|
| Old & New Covenants - Rayburn's View | | Date Created: Apr 26, 2004, 01:31 PM |
For some reason I keep getting asked about this topic. So here's my take on Rob Rayburn's thesis concerning the Old and New Covenants. Maybe someone will alert Rob to this post and we can hear from him.
Although this topic has always been fascinating for me, I'm not sure that what divides Rayburn and myself is all that significant. At least I hope that is not the case. I suspect that some of it is about semantics, not substance. Let me explain.
First, I agree with much of what Rob says in his dissertation, especially his main concerns. Too many theologians, even otherwise good Reformed ones (Calvin, for example), mis-characterize the differences between the era before and after Christ's death and resurrection. Dr. Rayburn's work is helpful in this regard. But the other danger is that we flatten everything out and misunderstand the genuine differences between the "older covenants" and the culmination of those covenants in Christ.
Second, I'm not always sure I agree with the thesis of Dr. Rayburn's doctoral dissertation. I have a marked up copy here on my desk. I read it 15 years ago and then much of it again about 5 years ago. On the one hand, it's always helpful to be reminded of the continuity between the old and the new "epochs" or "eras." (Whatever you call them, there is indeed a BEFORE and AFTER that centers on the cross, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus). So, on the positive side of things, I guess I see Rayburn's thesis as expressing what is behind the Reformed stress on the continuity between the so-called "Old" and "New Testaments." But there's more to be said about "covenant" and "covenants" than this, as I'll argue in a moment.
Third, what he fails to deal with, however, or maybe doesn't deal with adequately, is the eschatological-historical dimension of the progress of the covenants. In other words, his thesis does not answer questions like: why do we have a progression of covenants at all? If "old" and "new covenants" refer exclusively to the subjective experience of individuals as they move from unbelief to faith, why is there a succession of "newer" covenants in history? Why do we move from Adamic, to Noahic, to Abrahamic, to Mosaic, to Davidic, etc? What's the point? Surely the way that the word "covenant" is used in the Bible does not merely refer to a "subjective" or "relational" transition that happens to *individuals* upon their conversion. That may be part of the story, but it's not the whole story.
But this seems to be Rayburn's thesis: that the terms "old covenant" and "new covenant" refer NOT to historico-redemptive epochs (i.e. old & new testament periods) but rather they refer to subjective orientations. So, if I understand him correctly, believers from Adam to today are "under" the new covenant; unbelievers from Cain to today are "under" the old covenant.
Even if that were true and the terms "old covenant" and "new covenant" were reserved for use with the "unregenerate" and "regenerate" we would still have to explain the progression of the covenants (plural) through history. Why does one follow another and why do the laws, rituals, etc. of each covenant change and develop?
Fourth, what Rayburn's thesis means is that there is an essential unity of experience for believers in every age. This is pretty standard in Reformed theology, however. Rayburn wants to keep reminding us of this truth and that's important. Believers in every "age" are saved by grace through faith in the Messiah. And so on. And Rayburn is right to critique the way in which Calvin and others have described the character of the epoch before Christ. These false dichotomies (material/spiritual, external/internal, outward/heart, etc.) really do have to end. They don't help at all. And after all, who can say with a straight face that David did not have the law in his heart? So, Rob argues, the "new" is a new iteration of something that had been true of real believers all along. So far so good.
But here I have to wonder if it is really proper for us to call a "sinful/wrong relationship with God" a certain kind of "covenant" at all. I think that the relationships between God and men that the Bible calls covenants are always relations which He himself instituted. There may be a covenant-breaker on the other end of the relationship, but I have difficulty believing that a "sinful relationship" would itself be called a particular kind of covenant. But, then too, we might say that the "old covenant" is the covenant-as-broken in Adam, and "new" is the covenant-as-restored in Christ.
Now, to be fair, Rayburn is looking at things in terms of individual psychology and relationship with God, not at historical progression. As I've said, he's emphasizing the unity of experience of all believers in every age. But--a big but--we shouldn't neglect to think in terns of historical progression either, I would argue. I suspect he would agree. We may not want to use the words "old covenant" and "new covenant" to refer to the epochs before and after Christ, but that doesn't mean that there was not a distinct epochal change at the time of Christ--a change that had enormous significance for the life of individual believers and the world.
Fifth, how do I put this? I'm going to make some assertions here that I think MAY be in danger of being eclipsed when we make too much of the continuity and don't also take into account the discontinuities between the various covenantal arrangements. In other words, we have to be careful not to REDUCE all talk of covenant and covenants to the individual's subjective response to God. There's more to it than that.
So here are some things to think about:
There are indeed a series of "new covenants" recorded in the Bible. And these new covenants do not merely have to do with individual believers and their particular subjective relationships with God. God enters into successive covenants with his people at different times and places. Consider a few of these "new covenants":
1. The first covenant with Adam (Gen. 2; call it what you want, but it was definitely a covenant) gives way to a new one after the fall. The "new covenant" (Gen. 3) is the old one transformed and adopted to a new situation. It takes up what was in the old one and transforms it. There are new dimensions to God's covenantal dealings with man after the fall--banishment from the Garden, sacrificial worship, the promise of a "seed," etc.
2. The covenant with Noah is a continuation of the Adamic covenant, nevertheless it has undeniably new dimensions--humanity is grouped in new categories, clean and unclean distinctions are introduced, etc.
3. The covenant with Abraham is a "new covenant". Now, please don't get hung up on my terminology. Just because there's no Scripture that uses the phrase "new covenant" to refer to these covenantal changes, doesn't mean they are not "new covenants." In other words, don't anyone say, "Well, if you can't find the term "new covenant" applied to the Abrahamic covenant, then you can't say it's a new covenant." All I have to ask is: does the Abrahamic covenant come after the Noahic?
Yes. Does it introduce new elements? Yes. So what's wrong with calling it a new covenant? In fact, the Abrahamic covenant comes after and builds on the older Noahic covenant. It is "new." It's new in a number of ways: now God has established new requirements (circumcision, for example) and new promises (the land), etc. That means that Abraham, his family, and his entire entourage that came out of Ur moved from the Noahic covenant into a new covenantal arrangement with in Genesis 12, 15, and 17.
4. The Mosaic covenant is also a new covenant. It clearly extends and carries forward the older Abrahamic covenant. The promises made to Abraham are to be fulfilled through it. But the Mosaic covenant is NOT simply a reiteration of the Abrahamic; rather, it brings with it a new way of life. Now we have a new priestly family, a tabernacle, explicit instructions about sacrifices, a new government, and a new people, too. The mixed multitude are incorporated into the Israelite nation.
5. The Mosaic covenant itself has an older and a newer form. The first covenant was broken, as Moses broke the Tablets of the Covenant when he came down Mt. Sinai and saw the idolatry of the people (Ex. 32). He then went back up and a "new covenant" was cut (Ex. 33-34). You can find all these things in the Bible yourself. I don't have time to give all the proof texts.
6. I'm not going to keep going. But I think you can come up with at least two more "new covenants" in what we call the Old Testament. 1) the Mosaic was transformed into the Davidic and 2) the Davidic into the Restoration Covenant (made with the people who returned from exile). When these "new covenants" were inaugurated there were changes. . . changes in government, priesthood, law, etc. For example, when the Mosaic was transformed into the new Davidic covenant the worship of the people changed. It was glorified. The bigger stone temple replaced the small, mobile tabernacle. The tabernacle was glorified into the Temple. Now the Levites were organized in choirs.
It is precisely this move "from glory to glory" characterizes the march of the covenants through the Bible. New covenants always transform and glorify the older ones. They don't merely replace them, they take up what's old and transform
it into something new.
To state this somewhat provocatively: there have been a series of "Old Testaments" in what we call the Old Testament. Each time God sovereignly initiated a change he not only fulfilled older covenantal promises, he also did something new for his people. In each of these new covenants there were new laws, new people added to the body, and new writings. What we call the "New Testament" is simply the last of these, and the culmination of the series.
7. Of course, the last covenantal transformation happened in the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. And here EVERYTHING changed. The whole old era, not just the Mosaic or Davidic covenants, but the entire old world, from Adam to Christ, was transformed. Previous to Christ there was always a central sanctuary, sacrifices, etc. Now, however, all of that is transformed and changed. After Christ everything is new.
Of course, when I say "everything is new" I am not saying that there was a new way of salvation or that the people of God in the OT did not have the Holy Spirit, etc. But neither am I saying that the only thing that changed were mere external rituals and the external administration of the covenant. We know better than relegate ritual change to mere "externals." It affected everybody. It changed the world. Although we share the faith and salvation of the people of the "old world" we don't really have the exact same experience as they did.
Rayburn's thesis, remember, is that the "new covenant" has always been simply the subjective regeneration of individuals wherein they move from the being under the "old covenant" (unbelief) to the "new covenant" (belief). This seems to abstract the individual experience of believers from the social/liturgical/symbolic environment in which they live. Rob seems to be operating with a conception of experience which is impervious to historical and cultural setting, and I find that account of experience suspicious.
So even though I agree that Abraham and David, for example, had to believe the promises just as I do, they nonetheless could not have had the exact same experience that I do. With the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus things have changed, and not merely peripheral things.
As I have said over and over again in my teaching ministry, just think about the difference between Sabbath worship at the Temple and Sunday worship in church. The experience of the old world believer--death, blood, barriers to God's presence (tabernacle walls & curtains, for example)--these are all foreign to us. In our worship we experience the smell of bread and
wine, and no encounter no barriers or curtains. I have described this before as "symbolic pressure." The symbolic pressure of the old world was darkness, death, sin, barriers, etc. That's not to say that saved people in the old world did not experience God's presence, life, forgiveness, etc. They did by faith. But now the symbolic pressure in the new world is light, life, forgiveness, freedom, etc. There's definitely a difference. Remember, there's more going on in the Bible than "individual" salvation and "individual" relationships with God. And what's more, individual relationships with God can NEVER be abstracted from the liturgical and social context in which God has placed them.
What I am saying is that "governmentally," "liturgically," and "socially" the world changed AND life in the world was unalterably changed with the coming (and going) of Christ. This is what the controversy in the NT is all about. What is "new" in the world after Christ? Simple: the man Christ Jesus ascended into heaven and now reigns as World Emperor. His is Lord. Yes, God had always reigned. But never before had a man ruled from heaven. It was promised to Adam and David, but it was not accomplished until Jesus. We should never forget how radically NEW the confession "Jesus is Lord" was. THIS is the Gospel that Peter and Paul proclaim throughout their travels as recorded by Luke in the book of Acts. Jesus is Lord.
Until Pentecost the world is governmentally under the Old Fallen Adamic Covenant, and after Pentecost the world is governmentally under the New Mature Covenant in Christ. As regards individual people, however, anyone "born again" between Adam and Christ was living in the New, living in Christ by the Spirit who applied the yet-to-be accomplished work of the Messiah. Each new publication of the covenant from Adam to Jesus entailed both elements, both curse and promise, in a successively maturing fashion, but all still essentially under the old order until Christ comes. And, impenitent sinners in the present age are still in Adam, and thus maybe in some sense still living in the old world (covenant) in Adam. This is what is good and right about Rayburn's thesis. Only let's be careful not to allow it to cancel out the real changes that exist between the successive covenants in the Bible.
Well, everybody is probably screaming at their computer screens: Enough already! Okay, okay. I'll leave it there. Rayburn's thesis is helpful, but ought not be allowed to crowd out the real changes that have taken place from one covenant to the next, and especially in the final administration of the new covenant in Christ.
Oh, I know that what I've put out here is principally "systematic theology" and not a detailed exegesis of passages. It would take too long to list and interact with all of the passages. I'm not trying to evade the responsibility. I feel like I do that every week and more. I'm simply drawing together my observations on this topic after many years of teaching and preaching. We can talk about specific passages, if anyone wants. |
|
