We’re working through Covenant: God’s Purpose, God’s Plan. by John H. Walton.
Walton suggests several conclusions from his work. To begin with, the Old Testament is largely not about the salvation history of the Jews. The Law of Moses is not “soteric,” that is, not about how to be saved in the New Testament sense.
After all, only a handful of Old Testament people received the Spirit, which is an essential element of New Testament salvation. That’s not to say that God didn’t save the faithful of Israel but that salvation in the New Testament sense is simply not the point of the Law of Moses.
Many First Century Jews made that mistake, arguing that salvation (in the Christian sense) comes from obedience to the Law, but that simply was never true. The Law was, rather, God’s election of Israel to be the people through whom he revealed himself to the world.
This is the reason that faith in Jesus saves without regard to works of the Law. It’s why faith is sufficient, as faith brings about the Spirit, regeneration, and changed hearts and lives. Faith is what allows us to see Jesus for who he really is and so to be shaped into the image of Christ.
Paul, therefore, argues not so much against the Law as against those who seek salvation in the Law, as though Jesus himself might be insufficient.
Another conclusion is that our Old Testament studies should be less about the heroes of the faith — Abraham, David, etc. — and more about what God reveals about himself in his dealing with these heroes.
Whatever the nature of the relationship to God that these individuals enjoyed, their stories are not recorded to offer models of what our relationship to God should or should not be. Rather, the Old Testament accounts seek to reveal what God is like so we may enter into relationship with him. Knowing Abraham, Moses, or David does not provide the key to a successful relationship with God—knowing God provides the key to a successful relationship with God.
(Kindle Locations 2578-2581).
Ultimately, of course, Walton’s conclusions course throughout all of Scripture. We study Genesis 1 more to learn about God than about the creation. We study the life of Abraham to learn about the covenant-making, self-revealing God more than Abraham as hero. We study the Gospel of John more to learn about the character and motivations of Jesus than his commands.
John makes a particularly good example, because Jesus utters so very few commands — other than, most notably, to love one another, wash each other’s feet, and to be unified. And we learn so much about Jesus in that Gospel that we find ourselves transformed and moved just from having experienced the presence of Jesus.
It’s obviously no book of law. It’s hardly a typical biography. Indeed, it reads best as a revelation of the nature of God through Jesus. And when we realized that we’ve been called to be like God by being like Jesus, suddenly John is no longer a cool book to debate regarding Calvinism vs. Arminianism. Rather, John becomes a window into the very heart of God.
Take the same view as to Matthew — which we desperately want to read as the Second Law of Moses — and the book is transformed. It’s not that the Sermon on the Mount doesn’t raise serious ethical challenges that God truly means for us to meet. Rather, it’s that the Sermon on the Mount speaks in terms of who God is and Jesus’ call that we pattern our choices after God. That dramatically changes the reading.
Again, in reading Romans or Galatians, the faith vs. works debate is about two differing views of God. Is God the God revealed in Jesus, who culminates and fulfills the Law? Does Jesus radically redefine the Torah by being a truer, richer, deeper revelation of God? Or does the Torah limit Jesus?
When we apply these books to contemporary problems, we really have to sort through a re-learning, re-thinking process of sorts, because — as is our nature — we really just want some simple rules to live by, whereas God wants us transformed to think and see and feel and be entirely differently. And he does that by showing himself to us through the Messiah and asking us to follow Jesus.
And this is both easier and harder. But it’s better. Because we are called thereby to something beyond Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. It’s not about me and my self-image. It’s about God and his mission and purpose and his invitation that I join him in the greatest adventure imaginable — to work beside God in redeeming the world.
Excellent!
This post highlights the importance of how we view the Text. That is, what is the purpose of the Text? Why do we have it? What are we supposed to do with it?
This is not about questioning inspiration, but rather appreciating what we are supposed to do with the Text, now that we have it.
If we say, “Well, it’s the inspired Word of God” and don’t think beyond that, then we end up with a confusing set of instructions about which we will endlessly debate.
If we say, “The Text points us to the revelation of God”, then the conversation changes.
Just a reminder: No where in the NT does the phrase “Word of God” refer to the NT scriptures. It cannot, because the NT scriptures did not exist at the time of the NT’s writing.
There are numerous excellent points you’ve made, Jay. Thanks.
“This is the reason that faith in Jesus saves without regard to works of the Law. It’s why faith is sufficient, as faith brings about the Spirit, regeneration, and changed hearts and lives. Faith is what allows us to see Jesus for who he really is and so to be shaped into the image of Christ.
Paul, therefore, argues not so much against the Law as against those who seek salvation in the Law, as though Jesus himself might be insufficient.”
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Yes Jesus is the “narrow gate” by which we will enter upon the path toward eternal life, but finding the gate to the path is not sufficient to enter God’s kingdom, we must also navigate that path and avoid the pitfalls that are located on either side.
We need to read the totality of Matthew 7- and not just the parts we like, the easy part. The path Jesus blazed is not an easy trail to follow, and at the end of every Christian’s path lies death, and rebirth. the physical death every human faces, all will be raised from that first death, some to eternal life, many to eternal death.
Mat 7:14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Jesus is not Daniel Boone. He did not blaze a narrow trail through the jungle and then leave it for us to try to follow it, using our best orienteering skills to make it to the other side. It is not narrow so as to winnow out the less-than-faithful by having them step off into the occasional ravine. While the way may indeed be narrow, this is not a challenge to be surmounted by skill and caution and intellectual prowess. For we are led by the Holy Spirit, and all we really have to do is to stay with Him. In this reality, “narrow” is best defined as “only where He is”.
Charles,
The other day, I was looking for a way to say exactly that. Your words are better than any I could come up with.
Charles, if Jesus didn’t know what he was saying in Matthew 7, what makes you think he ever knew what he was saying. I wonder just what he meant when he told these people to sin no more.
Jhn 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
Jhn 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Was he telling them to stay on the straight and narrow, or was he saying just wander where you wish, you might eventually get there. I must admit your way is easier, but I fear what the results will be.
Thank you for this series of posts! I’ve been wanting to pick up Walton’s book on Genesis and now I have another one to add to my wishlist. How does his theology compare with similar authors/scholars such as Scot McKnight and NT Wright? (And I have a book burning a hole in my bookshelf because I need to read it called Covenant and Kingdom by Mike Breen that sounds like it covers the same ground)
Laymond, you are correct in that what I have suggested is “easier”. Just as Jesus said, “MY yoke is easy, and MY burden is light.” People may add to themselves heavier burdens in hopes of assuring what merely walking closely with Jesus might not accomplish for them, but I won’t join them in that choice. If Jesus did not make the burden heavy enough for them to value it sufficiently, then that is something they will have to take up with Him.
I have the mental picture of two men who travel to their father’s house. The first man makes the entire journey on his knees, demonstrating his devotion. The second man catches a ride with a friend. Both arrive on the Father’s doorstep at the same moment. The door swings open, the Father’s face brightens, and he says, “Oh, good, you’re both here! Come in!”
Great analogy, Charles
Frank,
I discovered Walton’s book on Genesis, initially, at Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog. But I didn’t buy it until I saw N. T. Wright refer to as though all serious Bible students were familiar with and agreed with it. I think I went from a Wright footnote to Amazon.com and bought it.
But I discovered Walton’s book on Covenant by doing an author search at Amazon. I’ve seen no other references to the book. I read it a while back but didn’t get excited until I saw that John’s Gospel is clearly all about how Jesus reveals God to us. As I read John in order to meet Jesus — to meet God — I came to recognize the power of Walton’s idea — and hence the series.
But I have no idea how Wright and McKnight react to it — except that Walton’s theory seems to mesh very nicely with what I know about McKnight and Wright. After all, both argue for a very Jesus-centered understanding of the gospel and for fitting the gospel into the over-arching narrative of scripture. Walton simply deepens our understanding of the narrative without contradicting Wright’s and McKnight’s understanding of the story arc.
Thank you, Jay. That’s what I was hoping for. I heard about Walton’s Genesis book from Paul Vischer’s (he of Veggie Tales) podcast but never heard of this work. I’m looking forward to digging in to it.
Charles, can you furnish any examples of what you said, ever happening . I guess that makes that “lukewarm” stuff irrelevant.
Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Rev 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
Rev 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and [that] the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Don’t seem these easy come easy go (I’ve got it made) guys are going to do so well. Just my opinion, I surely could be wrong.
Laymond, you asked me a question and then offered your commentary on my viewpoint (actually, you attributed a viewpoint to me) without bothering to hear from me. That’s a self-contained discussion; since you speak for both sides, I find no room to inject myself into it, nor any benefit in doing so. Carry on.
Charles, I asked you, for where your scenario did happen, not where it didn’t. I didn’t answer the question I put to you, because I can’t.
“The door swings open, the Father’s face brightens, and he says, “Oh, good, you’re both here! Come in!” ” Is it as you describe , or as Jesus said? What are you doing here, I don’t even know you?
Guess it depends on who you are, Laymond, a son or a stranger. I know which I am.
Actually Charles, that decision belongs to another, it does not belong to you.
I am sure the bible states we will not be judged on what we know, (not even who we know) but what we do.
laymond,
I and many others know of many that are doing great things for others with no big time recognition, but from God, that is sure.
Through out the ages, those that did good but were ignorant of the scriptures will be judged favorably.
In a way, Laymond, one’s salvation is a bit like the moon. I didn’t make it, nor did I put it where it is, but I can certainly recognize it when I see it. if you are judged on “what you do”, other than your choice to believe in Jesus Christ, then I suggest the timely purchase of a pair of asbestos underwear. This is only because you are no different than the rest of us, as all we deserve is death.
If any man’s destiny is indeed predicated on his personal behaviors, he will either need no Savior, or will have none.
Jay,
Glad all is well with your vision. Like all young folks, right off to the beach to see what you might of been missing!
I get amused with the debating on here and remembering how we used to teach all are lost but us and just maybe if I don’t have it all just right, me too.
Always reminds me of an old song by Skeeter Davis “If I ever get to heaven, I won’t see you”. How much we hear and read that being expressed in various mostly silent ways.
“If any man’s destiny is indeed predicated on his personal behaviors, he will either need no Savior, or will have none.”
The savior has come and gone, but the judge has yet to arrive.
The savior did not come and go without leaving directions, unless we follow his directions we will be lost. God sure gave a lot of instructions on how to live, for none of them to matter didn’t he ? Charles please tell me what makes you different from the devils that knew Jesus and who he was, they too called him “Son of God” they too knew what he had done, will they too be sharing in Jesus reward ?
Charles said ” if you are judged on “what you do”, other than your choice to believe in Jesus Christ, then I suggest the timely purchase of a pair of asbestos underwear. ”
What about the young rich man, evidently he knew who Jesus was, and wanted what Jesus could give, he just didn’t want to pay the price. Sounds kind of like Charles, he wants it, but he don’t want to pay the price for it, he wants someone to bear his burden for him, “pick up your cross and follow me” does not mean pick up your cross and throw it on my back.
Charles those asbestos underwear will only give you butt cancer.
David Himes says:
July 8, 2013 at 8:23 am
This post highlights the importance of how we view the Text. That is, what is the purpose of the Text? Why do we have it? What are we supposed to do with it?
This is not about questioning inspiration, but rather appreciating what we are supposed to do with the Text, now that we have it.
If we say, “Well, it’s the inspired Word of God” and don’t think beyond that, then we end up with a confusing set of instructions about which we will endlessly debate.
If we say, “The Text points us to the revelation of God”, then the conversation changes.
David, can you explain to me what was revealed to you about God after reading Romans 11 ?
Laymond,
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. I cannot say I’ve studied Romans 11 recently and am disinclined to comment without more careful attention.
But, for the record, no where in the Old Testament or New Testament is the phrase, “word of God” a reference to the Text of those documents. “Scriptures” is the only word used to reference the OT. And there is no word or phrase ever used to refer to the NT, as a whole.
Further, translating “logos” as word is common, but not particularly clear or precise. Thayer’s Greek Dictionary offers, among others, that “logos” could be translated “revelation”, which when thoughtfully considered, I believe, presents a much better translation.
However, it’s clear from both your previous posts, as well as mine, that we have a different perspective on several matters.
David, we may have differing perspectives on many things (I am sure we do) but not on the matter of the totality of either the old or the new testament being the “Word Of God” the words of God are sprinkled through out both writings, but I have never been convinced they were the “Word Of God ” in total. and especially not inspired by the whispering of God in the ear of the writer. And yes the only thing we have to acquaint us with the nature of God is the written account of what he is said to have done, and his reaction to what man has done.
I was just wondering if Romans 11 left you with the same impression as it did me, that’s all. peace brother.
Laymond,
I just read Romans 10-11 … there are a couple of verses that warrant more careful attention, but my impression is that Paul is highlighting that God’s salvation has always been by his grace, even under the Law of Moses. And now, even the Gentiles may receive that same grace from God
Charles said, “as all we deserve is death.” That’s not a new and novel premise. But it
sounds a little Calvanistic > born in sin; a fire-breathing vindictive God etc. Why would God even bother creating creatures deserving only death?
I think we are here to make the choice to serve him and he generally gives us time to
make that choice after seeing his majesty in a people friendly environment, to work to
support ourselves/families, to recognize where our blessings come from and then to
praise him in love spilling over to all those around us.
The yoke is easy because the joy exceeds the labor of love for our neighbors. I want to
put a plug in for Meals on Wheels, a way to be of service to the home-bound. Another
way to bring Christ into the homes of the aged, crippled and ill in the ministry of communion for the “church” in beds and wheelchairs.
My former congregation refused communion with those who could not be “in church”
and I upbraided them to no avail. Although faithful attendance was promoted, if the
member got too old or sick to drag themselves to services they couldn’t even be kind
enough to take communion to them before gorging themselves Sunday noon. The
“mind” of Christ was absent in their quest for biblical precedent.
One dear lady, homebound, looked me in the eye and said “You are saving my life”
in just taking the time to bring communion to her home. May God grant us the time
to be formed in Christ.