Why is Saul chosen? He is tall. When David is chosen it's said that God does not look at external appearance, but at the heart. Saul's heart turns out to be a cowardly heart. David Gunn's study of David and Saul takes a more sympathetic view of Saul and a more suspicious view of David, and that's the case with many other contemporary scholars.
In 1 Samuel 9 you get the designation phase in the private anointing of Saul. "Do what you must do" (10:7) Long argues, refers to attacking the Philistine garrison. Saul of course does not do this. Therefore there's a second designation, but this time it's public (10:17-27).
This is followed by a demonstration phase where the king shows that he can behave like a king -- this was supposed to be his attack on Philistia. Now we get a substitute demonstration in Saul's attack on Ammon and freeing the people of Jabesh-Gilead (chapter 11). Then at Gilgal Israel makes Saul king.
This leads to chapter 12 which is a covenant renewal ceremony--the confirmation phase--which negotiates the role of the human king and the role of the divine king. It begins with an historical prologue (12:6-12), followed by stipulations and sanctions--blessing and curse (12:13ff.). Here you have the transformation of Samuel from judge to prophet (esp. v.23; the prophet is first and foremost one who prays).
Jonathan ends up defeating Philistine garrison Saul was supposed to defeat. When Saul offers the sacrifice at Gilgal before Samuel arrived, Saul loses the dynasty.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Dr. Tremper Longman on Samuel-Kings and Chronicles
Deuteronomy has blessings and curses in chapters 27-28 with the pivotal warning that disobedience will incur covenant curses, which curses of course were applied to Jerusalem in her disobedience. Samuel-Kings makes the case that people experience the covenant curse of exile because of covenant-breaking.
Chronicles, on the other hand, is situated in the post-exilic period and underscores first continuity between the post-exilic generation with the earlier generation--to wit, the genealogies. The are several unique features to Chronicles, as distinct from Samuel-Kings, including:
Regarding the emergence of kingship in Israel, the early chapters in Samuel seem simultaneously pro-monarchical and anti-monarchical. It was God's intention all along to establish kingship. In God's assurance to Abraham in Genesis 17 he promises that kings will be among his descendants. In Genesis 49, among the curses and blessings to the children of Jacob, we read in verses 8-12 that Judah's relatives will bow before him and that the scepter will not depart from him. In Numbers 24:15-19, in Balaam's oracles, we read that about the emergence of a star and scepter from Judah, a ruler in Jacob, etc.
Israel has a king in none other than God himself. Moses is a great leader, as is Joshua. Judges records the story of imperfect deliverers, which is followed by 1 Samuel where we encounter the emergence of kingship. Welhausen and his ilk divide this into two or three sources, some pro-monarchical and others anti-monarchical. Phil Long points out that kingship stories often have three phases, a designation phase, a demonstration phase and a confirmation phase (see next post).
First, 1 Samuel 8: people want a king like the nations round about. One motivation is that Samuel's kids are bad (were children successors to judges?) and another is the looming threat of the Philistines. The solution is a strong central authority. The question of the Israelites seems to be legitimate, according to Deuteronomy 17, but the tone is illegitimate. Thus the request is granted, but Samuel doesn't hesitate to voice the danger in terms of their relationship with God. God gives Israel Saul partially to tweak them.
Chronicles, on the other hand, is situated in the post-exilic period and underscores first continuity between the post-exilic generation with the earlier generation--to wit, the genealogies. The are several unique features to Chronicles, as distinct from Samuel-Kings, including:
- The enormous amount of space devoted to the construction of the temple. This is because in post-exilic times so much attention is devoted to the construction of the second temple.
- The interesting tendency not to include negative info about David (with Bathsheba) or even Solomon. One sinful moment in David's life is found in 1 Chronicles 21 where David orders a census though this is reported by the Chronicler as something the devil initiates (v.1).
- The decided emphasis on Judah. The north is mentioned but only insofar as it intersects with southern history.
- The emphasis on immediate retribution in the sense that the consequences of sin come quickly. This serves the didactic purpose in post-exilic Israel of motivating obedience.
Regarding the emergence of kingship in Israel, the early chapters in Samuel seem simultaneously pro-monarchical and anti-monarchical. It was God's intention all along to establish kingship. In God's assurance to Abraham in Genesis 17 he promises that kings will be among his descendants. In Genesis 49, among the curses and blessings to the children of Jacob, we read in verses 8-12 that Judah's relatives will bow before him and that the scepter will not depart from him. In Numbers 24:15-19, in Balaam's oracles, we read that about the emergence of a star and scepter from Judah, a ruler in Jacob, etc.
Israel has a king in none other than God himself. Moses is a great leader, as is Joshua. Judges records the story of imperfect deliverers, which is followed by 1 Samuel where we encounter the emergence of kingship. Welhausen and his ilk divide this into two or three sources, some pro-monarchical and others anti-monarchical. Phil Long points out that kingship stories often have three phases, a designation phase, a demonstration phase and a confirmation phase (see next post).
First, 1 Samuel 8: people want a king like the nations round about. One motivation is that Samuel's kids are bad (were children successors to judges?) and another is the looming threat of the Philistines. The solution is a strong central authority. The question of the Israelites seems to be legitimate, according to Deuteronomy 17, but the tone is illegitimate. Thus the request is granted, but Samuel doesn't hesitate to voice the danger in terms of their relationship with God. God gives Israel Saul partially to tweak them.
Dr. Richard Gaffin on the Resurrection of Christ
The center of Paul's theology is the resurrection of Christ. Dr. Gaffin is going to lecture today on the soteriological significance of Christ's resurrection and its connection therefore to our bodily resurrections. Paul rarely concieves of the resurrection of Christ apart from the resurrection of believers. Everywhere he expounds the tremendous solidarity between the resurrection of Christ and of believers. The solidarity is nowhere presented as clearly and vividly as in 1 Corinthians 15, an epochal chapter on the resurrection.
"Firstfruits" is an agricultural terms with an Old Testament background, ordinarily used of those sacrifices brought at the beginning of harvest time (Exod.23:19; Lev.23:10-11) which brings into view the initial portion of the harvest, the first installment and in so doing indicates not only temporal priority, but organic connection.
All of this begs the question, to what does the firstfruits in Corinthians 15 refer? The reference here is the firstfruits of the resurrection harvest. The resurrection of unbelievers is not in Paul's purview here. In fact there is no reference to the resurrection of unbelievers in Paul's writings, though he does mention this reality in a speech in Acts.
Often it's been said that Christ's resurrection is the guarantee of our resurrection. That's true, but here we have to see that it doesn't go far enough. It's a guarantee in the sense that it is actually the beginning of the general epochal event. Paul is affirming, in other words, that the general resurrection event begins with the resurrection of Christ. In the resurrection of Christ, the harvest has arrived and is visible.
We see here the eschatological significance of Jesus's resurrection. It has taken place in the past, in all of its full-bodied historicity three days after the cross, but as Paul looks at things here, it is not an isolated event in the past, but belongs to the future. That future has entered history and has become a present reality. The coming aeon is now present; the new creation has dawned; the eschaton has been realized or inaugurated.
The two resurrection, Christ's bodily resurrection and our's, are not so much two events as they are two episodes, temporarly distinct to be sure, of the same event; two installments of the same harvest.
Likewise, Colossians 1:18. "Firstborn" is not the same as firstfruits in that it doesn't necessarily bring out organic connection, for example, though the thought here again is plainly that of solidarity of Christ with the dead believers (firstborn from the dead) who are to be raised. The term here has derivative sense, as in the Old Testament, indicating special dignity or exalted status, as in Exodus 4:22, where Israel is called God's firstborn, meaning the elect people of God. Psalm 89:27 calls David the firstborn. This is corroborated in the context where in verse 15 we find the phrase, "firstborn of all creation," not meaning "first creature" (as JWs assert), but as supremacy over creation, i.e. firstborn over creation. Firstborn can also denote source or origin, as in Gen. 49:3. The general resurrection begins with the resurrection of Christ who is the head of the church in solidarity with that church. Firstborn emphasizes uniqueness of Christ's resurrection, but it's a uniqueness in solidarity with believers.
Likewise, Romans 8:29. The goal of God's entire electing purposes can be seen in his predestination of those foreknown to be confirmed to the image of Christ that he might be "firstborn among many brothers." "Firstborn from the dead" and "firstborn among many brothers" are clearly correlative. The resurrected Christ is the firstborn of many brothers.
Other passages to consider: 2 Corinthians 4:14 and1 Thessalonians 4:14; Colossians 2:12-13; Galatians 2:20; Romans 6:2ff.
"Firstfruits" is an agricultural terms with an Old Testament background, ordinarily used of those sacrifices brought at the beginning of harvest time (Exod.23:19; Lev.23:10-11) which brings into view the initial portion of the harvest, the first installment and in so doing indicates not only temporal priority, but organic connection.
All of this begs the question, to what does the firstfruits in Corinthians 15 refer? The reference here is the firstfruits of the resurrection harvest. The resurrection of unbelievers is not in Paul's purview here. In fact there is no reference to the resurrection of unbelievers in Paul's writings, though he does mention this reality in a speech in Acts.
Often it's been said that Christ's resurrection is the guarantee of our resurrection. That's true, but here we have to see that it doesn't go far enough. It's a guarantee in the sense that it is actually the beginning of the general epochal event. Paul is affirming, in other words, that the general resurrection event begins with the resurrection of Christ. In the resurrection of Christ, the harvest has arrived and is visible.
We see here the eschatological significance of Jesus's resurrection. It has taken place in the past, in all of its full-bodied historicity three days after the cross, but as Paul looks at things here, it is not an isolated event in the past, but belongs to the future. That future has entered history and has become a present reality. The coming aeon is now present; the new creation has dawned; the eschaton has been realized or inaugurated.
The two resurrection, Christ's bodily resurrection and our's, are not so much two events as they are two episodes, temporarly distinct to be sure, of the same event; two installments of the same harvest.
Likewise, Colossians 1:18. "Firstborn" is not the same as firstfruits in that it doesn't necessarily bring out organic connection, for example, though the thought here again is plainly that of solidarity of Christ with the dead believers (firstborn from the dead) who are to be raised. The term here has derivative sense, as in the Old Testament, indicating special dignity or exalted status, as in Exodus 4:22, where Israel is called God's firstborn, meaning the elect people of God. Psalm 89:27 calls David the firstborn. This is corroborated in the context where in verse 15 we find the phrase, "firstborn of all creation," not meaning "first creature" (as JWs assert), but as supremacy over creation, i.e. firstborn over creation. Firstborn can also denote source or origin, as in Gen. 49:3. The general resurrection begins with the resurrection of Christ who is the head of the church in solidarity with that church. Firstborn emphasizes uniqueness of Christ's resurrection, but it's a uniqueness in solidarity with believers.
Likewise, Romans 8:29. The goal of God's entire electing purposes can be seen in his predestination of those foreknown to be confirmed to the image of Christ that he might be "firstborn among many brothers." "Firstborn from the dead" and "firstborn among many brothers" are clearly correlative. The resurrected Christ is the firstborn of many brothers.
Other passages to consider: 2 Corinthians 4:14 and1 Thessalonians 4:14; Colossians 2:12-13; Galatians 2:20; Romans 6:2ff.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Dr. John Hannah on Medieval Monasticism
Medieval monastic orders are as follows:
1. The Benedictine order, founded by Benedict of Nursia in Tuscany, northern Italy (480-547), the father of western monasticism (Recall that monasticism is born in the East [Athanasias]). Benedict was discouraged by the decadence of the church and its moral and spiritual neglect and thus founded a monastery in Monte Casino where men would enjoy possessions in common and spend a lot of time in spiritual reading.
2. The Cisterian order, founded by Robert of Citreaux, of which Bernard of Clairveaux was a part. Bernard was the pope's advisor and favored the rise of papal power (without material wealth) and pushed the role of Mary and of the rosary in prayer. He was first and foremost a monk and a strong advocate of austerity. Bernard claimed that knowledge of God comes through devotion to God in poverty, simplicity and solitude. To be poor with Christ was his one concern and thus he lived in primitive huts.
3. The Cluny order, founded by William, Duke of Acquitaine
4. The Dominican order, founded by Dominic of Osma (1170-1221). Most famous participant is Thomas Aquinas, probably the greatest theologian of the Roman church.
5. The Fransican order, founded by Francis of Assisi (c.1181-1226). Most famous participant is Bonaventure.
6. The Augustinian order. Most famous participant is Martin Luther, who was a hermetic Augustinian -- radical, fundamentalist.
In the medieval period the word for mysticism was contemplation. You had to be isolated to have quiet time with God. Some stressed rational contemplation; others, like Bernard, stressed affective contemplation. The contemplative life, the life of solitude, stressed the development of spirituality and the regression of attachment to the world. Contemplation is impossible apart from ascetisim.
1. The Benedictine order, founded by Benedict of Nursia in Tuscany, northern Italy (480-547), the father of western monasticism (Recall that monasticism is born in the East [Athanasias]). Benedict was discouraged by the decadence of the church and its moral and spiritual neglect and thus founded a monastery in Monte Casino where men would enjoy possessions in common and spend a lot of time in spiritual reading.
2. The Cisterian order, founded by Robert of Citreaux, of which Bernard of Clairveaux was a part. Bernard was the pope's advisor and favored the rise of papal power (without material wealth) and pushed the role of Mary and of the rosary in prayer. He was first and foremost a monk and a strong advocate of austerity. Bernard claimed that knowledge of God comes through devotion to God in poverty, simplicity and solitude. To be poor with Christ was his one concern and thus he lived in primitive huts.
3. The Cluny order, founded by William, Duke of Acquitaine
4. The Dominican order, founded by Dominic of Osma (1170-1221). Most famous participant is Thomas Aquinas, probably the greatest theologian of the Roman church.
5. The Fransican order, founded by Francis of Assisi (c.1181-1226). Most famous participant is Bonaventure.
6. The Augustinian order. Most famous participant is Martin Luther, who was a hermetic Augustinian -- radical, fundamentalist.
In the medieval period the word for mysticism was contemplation. You had to be isolated to have quiet time with God. Some stressed rational contemplation; others, like Bernard, stressed affective contemplation. The contemplative life, the life of solitude, stressed the development of spirituality and the regression of attachment to the world. Contemplation is impossible apart from ascetisim.
Dr. John Hannah on the Crusades
We normally restrict the word 'crusade' to denote the enormous European military operations from 1095 to 1291 to mitigate the oppression of the Islamic faith in the Middle East and in particular to rescue holy sites in Palestine from desecration. This begs the question, what constitutes a holy site? For the first 300 years of church history, prior to the conversion of Constantine, there were no pilgrimages. Constantine’s mother, Helen, a genuine convert, visited Palestine and located places mentioned in Scripture (some incorrectly) which then attracted pilgrimages.
Typically, there are eight crusades. The earlier crusades took the land route and have been dubbed the most successful failures of human history; the latter crusades take the sea.
At the first Lateran council, Pope Innocent III initiated the first crusade to overcome the tyranny of Islamic infidels. Soldiers who lost their lives in this cause were promised eternal life and care for their families. Many of them in fact offered property to the church in exchange for care over their souls and their families. Thirty thousand people travelled by land to recapture Tiberius. These Europeans, unaccustomed to the heat, wore heavy armor, travelled on horses and didn't perform well in battle. Saladin caught them on the plateau of Tiberius and burned them, massacring all thirty thousand in a stunning defeat.
The second crusade was occasioned by the fall of Odesa and initiated by Bernard of Clairveaux, a mystic, though he himself probably didn’t go. Calvin, incidentally, always quoted Bernard favorably and thought he was a Protestant before his time. The third crusade, the most famous of them all, was occasioned by the fall of the kingdom of Jerusalem to Saladin and was led by Frederick Barbarossa of Germany, Philip II of France and Richard the Lionheart who ultimately couldn't reclaim the city, but were able to negotiate access for pilgrimages. The fifth crusade was initiated by Francis of Assissi who joined the crusaders. The last crusade occured in 1291 when the Europeans were in some decisive manner kicked out of Palestine.
The most disheartening is the Children's crusade of 1212. It was led by a 16 year old lad by the name of Steven who claimed, on account of a vision, that he could accomplish by a miracle what previous crusaders couldn’t. Thirty thousand young people joined him, believing they could travel down the boot of Italy only to have God part the Mediterranean sea before them so they could march into Palestine. They got down the boot, but the Sea didn’t part. Two merchants, Hugh the Iron and William the Pig (oddly enough), promised them safe passage to Palestine by Sea and subsequently sold them into Islamic slavery.
Typically, there are eight crusades. The earlier crusades took the land route and have been dubbed the most successful failures of human history; the latter crusades take the sea.
At the first Lateran council, Pope Innocent III initiated the first crusade to overcome the tyranny of Islamic infidels. Soldiers who lost their lives in this cause were promised eternal life and care for their families. Many of them in fact offered property to the church in exchange for care over their souls and their families. Thirty thousand people travelled by land to recapture Tiberius. These Europeans, unaccustomed to the heat, wore heavy armor, travelled on horses and didn't perform well in battle. Saladin caught them on the plateau of Tiberius and burned them, massacring all thirty thousand in a stunning defeat.
The second crusade was occasioned by the fall of Odesa and initiated by Bernard of Clairveaux, a mystic, though he himself probably didn’t go. Calvin, incidentally, always quoted Bernard favorably and thought he was a Protestant before his time. The third crusade, the most famous of them all, was occasioned by the fall of the kingdom of Jerusalem to Saladin and was led by Frederick Barbarossa of Germany, Philip II of France and Richard the Lionheart who ultimately couldn't reclaim the city, but were able to negotiate access for pilgrimages. The fifth crusade was initiated by Francis of Assissi who joined the crusaders. The last crusade occured in 1291 when the Europeans were in some decisive manner kicked out of Palestine.
The most disheartening is the Children's crusade of 1212. It was led by a 16 year old lad by the name of Steven who claimed, on account of a vision, that he could accomplish by a miracle what previous crusaders couldn’t. Thirty thousand young people joined him, believing they could travel down the boot of Italy only to have God part the Mediterranean sea before them so they could march into Palestine. They got down the boot, but the Sea didn’t part. Two merchants, Hugh the Iron and William the Pig (oddly enough), promised them safe passage to Palestine by Sea and subsequently sold them into Islamic slavery.
Eastern Orthodoxy and Canonicity
The creeds of Eastern orthodoxy disagree about what constitutes the canon of Scripture and whether, in particular, the apocryphal books are canonical. This in Dr. Hannah’s estimation illustrates the difficulty with the claim that tradition (or confessions) is necessary for the right understanding of Scripture. This begs the question, what tradition or whose confessions?
Dr. John Hannah on Lent
Well, I enjoyed a relaxing though productive afternoon here at WTS in Dallas preparing for my morning sermon on Mark 11, which preparation I would like to complete soon. Presently I'm preparing to hear Dr. John Hannah lecture on aspects of medieval church history and I will relay summary notes of that lecture here on my blog, primarily for myself, but also for my cyber-groupies and my otherwise vast cyber-audience (joke).
Dr. Hannah argues that in the early church there was a three year period of catechetical instruction before converts could be admitted to the Christian church. In the first year, such a convert, called a Weeper, was not permitted to enter the worship service. In the second year he, now called a Hearer, could hear the preaching of the Word, but had to leave after the sermon. In the third year he, now called a Kneeler, could hear the preaching of the Word and pray with the saints, but then had to leave.
After three years the convert would be examined by his bishop and, upon approval, would undergo a fast prior to Easter. On Easter morning he would be baptized and access the great symbol of conversion---namely, baptism. Lent symbolishes the preparation for baptism, beginning with Ash Wednesday.
Dr. Hannah argues that in the early church there was a three year period of catechetical instruction before converts could be admitted to the Christian church. In the first year, such a convert, called a Weeper, was not permitted to enter the worship service. In the second year he, now called a Hearer, could hear the preaching of the Word, but had to leave after the sermon. In the third year he, now called a Kneeler, could hear the preaching of the Word and pray with the saints, but then had to leave.
After three years the convert would be examined by his bishop and, upon approval, would undergo a fast prior to Easter. On Easter morning he would be baptized and access the great symbol of conversion---namely, baptism. Lent symbolishes the preparation for baptism, beginning with Ash Wednesday.
Dr. Richard Gaffin on the Law
I interrupt my posts on infant baptism, as I sit here at Westminster's extension campus in Dallas, TX, to take and relay notes on Dr. Gaffin's lecture this morning.
The law has primarily a positive function in Israel's economy. It was a delight to the Israelites, as Psalm 119 makes clear (e.g, v.97). What must not be missed in this Psalm is the use of the personal pronoun. It is not a love being expressed for a law in general -- rules per se; it's a delight in YOUR commands and laws. This is evident in the case of Abraham (and his descendancy) for whom the substance of the coming Mosaic law is already present.
But the law also has an important negative function which the apostle Paul especially underscores in, among other places, Galatians 3:19: "the law was added because of transgressions," i.e, given to intensify sin and to set it in its sharpest and unmistakable light (cf. Rom.3:20; 5:20; 7:7,9-13). The law is given to manifest sin and to multiply sin, to illumine and to intensify it. Through this, the law reveals the total inability of sinful humanity to save itself, the total impossibility of obedience as the way out of death into eschatological life and therefore the absolute necessity of the obedience of Christ.
Even the law in its positive capacity underscores the necessity of Christ. In their delighting in the law, the will of God, it was clear to Abraham and his remnant seed through Israel's history that it was not through their delight and obedience that they were securing their eschatological inheritance. Only the righteousness of Christ -- not moral righteousness -- is title to eschatological life.
The covenant of grace restores the covenant of works in believers through Christ and the Spirit. Works, understood as human obedience, and grace, are not in ultimate opposition.
What is the relationship between the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant in Christ or the relationship between law and gospel? Is the Mosaic covenant in some respect a covenant of works for Israel? Is it a republication of the covenant of works? Is the Mosaic covenant intended as a principle of inheritance, a means of acquiring righteousness?
There are various proposals that answer that question affirmatively. Some say there's a different soteriology set for Israel; others see the law functioning as a covenant of works in a typological or pedagogical fashion to illustrate that works merit reward.
Aaargggh. End of lecture. I was hoping to hear Dr. Gaffin dismantle this silly idea perpetuated by Meredith Kline and his cling-ons.
The law has primarily a positive function in Israel's economy. It was a delight to the Israelites, as Psalm 119 makes clear (e.g, v.97). What must not be missed in this Psalm is the use of the personal pronoun. It is not a love being expressed for a law in general -- rules per se; it's a delight in YOUR commands and laws. This is evident in the case of Abraham (and his descendancy) for whom the substance of the coming Mosaic law is already present.
But the law also has an important negative function which the apostle Paul especially underscores in, among other places, Galatians 3:19: "the law was added because of transgressions," i.e, given to intensify sin and to set it in its sharpest and unmistakable light (cf. Rom.3:20; 5:20; 7:7,9-13). The law is given to manifest sin and to multiply sin, to illumine and to intensify it. Through this, the law reveals the total inability of sinful humanity to save itself, the total impossibility of obedience as the way out of death into eschatological life and therefore the absolute necessity of the obedience of Christ.
Even the law in its positive capacity underscores the necessity of Christ. In their delighting in the law, the will of God, it was clear to Abraham and his remnant seed through Israel's history that it was not through their delight and obedience that they were securing their eschatological inheritance. Only the righteousness of Christ -- not moral righteousness -- is title to eschatological life.
The covenant of grace restores the covenant of works in believers through Christ and the Spirit. Works, understood as human obedience, and grace, are not in ultimate opposition.
What is the relationship between the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant in Christ or the relationship between law and gospel? Is the Mosaic covenant in some respect a covenant of works for Israel? Is it a republication of the covenant of works? Is the Mosaic covenant intended as a principle of inheritance, a means of acquiring righteousness?
There are various proposals that answer that question affirmatively. Some say there's a different soteriology set for Israel; others see the law functioning as a covenant of works in a typological or pedagogical fashion to illustrate that works merit reward.
Aaargggh. End of lecture. I was hoping to hear Dr. Gaffin dismantle this silly idea perpetuated by Meredith Kline and his cling-ons.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Parallels between Circumcision and Baptism, Part Four
In this post I want to further my thesis that, in spite of some differences, there are substantial parallels between circumcision and baptism. In particular I want to draw attention to the similar relationship of sacrament to family in both old and new covenants.
Ordinarily Reformed theologians begin in this connection with the Abrahamic covenant as that covenant was inaugurated in Genesis 15 and 17. We could, however, go further back into history, to the Adamic covenant which, interestingly and significantly, included Eve and the children. The obligations of the Adamic covenant to subdue the earth, for instance, and have dominion over it, were binding not just upon Adam, but upon his family. The same applied to the promises and threats of the Adamic covenant. Already here, at the outset of human history, we see a principle that will characterize God's modus operandi in all succeeding covenants: when God claims a household head, he claims a family.
Adam of course miserably botched the terms of this covenant, disregarded the command of God and listened to the voice of the serpent and thereby plunged himself and his family into human misery and just condemnation. In response to this tragic fall of Adam's, God responded with extraordinary compassion and initiated with Adam a new covenant commonly called the covenant of grace. What is instructive for us, in this connection, is that God, in establishing enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, once again claimed Adam's children (Gen.3:15).
I fully understand that Satan gets his seed by stealing them from the woman. This, however, does not diminish the point that the children of the woman were included in the covenant of grace and commissioned, by implication, to engage the seed of the serpent in spiritual warfare (Gen.4:25). Moreover, the blessings of the covenant of grace, among which we would include covering (garments) at the expense of blood sacrifice, were presumably available for the children.
In summary: already in the prelapsarian (before-fall) and initial postlapsarian (after-fall) covenants one of the characteristic principles of God's covenant-making is apparent---namely, when God claims a household head, he claims a family.
Ordinarily Reformed theologians begin in this connection with the Abrahamic covenant as that covenant was inaugurated in Genesis 15 and 17. We could, however, go further back into history, to the Adamic covenant which, interestingly and significantly, included Eve and the children. The obligations of the Adamic covenant to subdue the earth, for instance, and have dominion over it, were binding not just upon Adam, but upon his family. The same applied to the promises and threats of the Adamic covenant. Already here, at the outset of human history, we see a principle that will characterize God's modus operandi in all succeeding covenants: when God claims a household head, he claims a family.
Adam of course miserably botched the terms of this covenant, disregarded the command of God and listened to the voice of the serpent and thereby plunged himself and his family into human misery and just condemnation. In response to this tragic fall of Adam's, God responded with extraordinary compassion and initiated with Adam a new covenant commonly called the covenant of grace. What is instructive for us, in this connection, is that God, in establishing enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, once again claimed Adam's children (Gen.3:15).
I fully understand that Satan gets his seed by stealing them from the woman. This, however, does not diminish the point that the children of the woman were included in the covenant of grace and commissioned, by implication, to engage the seed of the serpent in spiritual warfare (Gen.4:25). Moreover, the blessings of the covenant of grace, among which we would include covering (garments) at the expense of blood sacrifice, were presumably available for the children.
In summary: already in the prelapsarian (before-fall) and initial postlapsarian (after-fall) covenants one of the characteristic principles of God's covenant-making is apparent---namely, when God claims a household head, he claims a family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)