A Model of the Covenants (Old vs New etc)

The question of the distinctions and inter-relationships between the "covenants" in the Bible is complex and far from simple. Issues of continuity vs discontinuity etc. It is not spelled out neatly or simply in the Scriptures, and hence our difficulty in coming to grips with it all. Definitely lots of nuancing required. Back in 2000, out of discussions with an old friend, I tried to articulate some of my position on this matter. I decided to dig it up again and post it here for posterity (with only minor changes/clarifications). It is in the form of two diagrams with some accompanying dot points, reproduced below.

One other comment about my approach to all this sort of thing, a slightly-reworded note of what I said to my friend at the time: This may be a cop-out, but I tend to try to hold the whole complex thing in 'tension', without simplification or minimalization. I guess because I'm more of a details man than a 'big picture' person. Hence I tend to think either way we start systematizing into a model we lose some information, and end up with an imperfect model (like all models - science background speaking). The trick is working out which things are 'reducible' and which are not (borrowed that concept from IT background, "elementary facts" and all that). When we try to make things simpler and more clear-cut than the Bible we tend to lose information, and reduce the irreducible. In other words, I think models ("gospel economy", moral/civil/ceremonial, etc) are useful to emphasise and teach one aspect, but will always fall down if we want them to replace the real thing. If God wanted to make it simpler, he would have done it for us in the Scriptures. If he didn't, we need to be careful not to presume we can do a better job of it than him!

Diagrams of Model:

Notes on the Model:

• The ‘eternal truth’ relating to the character of God and how He relates to creation, is common to all covenants
• Purest and fullest revelation of this ‘eternal truth’ occurs now in the New Covenant. However, this is not final or perfect, and there will be a different temporal administration in the consummation, in the new heavens and new earth after the resurrection at Christ's return.
• In previous covenants (eg Abrahamic, Mosaic) that revelation is shadowy and incomplete, with some aspects clearer than others. A particular covenant may emphasise different aspects from another covenant. This preserves the progressiveness of revelation.
• The ‘temporal administration’ of a covenant is the outworking of the ‘eternal truth’ in a necessary and binding way appropriate to that time, place and extent of revelation. (Principles of anthropomorphism, condescension, ‘context sensitive revelation’ etc.)
• Such a model allows for different particular outward administrations, obligations and promises from covenantal ‘epochs’, while maintaining consistent aspects of revelation (eg a common ‘covenant of grace’, ‘way of salvation’, etc).
• Consistency of ‘eternal truth’ allows for continuity of moral principles (ie law), as well as similarities between different ‘temporal administrations’ (eg Passover/Lord’s Supper, Circumcision/Baptism, Sabbath/Lord’s Day, Temple Cultus/Church Worship, etc).
• Clear revelation in an earlier covenant of the same ‘eternal truth’ can be assumed in the New Covenant (and thus promotes a ‘whole Bible’ attitude, and does not need everything to be explicitly restated in the New Testament for it to be contemporary).
• Differences in ‘temporal administrations’ allow for ‘discontinuities’ in outward observances associated with a particular ‘epoch’.

A Reflection after William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss Debate: Why are atheists so passionate?

This week I attended the Brisbane instalment of the William Lane Craig vs Lawrence Krauss debate. Craig was generally patient and tried to engage Krauss on important and relevant issues. He made good points about the importance of God and Christianity in providing an environment and framework in which science can flourish and have an ethical framework. To these Krauss just seemed to take cheap shots and not really engage with the core arguments. (Krauss wanted to say “thanks for what you’ve done for us, but now you can go and we’ll take it from here”, but I suspect he doesn’t properly appreciate the “hand who feeds him”.)

Sadly, Craig’s theology let him down with the “genocide” issue. From when I have looked at his website previously, he seems too committed to libertarianism, and perhaps overemphases the place of rationality vs revelation. (I was a little surprised that AFES/CBF/QTC invited Craig, given his different theological perspective, but good on them for ecumenism!) However, I was glad that Craig clearly declared God’s prerogative to give and take life, although some more proclamation, especially about Christ, may have been better.

However, as I reflected afterwards on Krauss' attitude, I wondered how he rationalized his passionate atheism. I may well be ignorant on this, but he, like Dawkins, seem to espouse an evolutionist materialism, yet at the same time vigorously demanding the value of logic, reason, and "scientific process". What I don't get is, how can you justify putting value on anything, if everything is just a matter of physical and chemical processes etc? If any sense of value, worth or passion is just an illusion, some evolutionary "benefit", really just some kind of existential vapour of electrochemcial sparks in the brain, about to become meaningless history at some arbitrary point in the future, then who should really care? What is "care" afterall? How do they justify such moral high-ground, and give their own reason such a high standing? How do they really know that "religion" is not a better evolutionary product? It seems to me that the true logical conclusion of materialism is uncaring nihilism. There is no place for moral high-ground, even the moral high-ground of having no moral high-ground.

I remain illumined by the wisdom of God, who tells us that, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1)