by dying), from certain tendencies of the covenant to cause sin and guilt, and from the curses/penalties of the covenant.
Perhaps our differences are just a matter of semantics, but I wonder. I believe a Biblical covenant is defined by its parties (who God makes the covenant with), terms (what God requires those in the covenant to do), and promises (what God says he will do, whether positively in the case of faithfulness, or negatively in the case of unfaithfulness).
The Mosaic covenant and the new covenant cannot be the same covenant because they are different in every respect—they have different parties, different terms, and different promises. So I can’t buy the “same covenant” or “no covenant” perspectives. The Sinai covenant was between God and the 12 tribes of Israel (and their slaves); the new covenant is between God and whoever comes to him in faith in Jesus. If the old covenant remains in force, then it must remain in force for the descendants of Abraham—Christian or not. The Mosaic covenant required the Jews to keep the 10 commandments, along with over 600 other commandments, with no Biblical distinction between legal, ceremonial, and moral. If the old covenant remains in force, then Jews are still required to keep the Sabbath, not eat pork, sacrifice sheep, etc. Under the old covenant, God vowed to curse Israel for unfaithfulness; if the old covenant is still in force, then Jews may expect to have crop failures, military defeats, disease, etc. for unfaithfulness. Under the Mosaic covenant, God vowed to bless Israel for obedience; if the old covenant is still in force, then Jews may expect health, prosperity, and victory for sacrificing those sheep, circumcising those babies, etc.
Now, in saying that the old covenant still exists—but with Gentiles instead of just Jews, with Christlikeness required instead of 600+ commands, with forgiveness of sins, the Holy Spirit, and eternal life promised instead of health and wealth—it seems to me you are just saying, in another way, that the old covenant is gone. What remains is not recognizable as the Mosaic/Sinai covenant of Scripture. It has different parties, different terms, different promises.
This is not to say that the old covenant did not have a purpose to serve, or that God did not have an overarching plan. I would submit that both the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant are grounded in the Abrahamic covenant. Abraham was faithful to the terms of his covenant with God, and so we could expect to see God’s promises to Abraham worked out in history. Basically, God promised Abraham that his descendants would be a great nation, and that they would get Canaan. This was fulfilled in the Mosaic covenant (see 1 Kings 4:20-21 and Acts 7:17ff). God also promised Abraham that all nations would be blessed through his seed. This is fulfilled in the new covenant (see Acts 3:25-26, Gal. 3:14-16).
I could see the old covenant remaining in force, if the new covenant documents did not say in several different ways that the Jews themselves were freed from the law. If not for those passages, then the Jews could receive God’s physical blessings on a national basis through keeping the Mosaic covenant, and receive God’s spiritual blessings through keeping the new covenant. But given that you yourself admit that whatever covenant the Jews are still under, it is different from that described in the Pentateuch, I am at a loss.
The Bible is quite specific as to the features of the important covenants between God and man. Each one is rooted in a particular historical setting. They are not ad hoc covenants, from which we pick and choose elements to follow and elements to reject. The Mosaic covenant was never meant to continue after Messiah had come; it was given only until then (Gal. 3:19-25).
clarifying or mystifying...
Hello Chris
I’m not sure exactly which things you are asking me to clarify. Your comments read rather more as though you would like to clarify some things to me!! ;)
Apart from the thrust of your first paragraph, which is broadly in line with what I’m positing, I would have to say that most of your suppositions don’t speak accurately of my view of things, so I will not defend / address the detail of them. Instead, I’ll try to extract on or two of the key ideas , so that the difference in thought (rather than details or suppositions) which are being posited by my view can be highlighted.
I’m not sure that this is a correct understanding of biblical covenants, at least not the ones which God declares. It was the idea behind tribal covenants and there are certainly echoes of the idea in, for example, the format of the new covenant feast, at which the disciples received the “blood of Christ.” However, in tribal covenants both parties exchanged blood. The covenant of Christ was unilateral: the disciples did not give their blood to Christ or pledge their strength to him etc.
This confirms the idea that the biblical covenants were unilateral. The word ‘covenant’ as used in the bibilcal texts could be translated as ‘obligation’ or ‘commitment.’ Its about what God promises he will do.
Terms are attached to the covenant, as with the Mosaic covenant. Faithfulness or otherwise to these terms brings its reward or punishment, but it does not alter God’s commitment or declared intent through the covenant - that which he has sworn to do. I hope it is possible to see clearly how this alters the suppositions which constitute your paragraphs five and six?
Inasmuch, then, that the covenant is a unilateral purpose of God, it is unconditional. In asmuch as God’s people are invited to participate in the covenant (ie. into the outworking of his covenantal purposes), their continuance in covenantal relationship is conditional upond God’s grace towards them, precipitated upon the basis of faith.
The new covenant was made “with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.” Gentiles are introduced to it by being engrafted into the vine of Israel, into “the commonwealth of Israel” (Ephesians 2.11-22; Romans 11.16-24), through being immersed into the Jewish Messiah.
This vital element of revelation in brought out in full within Hebrews chapter eight (sse also below)
I did respond to this in in principle in one of the above posts. I’m not sure which other references you’re thinking of, Chris.
The “Torah as set forth by the Messiah” has called the Jews to a New Commandment - it is to this that they must submit if they are to please God. The New Covenant has surpassed the Sinai Covenant, reinterpreted it, improved upon it, transformed it (Hebrews 7.12 JNT) but not replaced. One did not end and the next start; there is an organic relationship between the two that cannot be swept away and ignored. That is what I am personally, investigating and seeking consideration for in these posits.
This idea is made clear in the passge from Jeremiah 31.30-34, discussed in Hebrews 8.9-12, which says that Torah is written upon people’s hearts. It is inconceivable that when God writes Torah upon people’s hearts he changes it into something other than Torah!
The question then folows “What is Torah”?
Whatever its boundary lines are, Torah is “a tree of life to those who find it.” Generally, in orthodox Judaism, ‘torah’ is taken to be either (a) the Pentateuch, (b) that plus the Prophets and Writings (i.e. the Tanakh / OT) (c) that plus Oral Torah etc.
In contrast, within the new testament, Torah is (a) to be understood as the Messiah understands it, (b) includes Messiah’s commandments (c) includes the new testament itself, which has been made Torah (Hebrews 8.6). The phrase which best encapsulates this is the “torah of the Messiah.”
In terms of the details of what the implications are for (Messianic) Jews who trust in Jesus (Yeshua), that is another debate. Hebrews makes it clear that there is a change in the priesthood and an end to the commands in connection with the priesthood. But it does not abrogate the remaining elements of Torah.
The Messiah came to complete, not abolish Torah, as set out in the above comments. (abolish, (gk): kataluo: to loosen down (disintegrate), that is, (by implication) to demolish (literally or figuratively); specifically to halt for the night: - destroy, dissolve, come to nought, overthrow, throw down. (it cannot mean to break covenant, as was suggested yesterday - it is much stronger)
I would argue that for the Jews it was the oppressive distortion of the Torah into a system of legalism which was the elemental deliverance (Ga. 4.3) they required, not a deliverance from life-giving torah itself. Torah did act as a harsh custodian, which condemned sinfulness in the Jews but also allowed them to come to God for forgiveness if they came in humility - until the Messiah came to bring deliverance and to allow “the just requirements of Torah to be fulfilled” in them as the submitted to the “Torah of the Spirit.” (Ro. 8.2-4)
Why are these things important? Because they promote:
a proper understanding of the involved relationship between the various elements of the Eternal Torah as set forth throughout the entire narrative and documents of scripture.As mentioned before the new testament is incomprehensible apart from the old and this debate is about the correct way to align the two. I think these ideas, for example, allow us to debunk the idea which you touched upon yesterday, which suggests that the Jews were promised material blessings, while the new testament offers spiritual blessings. The blessings of God, I believe, are much more involved than such a dichotomy suggests, though that too is for another debate.
Another related example: debunking the poor theological argument such as that “the whole of Torah is replaced by the simple command to ‘love.’” Torah is where the Spirit has inspired men to set forth how the Creator and Lord of history wants us to love… him and one another, in very specific ways and means. Consequently, we are drawn back to the words of scripture with investigative hearts, to discern God’s extraordinary ways and commandments, which bring Life.
a unified view of God’s eternal, unchanging covenant purpose. Jesus did not arrive in a vacuum; he came to a people prepared by Torah, a remnant of which received him. Torah was transformed by the Messiah, but continued as a guide and influence and covenantal framework. Witness it’s use throughout the n.t. it allows gentiles to (accurately) set forth the (whole) Torah as what it is: a friend to every Jewish heart. It magnifies the debt we gentiles owe to the Jewish people (Ro.3.1-2, 9.4-5), we ought to weigh this responsibility heavily. In a related context, it allows us to better comprehend the nature of God’s kindness and severity towards the Jewish people and consequently towards all who submit or rebel against him. Ie. some Mesianic Jews firmly believe that the ongoing experience of the Jews does reflect their continued rejection of the Messiah (www.benisrael.org), while this simultaneously holds out the covenantal hope of ‘resurrection’ when they turn again to the Messiah.As I have set out here and here on the site - and been most encouraged to find myself in the company of NT Wright on this - I believe the Jews were elected to be the light of the world and one of the most extraordinary aspects of this election is that they were ‘elected in order to be rejected,’ and this precisely so that the Gentile nations could come into the good of the covenant life of Israel (Romans ch. 9-11, Ephesians 2 etc.) As Romans says, if their rejection produces riches for the gentile nations, what will their fulnness bring ? It will be “life from the dead” - resurrection life.
A word to the sympathetic: I know to some extent that I’m whistling into the wind in taking on a whole history of protestant mistranslation and disregard for the Jewish roots of our faith, by my own allegiance to the reading which David Stern has allowed us to access in the Jewish New Testament and Commentary, consequently, I appeal to you to allow these issues to be debated as life-giving entrances to a greater appreciation of the glory of God’s eternal, covenantal purposes, rather than theological arguments to be won or lost.
I do not mean at all that debate is not welcomed or invited, on this topic - it certainly it - just a gentle request to recognise the enormity of what at times is being worked toward and indeed against!
Shalom! - John
Clarifying
First, I’ll be more explicit about what I’m hoping you’ll clarify:
1. Describe what you mean by the Mosaic/Sinai covenant. Who did God enter into this covenant with? What did he promise to his covenant partners? What did he expect them to do under the covenant? It would be most helpful if you would provide references to back up your definition.
2. Describe what you mean by the new covenant in the same terms. Who did God enter into this covenant with (and who is not in this covenant)? What does God promise to do under this covenant? What does God expect his partners in this covenant to do? References please.
I’m hoping your answers to these two questions will clarify for me the extent to which you see the new covenant to be in continuity with the old.
3. What constitutes a covenant? I have argued that a covenant defines who is obligated under the covenant, and to do what. If you see it differently, please tell me how you see it. It seems to me at this point that you would define a covenant as what God has promised—but without reference to human parties (so Moabites could claim God’s promises under the Sinai covenant? Satanists are blessed under the new covenant?) or human obligations. Is this right?
Your recent post has created in me a desire for further clarification:
4. You note that the new covenant is made “with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.” Why is this significant, given your doubts that the new covenant is defined by its parties? Does this mean that non-Christian Jews are party to the new covenant? Or are “Israel” and “Judah” re-defined to mean what I mean by “those who come to God by faith in Jesus” rather than the physical descendants of Abraham? Finally, Jer. 31:31-32, where this idea originates, also says that the new covenant is not like the old covenant, which Israel broke.
5. When I say a covenant is conditional, I mean that the stipulated promises are conditioned on obedience to the stipulated terms. Could you clarify further your perspective on the ways in which Biblical covenants are or are not conditional? Were God’s promises under the Mosaic covenant dependent on how Israel behaved? Are God’s promises to me of eternal life and forgiveness of sin and the Holy Spirit at all dependent on whether I submit to Jesus as Lord?
6. You say that Torah (which to me is pretty much the same as the Mosaic/Sinai covenant) should be understood as including the New Testament. At least you acknowledge that this is not the historical Jewish understanding of Torah. This seems to me to be using your conclusion as a premise. Clarify please whether the Torah, as understood by David or Josiah, was defective, incomplete, or what in comparison to your understanding of Torah which includes the New Testament.
7. You assert that the idea that old covenant blessings were material and national while new covenant blessings are spiritual has been debunked. Could you please clarify for me what you believe are the blessings associated with (a) the Abrahamic covenant, (b) the Mosaic/Sinai covenant, and (c) the new covenant?
Now, to respond to your points I think I understand:
A. You say that Biblical covenants are unilateral. If by that you mean that they were not negotiated between God and people, I agree. God presented the covenants on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. I see parallels with the Hittite suzereign-vassal covenants. In fact, I believe that doctrine of grace should be grounded in this. God offered a covenant with Abraham, not because Abraham did anything to merit anything, but because of God’s grace. God offered a covenant with Israel, not because Israel was faithfully serving God, but because of God’s grace. And Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners.
But, you seem to imply that there was no exchange of oaths. As an aside, not all ancient covenants were sworn in blood; a covenant could be sworn by exchanging gifts (Gen. 21:27-31, 1 Sam. 25:5-35), by a handshake (2 Kings 10:15), by a kiss (1 Sam. 10:1), by a common meal (Gen. 26:27-31, 2 Sam. 3:17-21, Ps. 41:9), by eating salt together (Num. 18:19, 2 Chr. 13:5), or by eating a sacrificial meal (Gen. 31:44-54).
As it happens, I do in fact find Abraham touching “covenant blood” in Gen. 15:9-18. Israel touched “covenant blood” at Sinai in Ex. 24:3-8, cf. Ps. 50:5. And I would argue that baptism is such a pledge—it is the way new believers today can touch the “covenant blood” of Jesus (Mt. 26:28, 1 Pet. 3:21, Rom. 6:3).
You say that covenant terms are only “attached” to covenants, but that obedience to those terms does not alter God’s covenant commitment. I think this is just wrong, particularly in light of such passages as Ex. 19:5-8; Deut. 28:1, 15, 68; Deut. 30:16ff. Better to argue that God’s blessings are indeed conditional on his people’s faithfulness, but that God has created a plan that ensures that enough people will, in fact, be faithful.
B. You claim that “It is inconceivable that when God writes Torah upon people’s hearts he changes it into something other than Torah!” I take this as an argument that the law that is written on our hearts is the law of Moses. But again, doesn’t Jer. 31:31-32 say just the opposite—that the new covenant that is written on our hearts is not like the old covenant, which Israel broke? In the New Testament the law of Moses is contrasted—not equated—with the law of Christ (Rom. 7:1-8:4).
C. You argue that since Jesus came to complete not abolish, the law, then the law must still be in force. Yet if you and I have a covenant, in which I am to pay you $10,000 for a plot of land, and we complete the covenant, I by paying you $10,000, you by turning the deed over to me, does our covenant remain in force? Am I still obligated to pay you $10,000? Are you still obligated to give me title to a plot of land? Although our hypothetical covenant was never abolished, neither does it remain in force. Rather, we simply fulfilled our obligations under the covenant and had done with it. So, just because a covenant cannot be abolished does not mean it must remain forever in force.
D) You write, “I believe the Jews were elected to be the light of the world and one of the most extraordinary aspects of this election is that they were ‘elected in order to be rejected,’ and this precisely so that the Gentile nations could come into the good of the covenant life of Israel (Romans ch. 9-11, Ephesians 2 etc.).” In looking to the posts you cite, I could not find any basis given for the idea that the Jews were elected to be the light of the world. As regards Romans 9-11, I took this to be in context of the Abrahamic covenant rather than the Mosaic covenant, based on the issues being discussed (that all nations are to be blessed). As for Ephesians 2, I find it interesting that the way the Gentiles get reconciled with Jews is…by abolishing Torah (2:15).
This should be enough for now. :)
clarifying or bulldozing!
Enough for what, Chris, to bury me?
Frankly, I have no intention of submitting to your demands to “Describe what you mean by the mosaic covenant” and “the new covenant in similar terms” nor to the twenty or so other corollary of questions & demands which your post has bulldozed me with (several of which whole books have been written about and would need to be revisited to answer your queries)!
I’ve explained that there is a weight of evidence involved in this area that has taken me years to absorb and think about; I’m working against centuries of gentile translation of the Jewish scripture; I’m relying considerably upon a Jewish source and I make no claims of expertise. Of course, I’m willing to journey with and be challenged by people who are genuinely interested to work with me to tease out areas of understanding, as well as inconsistency, but not to work my socks off for someone whose reposts seem to demonstrate very little effort to understand what I wrote the last time around and make overbearing demands in response to my points.
Chris, this is not the way for us to reach understanding and I find that I have to ask: are you really interested in understanding my point of view or simply refuting all signs of it and burying it under your own critique? Are you simply sure I’m wrong and determined to prove it, if not by careful argument, then by sheer weight of criticism and demand for multiple answers? Or are you perhaps completely unaware of what it’s like to be on the end of a post such as yours - in which case I hope this response can help you to gain some insight: it’s unpleasant and overwhelming!
If I’ve misread you and it’s that you simply can’t help wading in with such a weight of direct and implied criticism about something which you simply know a very great deal about, then I would only ask you to be a little more sensitive to my position (I’ve pled for patience on two occasions now) and to therefore accept my challenge to…
Sensibly take up no more than three main points out of the multitude you incorporate above in order to seek clarification on what I mean by this or that.If you’re prepared to go at a sensible pace, and demonstrate that you have engaged with, not simply reacted to, what I wrote before, then we can perhaps continue a sensible debate…
Shalom! - John
Ahh, err, sorry about that!
I am truly sorry, John, for the tone and passion of my involvement in this discussion. This very issue is my primary research interest, and so I jumped in with both feet when you gave me the opportunity by asking, “Whence comes the idea that Jesus superceded (supplant, replace) the former eternal covenants, and in particular the Mosaic / Sinaic / deuteronomic one?” It is so rare that I am able to discuss such things—I am typically either dismissed as out of touch with mainstream scholarship or stared at blankly. I am stung by hearing from you how I come across in this forum.
I’ll be out of town until Monday, so won’t be checking in here until then unless I have the time and opportunity to access the internet in some public place. I’ll cool down over the weekend and tone it down when I get back.
Thanks, Chris
Like you, I do find these topics highly stimulating and enjoy the opportunity to take them up with another party. However, my previous response to, I think, just four of your earlier points had already taken me the best part of two hours to put together, because I was consulting texts etc. Consequently, a post seeking (nay, “requiring”!) approximately twenty specific further responses was simply overwhelming and the sense of insufficiency which it evoked plain unpleasant. Changing the sporting analogy , for a moment (you mentioned “diving in with both feet”), having since reminded myself of your brief bio, I think perhaps it may be the case of a ‘welterweight’ (me) finding himself in the ring with another who is, at least, a ‘middleweight.’ Attempting to “punch above my weight,” I found myself well and truly “on the ropes” after your post! All of which is to say that your sympathetic and genuine response to my lament is considerably appreciated.
Having spent a few days thinking about the topic itself, I think there is another helpful consideration to bear in mind: that of ‘worldview.’ You are probably aware of the difficulties that arise when communicating between parties sharing different worldviews. I think that is partially what we are dealing with here on this topic: the Jewish / Hebraic worldview over against a Christian worldview. With this in mind, I’ve produced the following summary introduction to some of the emphases that I’ve been positing…
All of which I’ve spent many years reading, digesting, analying and incorporating into my own ‘worldview’ and my theology, in particular - and all of which has been a highly stimulating and enriching experience for me.
So that’s where I’m coming from, Chris; I hope that helps. Although I’m now undertaking a master’s degree in Intercultural Studies (by distance learning), I have no prior formal training in philosophy or theology; this is a ‘speciality’ of mine only by dint of person interest and personal study. Naturally, if you are simply positing your own view of covenantal theology you have no need to go at my pace - only if you are cross-examining me does that become necessary! I look forward to hearing from / re-engaging with you.
Shalom! - John