CHAPTER NINE
THE COVENANT PRINCIPLE, PART THREE:
INTRODUCTION TO THE Ethno-Covenantal Solidarity Principle
Introduction and Preview
Definition of Ethno-Covenantal Solidarity
Both the present and following principles (Universal Equity Principle) presuppose that Israel’s law remains a paradigm or pattern of justice for all peoples (
<y!wG or gôyim) (see Wright 1984a, 1984b; Schluter and Ashcroft 1988). Using these principles as a foundation, then, this dissertation defines a "people" [Afrikaans: volk; Greek: e[qno"] as an "ethno-covenantal solidarity" (ECSOL). An ECSOL shares: (1) A common ancestry: an intermarried, extended family group with leadership from within the group (Dt 1:13; 17:15); (2) a common language (Ge 10-11); (3) an implicit or explicit faith-covenant with a deity: the gôyim "walk in the name of their own gods" (Mic 4:5f; see also Isa ); (4) a common cultural, legal, and historical tradition; (5) generally common geographical territory (Ac 17:26).It is important to note that the
taV e[qnh or <y!wG worship foreign gods and hence were a covenanted whole under the rulership of that idol. Israel itself was a covenanted solidarity of families under the monarchy of Yahweh (1Sa 8-12; see Schluter 1988). In summary, a "people" is an intermarried (endogamous) group of families of similar faith, custom, language, and geo-history.The New Testament does not depart from this understanding.
taV e[qnh often has a collective sense ("foreigner") in the foreground (40%). However, though perhaps in the background, the New Testament never forgets that the individual ethnos is a member of a foreign people in ethno-covenantal solidarity. This is parallel to the English words "foreigner" and "alien", the German word "Ausländer," and the Afrikaans, "uitlander," and "vreemdeling." None of these terms used in a collective sense deny that the specific foreigner is a member of an ethnic group.ECSOL: Created and Good
Direct Claim of Scripture
God unambiguously claims he has created, owns, and controls all peoples of earth: "From one man He made every people," determining their times and boundaries (Ac 17:26; Ge 10:5, 20:31-32; see Jer 10:7, 27:5-7; Ps 2:8, 82:8).
All the peoples [gôyim] you have made will . . . worship . . . you, O Lord; they will bring glory to your name. . . . Who should not fear you, O King of the nations? This is your due. (Ps 86:9; Rev 15:4)
When . . . [God] gave the peoples their inheritance [land], . . . he divided up the sons of Adam [lit.], [and] set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel. (Dt 32:8)
Everything God creates is very good.
The Nature of the Trinitarian Principle
Second, the Creator is diverse in himself as a tri-unity. Because of that nature there is, therefore, no necessity for him to create, ordain, nor delight in monotonous uniformity and monstrous sameness. In God’s very nature there is true diversity and real unity (Trinitarian Principle). He does not love his unity more than his real diversity. Clearly, he ordained the beauty of ethno-cultural and linguistic diversity in mankind to reflect his diversity just as both mankind’s original, pre-Fall unity and his renewed unity in Christ reflect Yahweh’s essential unity.
The Command to Spread over the Earth and Babel
Third, this ethno-linguistic diversity is the result of the blessing and command to multiply and spread out over the earth.
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the . . . [creation]." (Ge 1:28; see 9:1, 7)
In his grace, God dispersed mankind at Babel after the worldwide Flood. This dispersion was a direct result of man’s obstinate rebellion against God’s command to spread out and fill the earth. Genesis states that collective humanity witnessed against themselves in their rebellion against the original command to scatter and fill the earth (see further discussion below):
Come let us build for ourselves a city,. . . a tower, . . . and make for ourselves a name; lest we be scattered over the face of the whole earth [as commanded]. (Ge 11:3; emphasis added)
God accelerated the natural process of linguistic diversity that results geographic separation. He created the "seventy peoples" (Ge 10) — an ethno-linguistic mosaic (Ge 11:1-9). This destroyed man’s pretensions of collective deity.
The building of a city and tower was inspired first by the desire to obtain a centre of unity, such as would keep the human race together. But the securing of this unity was by no means the ultimate purpose of the effort. Unity was to afford the possibility of founding a gigantic empire, glorifying man in his independence of God. . . . God interferes with the execution of this plan, not so much or at least not only, from opposition to its impious spirit, but chiefly from fidelity to His promise, that the sinful development of humanity will not again issue into a repeated catastrophe on the scale of the deluge. If this were not to happen, the progress of sin had to be checked. If the whole of humanity had remained concentrated, the power of sin would likewise have remained united, and soon again have reached stupendous proportions. Hence it was next necessary to break up the unity of the race. (Vos 1975, 59)
Pentecost and ECSOL
Fourth, Pentecost does not destroy created ethnic solidarity. When God speaks to any people, he speaks to them in a "tongue." God directly created the ancestor of that "tongue" at Babel. In his sovereignty, he guided the development of the present form of that language. He is, thus, responsible for "creating" the modern form of the "tongue" as well. One message of Pentecost is that God speaks to each people in their own, beautiful and unique, God-created language. Pentecost did not destroy the beauty of ethno-linguistic diversity; it sanctified it. God did not create a miracle in the ears of each person. He spoke to each foreigner in his own language and dialect (Ac 2:4-11; see Dayton and Fraser 1980, 118-119 as cited below).
Summary of Disssertation’s Perspective
Therefore, Scripture explicitly claims that God formed or created the peoples (Ge 10-11; Dt 32:8; Ps 86:9; Ac 17:26). Second, the Bible explicitly regulates inter-ethnic relations in the law of God. This is especially true of the stranger laws of the Pentateuch. It is also clearly seen in the Fourth Commandment which commands that the ethnic alien servant must be allowed to rest one day in seven along with the rest.
Third, Scripture states that peoples (ECSOL’s) are destroyed and new peoples come into existence (e.g., the Afrikaner and the American; see Ge 18-19; Isa 40:22ff, 41:2, 44:26; Jer 1:10; 18:5-10, 31:28; Eze 32:18; Da 2:36-45, 4:34-35; Am 3:6). However, it is God, not man, who is the first cause of the creation and destruction of peoples based on their obedience or disobedience to his law (Lev 18:26-30, referring to Canaanite groups).
Fourth, God protects the boundaries of the peoples of earth. He condemns the king of heathen Assyria for arrogantly claiming, "[I] . . . removed the boundaries of the peoples and plundered their treasures; like a mighty one I subdued their kings" (Isa 10:13; see Hab 2:8-10,17 of Babylon). Speaking of Cyrus, Yahweh claims that he alone creates such ethno-national calamity and disaster (Isa 45:1-12; La 3:37-38).
Fifth, God says that he moved the peoples (e.g., Israelites, the Philistines, and the Arameans [Am 9:7]) on the face of the earth. However, Yahweh pronounces a woe upon the imperialist state that unjustly moves the peoples (i.e., not in a just war) and their "boundary stones" (Hos 5:10; Dt 19:14, 27:17). The reason is that God has set the boundaries of the peoples’ habitation (see Ac 17:26 and Isa 10:13 LXX to see the verbal connection).
Therefore, God created ethno-covenantal solidarity (ECSOL) and it is good even in the church of the new creation. This is deduced from the following (1) the original decree "to scatter;" (2) the act of creating the languages at Babel, creating the original "seventy nations-peoples" (Ge 10); (3) and the providential giving to each people its own land-inheritance, and allotting to each its times and seasons upon the earth (Ac 17:26-27; Dt 32:8-9).
When the Most High gave the nations [gôyim] their inheritance, when he divided all mankind [lit. the sons of Adam], he set up boundaries for the peoples [amim] according to the sons of Israel. For the LORD’s portion is his people . . . Jacob. (Dt 32:8-9)
(4) The new creation and the new covenant do not destroy nor contradict the first creation’s design normativity but refresh it.
Creation of Peoples, Babel, and the New Covenant
The Interpretation of the Babel Pericope
The interpretation of the Babel story is essential to the conclusions listed above. It is interesting to note that Eusebius, the Christian historian and apologete of Constantine was perhaps the first to propose the exegesis of the Babel pericope which claimed that God’s goal in history was to reverse the curse of multiple languages and cultures. This he said was the God-given function of Constantine the Great. He must unite divided humanity in one holy empire with Latin-Greek as the universal language (see ????).
The contrast between the present and the past exegesis of the Babel pericope within the NGK is echoed in many churches around the world. It gives a good illustration of how differing presuppositions can be used to understand the same passages in varying ways.
NGK’s present exegesis (C&S)
C&S directly contradicts the interpretation of Babel in the earlier Synod document, HRLS. At this point, HRLS seems more biblically balanced. Discussing Babel, C&S implies that the confusion of languages at Babel was purely a negative judgment of God.
Now, certainly, it was a "judgment" in the sense of a judicial decree. However, C&S implies more than this. It implies that the judgment was something that caused humanity to move away from the ideal good, that is the unity of humanity. In that sense it was negative. Therefore division into ethno-linguistic groups was not God’s ideal even though he included both grace and blessing in the decree to ensure the future survival of man. The implication seems to be that God’s ideal was the former state of "one language and a common speech" (Ge 11:1):
In Genesis 11 the confusion of languages is described as God’s judgement on sinful human pride. Yet this judgement also includes mercy and blessing inasmuch as it ensures humanity’s continued existence, and God in this way achieves his creative purposes with mankind. (C&S, 106)
Was the confusion of languages indeed purely a negative judgment of God? In other words were it not for sin, would humankind not now be divided? Or was it within the planned, creation-design of Yahweh? C&S seems to choose the first, following the Radical Reformation and contemporary ecumenical opinion.
NGK’s past exegesis (HRLS)
Note however how HRLS like C&S first asserts the essential unity of mankind, HRLS. This unity, however, does not destroy the reality and goodness of humanity’s essential diversity:
The Scriptures also teach and uphold the ethnic diversity of the human race.
Ethnic diversity does not have a polyphylogenetic origin. Whether or not the differentiation process first started with Babel, or whether it was already implicit in the fact of Creation and the cultural injunction (Genesis 1:28), makes no essential difference to the conclusion that ethnic diversity is in its very origin in accordance with the will of God for this dispensation. The choice between these alternative explanations of origins depends on an examination of the important chapters 10 and 11 of the book of Genesis. The universal message of the "genealogical table of peoples" (Gen. 10) is that God created all peoples from one progenitor, and that this view of the human race not only avoids the danger of ethnocentrism, but also that of cosmopolitanism. Gen. 10 and 11, which should be read in conjunction, each individually recounts the fact and process of the division and distribution of peoples. According to Gen. 10, the diversity of peoples is the result of a progressive split in the genealogical line, while Gen. 11:1-9 presents it as being the result of dispersal. The two processes are not unrelated. In Gen. 11 the spontaneous development of generations is given its momentum and specific character. In the process of progressive differentiation the human race into peoples and races there is not only a curse, but also a blessing, not only a judgment on the sinful arrogance of the builders of Babel, but also an active mercy preserving mankind from destruction so "That they should seek the Lord" (Acts. 17:27) and so that God’s purpose for the fulfilment of the earth should be achieved. (HRLS, 14)
In its analysis of the Babel pericope, HRLS gives the following conclusion connecting the Cultural Mandate and the division of languages. This shows the intimate historical connection between the two, demonstrating that the division of languages was not a "non-ideal," that is an afterthought of God:
Verse [11:]6 states: "Behold the people (‘am) is one and they have all one language." These people clearly valued the unity of language and community because, apart from the motive of making a name for themselves, their city and tower had to serve specifically to prevent their being "scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth" [as God had commanded in the Creation Mandate] (v. 4). From the sequel to this history it is clear that the undertaking and the intentions of these people where [sic] in conflict with the will of God. Apart from the reckless arrogance that is evident in their desire to make a name for themselves, the deliberate concentration on one spot was in conflict with God’s command to replenish the earth (Gen. 1:28; 9:1,7). (HRLS, 16)
Analyzing the theme of the Babel story, HRLS concludes:
The significance of the story is overrated in a certain sense by those who think there would have been no question of a diversity of races and peoples if there had been no confusion of tongues. At the time, it is true, mankind had not yet differentiated biologically, politically or culturally into seperate [sic] community units. Then again, we have to acknowledge that the confusion of tongues gave a specific character and momentum to the process of differentiation. In this connection we shall constantly have to bear in mind the following consideration: firstly the fact, to which we have already referred, that diversity was implicit in the fact of Creation (Acts 17:26) and the cultural injunction (Gen. 1:28; 9:1,7); secondly the fact that the confusion of tongues occurred at a time when the process of differentiation into separate "families" or community units had already, according to Gen. 10:25, been in progress for quite some time; thirdly it must be borne in mind that the process of progressive differentiation was hampered by the fact that the people of that time resisted it, as is evident from the fact that up to that stage they had also lived together in one geographic region (Gen. 11:2). In a certain sense, up to that moment in time the "unity" had been artificial and clearly in conflict with the intention that mankind should be spread across the face of the earth; fourthly, we may not forget that sin as a dividing factor was not restricted to events at Babel (cf. Gen. 6); it therefore does not go without saying that the family relationship would have remained characteristic of mutual relationships if the confusion of tongues had not taken place; finally, it specifically strikes us that the judgement of the confusion of tongues was not "arbitrary", but resolved itself in the course of generations: the dispersal at Babel took place within the family division of the sons of Noah (cf. Gen. 10:25). (HRLS, 16)
These conclusions cannot be overlooked or ignored.
Scholarly Parallels to HRLS’ Understanding
The assumption that true, self-determining, ethnic diversity was not part of God’s original plan for righteous mankind is common. Many ancient and contemporary scholars, both in evangelical and ecumenical circles, accept this assumption. For example, Gerhard von Rad claims the outcome of Babel was "disorder in the international world . . . [that] was not willed by God but is punishment for the sinful rebellion against God" (Von Rad 1972, 152).
However, the view making cultural diversity rooted in human sin rather than in the creation-design itself is definitely not the only approach to the question of human ethnic diversity. There is a growing movement outside of South Africa, which agrees, at this point but not all points, with HRLS’ view.
Andrew Greenley
"Theology of Pluralism" scholar Andrew Greeley claims that the often negative interpretation of the Tower of Babel comes from reading holistic assumptions into Scripture, not true exegesis of the Babel pericope itself:
The great Scholastic theologians of the Middle Ages concluded — largely from the tower-of-Babel myth — that if it were not for sin there would be no diversity in the human condition. In other words, the fantastic pluralism of cultures in the world is at best an evil caused by human sinfulness. (Greenley 1974, 697)
C. Peter Wagner
Church growth missiologist C. Peter Wagner agrees:
Another reasonable interpretation of the Babel incident sees the people of the earth making an attempt to counteract what they correctly understood to be God’s purpose in diversifying the human race. God had been in the process of separating people from one another in order to implement his desire that humankind should "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. . . ." (Gen. 1:28) However, the early human race, which still all spoke one language (Gen. 11:1), rebelled against this plan. They therefore undertook to build a city and "make a name for ourselves" for one explicit purpose: "lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth" (Gen. 11:4). (Wagner 1979, 111-112)
The reason for this rebellion was clear. Post-flood mankind
had perceived that God’s intention of pluralizing the human race was inexorably working itself out as they grew in number and began to wander from one another. They intuitively recognized the sociological axiom that social separation causes cultural differentiation, and they rebelled against it, determined to maintain their human uniformity whether or not it was God’s will. (Wagner 1979, 112)
This parallel with HRLS’ understanding of a key socio-historical process is quite noteworthy: separation over time causes ethno-cultural diversity. Wagner shows no evidence of having read that NGK document.
Wagner’s interpretation of God’s subsequent action is that ethno-linguistic uniformity was not his original design-plan:
The city they were building around the Tower of Babel was never completed. God intervened and decided to accelerate his program for the decentralization of humankind, so he "confused the language of all the earth" and "scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth" (Gen. 11:9). This, of course, was a punitive act, but it was also preventative. It was designed to prove to men and women that they could not frustrate God’s plan for human pluralism. H. C. Leupold sees the tower as a "symbol of defiance of God" because the people "preferred to remain a closely welded unit and to refuse to obey God’s injunction . . . "to replenish the earth." Apparently, then, God punished this early resistance to pluralism. (Wagner 1979, 111-112)
Bernard Anderson
Another parallel is from Princeton professor Bernard Anderson’s article, "The Babel Story: Paradigm of Human Unity and Diversity" (Anderson 1977).
The story of the building of Babel/Babylon . . . portrays a clash of human and divine wills, a conflict of centripetal and centrifugal forces. Surprisingly, it is human beings who strive to maintain a primeval unity, based on one language, a central living-space, and a single aim. It is God who counteracts the movement toward a center with a centrifugal force that disperses them into linguistic, spatial, and ethnic diversity.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Often the narrative has been regarded as a story of tragic failure, of the loss of the unity that God intended for his creation. The assignment to write this essay was accompanied by the editors’ reminder that in the Middle Ages scholastic theologians understood the story to mean that ethnic pluralism was largely the unfortunate result of human sinfulness. In one way or another this negative view has survived in Christian circles to the present day. (Anderson 1977, 63)
However, this was not God’s original perspective:
In the larger perspective of the Urgeschichte the diffusion and diversification of humankind clearly is God’s positive intention. In the beginning, God lavished diversity upon his creation; and his creative blessing, renewed after the Flood, resulted in ethnic pluralism (Gen. 10). Furthermore, eschatological portrayals of the consummation of God’s historical purpose do not envision a homogenized humanity but human unity in diversity. According to the Isaianic vision (Isa. 2:1-4), when the peoples in the last days stream to Zion, the City par excellence, they will come as nations with their respective ethnic identities. And when the Spirit was given at Pentecost, . . . human beings "from every nation under heaven" heard the gospel, each "in his own native language," in the city of Jerusalem. (Anderson 1977, 63-64)
In support of this contention, Anderson writes:
It is noteworthy that, when dealing with the post-diluvian period, [the redactor] displayed a special interest in the "scattering" motif, thrice repeated in the Old Epic Babel story [Ge 9:9-18; 10:18; 10:32]. In these instances, ethnic diversity is understood to be the fruit of the divine blessing given at the creation and renewed in the new creation after the Flood . . . . From the "one" [Noah] God brought into being "the many" through the ordinary course of human increase and population expansion. (Anderson 1977, 68)
In conclusion, Anderson contends:
One thing is clear: when the Babel story is read in its literary context there is no basis for the negative view that pluralism is God’s judgment upon human sinfulness. Diversity is not a condemnation. Long ago Calvin perceived this truth. . . . [See comments on Ge 11:8].
Viewed in this light, the Babel story has profound significance for a biblical theology of pluralism. First of all, God’s will for his creation is diversity rather than homogeneity. Ethnic pluralism is to be welcomed as a divine blessing . . . . But something more must be added. . . . Human beings strive for unity and fear diversity. Perhaps they do not pit themselves against God in Promethean defiance, at least consciously; but even in their secularity they are driven, like the builders of Babel, by a corresponding fear of becoming restless, rootless wanderers. (Anderson 1977, 68)
Lastly, Anderson gives the correct thematic connection between the proto-history and the call of Abraham:
On the other hand, their "will to greatness," which also reflects anxiety, prompts an assertion of power which stands under the judgment of God. . . . Human beings are . . . a broken, fragmented society in which God’s will for unity in diversity is transformed into conflicting division. . . . The Urgeschichte, however, leads beyond the Babel story toward the call of Abraham . . . . [H]e is a paradigm of a new people through whom all the families of humankind are to experience blessing, not by surrendering their ethnic identities, but by being embraced within the saving purpose of the God who rejoices in the diversity of his creation (cf. Rev. 7:9-12). (Anderson 1977, 68-69)
Christopher J. H. Wright
Other recent writers are also not reticent to draw lessons about the existence and relationships of ethno-covenantal groups from (1) the Babel pericope and (2) the true unity and real diversity within the Trinity.
For example, Christopher J. H. Wright writes:
The rich diversity of the economic resources of the earth . . . have their counterpart in the wide ethnic diversity of mankind and its ever-changing kaleidoscope of national, cultural, and political variations. The Bible enables us to see the one as just as much part of God’s creative purpose as the other. Speaking as a Jew to Gentiles in an evangelistic context, Paul takes for granted the diversity of nations within the unity of humanity, and attributes it to the Creator. [Ac 17:26]. Although . . . [Paul] goes on to quote from Greek writers, his language in this verse is drawn from the Old Testament, from the ancient song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32[:8]. . . .
So the equality and ordering of relationships between the different groupings of mankind forms part of man’s accountability to his Creator God.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
God himself, therefore, in the mystery of the Trinity, subsists in the harmonious relationship of equal Persons, each of whom possesses his proper function and authority. Man, in his image, was created to live in the harmony of personal equality but with social organization that required functional structures of authority. The ordering of social relationships and structures, locally, nationally and globally, is of direct concern to our Creator God, then. (Wright 1983, 103-105)
To summarize, then, a significant minority of Christian scholars are beginning to see the case for true, self-determining ethnic diversity within the confessional unity of the church.
ECSOP, the New Covenant, and Creation Design
Preview
As discussed, Scripture claims that God made, designed, and formed the peoples (Ge 10-11; Dt 32:8; Ps 86:8; Ac 17:26). It uses the same terminology as that used to describe the "forming" or creation of mankind (Ge 5:1-2).
All the peoples [gôyim] you have made will . . . worship . . . you, O Lord; they will bring glory to your name. . . . Who should not fear you, O King of the nations? This is your due. (Ps 86:9; see Rev 15:4)
Second, it believes that any attempt to theologically describe the church as an absolutely new entity, one that is not made up of the renewed and regenerated "divided parts" of the first creation design, is not orthodox.
Creation Design and the Radical Reformation
It seems that the attempt to trace imperfection and evil to the "dividedness" of the creation design is clearly a presupposition shared by many who hold to a Radical Reformation and Barthian position (see Covenant Principle, Part One and Two). What Louis Berkhof writes is cogent:
Anabaptists object to the doctrine of common grace, because it involves the recognition of good elements in the natural order of things, and this is contrary to their fundamental position. They regard the natural creation with contempt, stress the fact that Adam was of the earth earthy, and see only impurity in the natural order as such. Christ established a new supernatural order of things, and to that order the regenerate man, who is not merely a renewed, but an entirely new man, also belongs. He has nothing in common with the world round about him and should therefore take no part in its life: never swear an oath, take no part in war, recognize no civil authority [see BC, 36], avoid worldly clothing, and so on [e.g., avoid private property and opt for the poor and oppressed; BC, 36; WCF, 26.3]. On this position there is no other grace than saving grace. (Berkhof 1941, 446)
Berkhof connects this rejection with various movements:
This view was shared by . . . Pietism, the Moravian brethren, and several other sects. Barth’s denial of common grace seems to be following along these same lines. This is no wonder, since for him too creaturliness and sinfulness are practically identical. Brunner gives the following summary of Barth’s view: [there is no common grace which maintains the world from the beginning. There is only] . . . the singleness of the [saving] grace of Christ. . . . Similarly, the new creation is in no wise a fulfillment but exclusively a replacement accomplished by a complete annihilation of what went before, a substitution of the new man for the old. The proposition, gratia non tollit naturam sed perficit, is not true [according to Barth] but is altogether an arch-heresy. Brunner rejects this view and is more in line with the Reformed thought on this point. (Berkhof 1941, 446)
NGSK and the Radical Reformation
At this point, it is interesting to note how the NGK’s daughter church, the NGSK, is becoming more radically consequent to these non-covenantal assumptions. These presuppositions agree with the holistic philosophy expressed in the Belhar Confession.
Johan Retief’s proposed catechism, Bly by jou Bevryder: Katkisasie-Boek, shows the extent of the adoption of non-covenantal terminology. It rejects any aspect of a normative creation design and uses the Radical Reformation’s terminology for the church. Retief states that the church is made up of groupless individuals who have broken all the bonds of race, color, gender, age, education, culture, status, and social class. He then calls this fellowship an "alternative community" (alternatiewe gemeenskap), in other words, "a new community in the complete sense of the word" (‘n nuwe gemeenskap in die volle sin van die woord) (Retief 1988, 28).
Immediately afterwards, he explains this to mean:
In this alternative community all bonds of race, color, sex, age, education, culture, status, and finances are broken apart (1Co 12:13; Gal 3:26-29; Eph 2:14-16). That which is important in this new community are not the things that divide people from each other [real diversity denied], but Christ Himself and his redemptive work, which is of utmost importance. The blood of Christ is of greater importance that the blood that flows in our veins. As an alternative community the church is, then, especially within a situation such as ours, itself the answer to the division and brokenness of the world.
This alternative community is a reality wherever believers go. . . .
Therefore the most important witness the church can give lies within its unity. (Retief 1988, 28-29)
Note that Retief denies that the New Testament’s central and most important witness to the world is the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ (see Ac 1; 1Co 15:1ff). Instead, he claims that holistic church unity is its primary witness.
Non-covenantal theologies hold the subtle presupposition that every group division in Christ is imperfect or, in a sense, "evil." The implication is that all group-dividing barriers must be broken down. These theologies either imply or blatantly state that each person comes to Christ as an individual alone. It seems to define the church as made up of the whole lot of those individuals who believe and experience Jesus Christ. These individuals have been extracted out of the peoples and groups (see e.g., C&S, 42). They then form a new unity or a new humanity of individuals in which language and culture bonds are relativized.
Furthermore, it appears that these theologies give excessive, perhaps exclusive emphasis to the personal faith of the groupless individual in the formation of the church. According to this individual-based, "extractionist" type of theology, the church becomes a new society. In other words, it is a totally new humanity which is non-ethnic, non-gender, non-classist and non-ageist in orientation. The totally new humanity is made up of individuals taken out of their previous created identity. Therefore, they are stripped or extracted from real and substantial age, gender, linguistic, etc. group identity. This standpoint is very similar, if not identical to, a consequent form of the Radical Reformation’s groupless individualism.
Blood Family and Faith in the New Covenant
Introduction
Some Reformed theologians under influence of neo-orthodoxy attempt to show that the old covenant Scripture taught that covenantal faith had priority over the physical, family, or cultural relationship. Such creation-based diversity would have been, it is assumed, of mere secondary importance (see e.g., C&S, 39, 40, 100). These theologians imply that this creation-oriented, blood relationship is now totally relativized in the New Testament so that faith remains alone and with absolute priority.
Covenant Exegesis and Creation Identities
Introduction
This understanding of the relationship of faith to creation is definitely not based on a covenantal exegesis. Neither is it founded upon a correct understanding of biblical Trinitarianism. Covenantal Trinitarianism sees equal validity to one’s creational identity and one’s faith identity. There is no dialectic between them or any upper story–lower story dualism between them. Therefore, both covenant faith bringing unity with all believers, and blood or descent, which sees the covenant family as a part of true created diversity are of equal importance. Neither is to be rejected, nor prioritized, nor relativized.
Second, it is certainly true that faith in Christ is indeed the basis for membership in the universal and invisible Body of Christ, the New Jerusalem above. Confessional faith is one of the several expressions of real unity (see Eph 4:3ff; 1Co 8:6).
Third, faith-unity does not necessarily mean that true creational diversity is destroyed. In other words, it could be that a right to vote and hold office of elder may be an expression of real created diversity and not a function of faith unity. In other words, Scripture does not give a female the right to hold church offices yet she still dwells at the same time in harmony with all her brothers in the unity of the church (Gal 3:28).
Old and new covenant churches analogous
Furthermore, the old covenant church also had the same balance between faith and family as does the new covenant church. For example, the NGK’s C&S document claims that the old covenant "assembly of the Lord" was open to any person after he had performed "certain provisos" (perhaps meaning circumcision?) (C&S, 39-40). It attempts to make the confession of faith the first and most important fact above and beyond covenantal descent as a determining factor in allowing an ethnic alien into the assembly of Yahweh. However, this is not exactly accurate.
Biblical law did not allow the believing and circumcised alien male into full membership of the qâhâl yahweh until at least the third generation. Some peoples were not allowed in until the "tenth generation" (see Dt 23:3ff). He and his whole family was to be treated with kindness and dignity under the same legal standard as the "native-born." However, he is not given absolutely the same rights as the covenant-born and faithful member until his time of full adoption into the people had arrived.
What this implies, then, is that the covenantal relationship of both Testaments involves more than merely "faith" alone as important as faith is. In other words, covenant faith means being accepted into a physical family, that of Abraham. Those who are not Abraham’s physical seed are adopted into that family so that the blessings promised to the believing physical seed can be passed onto the new believer’s faith-filled children.
Covenantal "faith," thus, is a trusting oath of covenant loyalty in the covenant’s Sovereign. Covenantal faith also submits to the other necessary structural elements of covenant. These include the covenant responsibility of following ethics and the necessary sanctions for obedience or disobedience. Passing all of this on to the covenant partner’s seed is extremely important in any covenantal formulation (see Robertson 1980; Sutton 1988; Van der Waal 1990).
Implications of believer’s church theology
It is not dogmatically accurate to claim that a confession of faith is the only condition for radically equalitarian membership in the body of Christ. The church, thus, is not just a Radical "faith, confessing, and worship fellowship" of believing individuals (C&S, 40) ruled by Jesus "through the proclamation of his Word and the operation of his Spirit" (C&S, 27). Instead, it is a body that baptizes as of yet unbelieving covenant children. Furthermore, the child, teenage, and adult members of this body are to be in submission to exclusively male elders ruling by means of the Word (BC, 29; HC, ques. 3, 83-85).
Both the male elders of ancient Israel and those of the new Israel, furthermore, have excommunicating sanctions. When the person or group stubbornly violate the norms of God they must be expelled from the people of God regardless of their verbal confession of faith (see Mt 18:15ff; 1Co 5:13: Paul cites a case law found in Dt 17:7; 19:19, 22:21,24, 24:7).
Clearly covenant-creation based family groups, covenant defined and creation-based gender or age group are of equal importance with heart faith in the government of old and new testament churches. Thus one cannot relativize any aspect of the creation design in a covenantally faithful congregation or church body.
This principle applies equally to creation-based language and culture group. In all of these faith is the means the Lord has chosen to bring people into his body. It is not the Radical’s equalizing instrument which dialectally opposes the physical-creational to the upper story of faith and confession. The consequence then is that a Christian can glory in being a female, elderly, Zulu-speaking, rural-tribal believer. Hyphenated identities for Christians are the sole norm. They are not the temporary exception until death or the resurrection.
Radical believer’s church senario
The following scenario could easily happen in many Reformed churches which have adopted such an individualistic, Radical hermeneutic. An ethno-linguistically different, materially poorer denomination or congregations could demand unconditional admission to a materially better-off church that is predominantly made up of another ethno-linguistic group. (This is indeed the case with e.g., the NGK).
The new members could then demand the following because they are the majority: (1) their language (e.g., English or Xhosa or any other) should be the language of the Synods. (2) Every pastor should be paid exactly the same as every other. Without such equality the clerical body would be divided, separating the rich and poor (3) The leading bureaucratic positions of the uniting church be put into their hands as the majority.
Conclusion: Both descent and faith
The New Testament continues the Old Testament’s emphasis on blood/descent and covenant faith. First, Paul rebuked those who rejected honoring and providing for their blood family. This included the extended family of parents and grandparents. Those who do neglect them, he says, have denied the faith and are worse than unbelievers (1Ti 5:3ff). This principle apparently includes even unbelieving parents and grandparents (see Pr 1:8ff; 13:1, 15:5; Eph. 6:1ff citing the 5th commandment).
Christ criticizes the Pharisees for not caring for their aged parents because that would somehow invalidate a faith-oath they made to the temple (Mt 15:1ff). This violates the command to honor one’s parents.
Granted, it is true that the Pharisees wrongly prioritized blood descent and drastically de-emphasized faith. The modern parallel is Identity, British-Israelite, and Afrikaner Israelvisie movement. To combat this sort of imbalance, John the Baptist said that God could create sons of Abraham out of the stones of the earth. The Pharisees’ pride in their "blood," without the fruit of faith-repentance, was worthless (Lk 3:7-9).
Second, Paul said that circumcision with faith was of great benefit. "Circumcision" is a symbol of, at least, descent and birth. That symbol, however, without regeneration resulting in faith-obedience (i.e., love) was worth nothing (Ro 2:25-3:2; see Php 3:2ff; Col 2:20ff; 1Co 7:19; Gal 5:6, 6:15). This principle certainly applies to the Old Testament as well (see Ro 3-4).
Third, Christ said that his true brothers and sisters were those who do the will of his Father. That is, those who exercise true faith in every people group are part of the family of Abraham (Mt 12:50; Lk 8:21, Ac 10:34; 1Jn 2:17; see Gal 3). In other words, Christ predicted that his flock would include other sheep of other pastures. He would gather them also into the covenantal faith (see Ro 11; Eph 2; Mt 28:18ff; Jn 11:52).
The consequence was that the Pharisees who depended on the flesh (Php 3:2ff) were to be excommunicated out of the covenant. They were to be covenantally divorced (Ro 11:7ff; Jer 3:1ff; Isa 50:1). Furthermore, their city was to be burnt with fire (Mt 22:7) and the kingdom given to a new people (Mt 21:43).
The meaning of this covenantal doctrine is clear. The renewed and enlarged Israel of the new covenant was to be a multi-ethnic people of God. This people was to be made up of all believing peoples in their ethno-covenantal solidarity. The Abrahamic covenant promises predicted this new multi-ethnic solidarity (Ge 12:3, 17:5, 18:18, 22:18, 26:4, 28:14-15, 49:10; Ps(s) 22:27ff, 72:12; Isa 19:23-25). Pentecost fulfilled the Abrahamic covenant as a foreshadowing of a greater harvest to come.
All these themes can also be traced in the Old Testament. Jesus did not come to change the law, but to be in continuity with it and to correctly interpret it (Mt 5:17ff). Therefore, there is normally no need to choose between blood (i.e., descent) and faith. Peter says clearly that the new covenant promise of the Spirit of the resurrected Christ was "for you and your children" (Ac 2:39, echoing Isa 59:21).
Fourth, Paul speaks about a covenantal-sacramental unity in 1Co 10:1ff. He states that all the believers (including their children, it seems) were baptized into the institutional church of Christ just as the Hebrews were all baptized into Moses in the cloud when they passed through the Red Sea. The church, then, of both testaments is a covenantal unity of families in their intergenerational solidarity. This means that both faith and blood-descent are important. In other words, the everlasting covenant includes an oath of faith-loyalty and promises for the created, physical, blood-seed of those same believers.
ECSOL, Covenant Theology, and Baptism
It seems quite clear that a church which continues on a Radical-like individualizing path, must also begin questioning the biblical basis for covenant baptism. If it rejects "group" in the universal church as "exclusive" and "discriminatory," logically it then must reject the ultimate of exclusive and discriminatory groups: the family group.
Covenant theology teaches that God did not move from "group" to "individual" when he instituted the new covenant. It is also clear that God’s law in both Testaments is not "non-discriminatory." The Bible teaches the ethical and covenantal continuity between the Testaments and the abiding validity of the Abrahamic covenant (see Covenant Principle, Part One and the Universal Equity Principle).
As seen, the Old Testament Yahweh-God holds people groups responsible for obeying his creation law as ethno-covenantal solidarities. Yahweh does exactly the same in the new covenant era. Time and time again, the prophets pronounced judgments on specific people groups for their evil ways. They also prophesied that when Messiah comes, the peoples as peoples with their leadership corps intact will turn to the Lord God of Israel.
Now, if God still sees a people-group (volk) as a responsible, religious and socio-political entity in the new covenant, then there is no logical problem in concluding that he sees it as a living and self-governing religious reality within the true unity and real diversity of the body of Christ.
The person who holds to these three crucial biblical doctrines cannot logically reject ethno-covenantal group in the body of Christ. This means that a group of covenanted and intermarried families with a common religious confession may chose to worship together, rule themselves in a common civil government, and be endogamous. The only stipulation would be that they must obey Scripture-based stipulations for relationships with the ethnic alien in the family, church, and state (see especially conclusion to Kreitzer 1997).
ECSOL and Covenant Theologians
Reformed theologians who do not have to respond to Apartheid, emotionally or otherwise, see this concept of ethno-covenantal solidarities or people groups distinctly.
For example, G. W. Bromiley, in Children of Promise: The Case for Baptizing Infants, writes:
It is no fancy, however, to find the witness of circumcision to be wholly of a piece with that of the two New Testament types of baptism, the ark and the Red Sea passage [1Pe 3:20-21; 1Co 10:1ff]. For again children are included with their parents in the separation as a covenant people and therefore in the covenant sign. God does not deal with the individual in isolation, but with the individual in a family or people. (Bromiley 1979, 19)
We have seen further that the two Old Testament types of baptism stand in a particular relationship to the divine covenant which is not with the individual in isolation but with the individual in a family or people. (Bromiley 1979, 23)
It is because the covenant has been fulfilled, not ended, that the prophetic or anticipatory sign is no longer applicable [i.e., circumcision]. Its place has been taken by the new sign of the fulfilled covenant, Christian baptism. The covenant itself remains — filled out, extended [i.e., to all the peoples, the whole world as promised in the Abrahamic covenant: Ge 12:3; Ps 22:27; Ro 4:12-17; Gal 36-9, 14, 29], yet unaltered in essential character and certainly not discarded. The promise is still "unto you, and to your children" [Ac 2:39]. . . . There is no reason whatever to suppose that when these believers from the nations are added God changes course and begins to deal only with individuals in isolation [i.e., groupless individuals]. (Bromiley 1979, 24)
In the events which prefigure baptism and in the sign which it replaces, the purpose and work of God are not with solitary individuals but with families and groups and the individuals within them. (Bromiley 1979, 25)
From the very beginning the covenant carried with it the creation of a redeemed and renewed people, at first restricted in the main to a single nation [i.e., mono-ethnic] but then broadened to embrace all nations [multi-ethnic, not non-ethnic]. (Bromiley 1979, 25)
Fuller Theological Seminary professor Daniel P. Fuller also sees this. In Gospel and Law: Contrast or Continuum?, Fuller shows that the Pauline statement concerning "no distinction" between Jew and Gentile, does not destroy the ethno-linguistic
distinction between groups. Rather, the background of this statement is found ultimately in the Abrahamic covenant and the equality of all under the Lordship of the one God:
The allusion to the Shema in Romans 3:29 provides the basis from which Paul draws two corollary conclusions. One line of argument is that on the basis of the Shema ["The LORD our God is one LORD"], God is just as much the God of the Gentiles as he is of the Jews. A Jewish objector, however, would say, Why
must the one true God be a God for all men? Why can’t he devote all or at least the greater part of his concern just to the Jews? This is precisely how the early rabbis understood things. (Fuller 1980, 101)
The Shema and the Abrahamic covenant were intertwined, being part of the same covenant from the beginning:
The use of Genesis 12:3 ["in you shall all the families of the peoples be blessed": NASV] in Galatians 3:8 indicates how Paul might well have replied to such a statement as he carried on his continuous argument with the Jews. In using this verse, he could prove that all the ethnic entities of earth were to enjoy the blessings that Abraham and his posterity enjoyed because God was equally the God of all men. Paul could also have found support for his statement from Isaiah 54:5, "The God of the whole earth he is called," and from Isaiah 45:22, "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other." So the Shema, read in conjunction with Genesis 12:3 and other Old Testament passages, would prove the conclusion that the one God was the God of both the Jews and the Gentiles who desired to bless each equally. (Fuller 1980, 101)
Fuller then draws out a further close connection in Pauline thought between the Hebrew confession and the Abrahamic covenant:
The second conclusion that Paul drew from the Shema in Romans 3:29-30 was that faith was the basis on which God would justify both Jew and Gentile. . . . This was the same conclusion which he drew in Galatians 3:8a from the quotation of Genesis 12:3 [the Abrahamic promise of blessing to all peoples]. The two arguments which support this conclusion share the idea that God wants all the ethnic entities of earth to have equal access to his blessings. The great diversity in cultural distinctives and behavioral characteristics between various peoples due to heredity and past history does not incline God to bless one group more than another. Hence the condition for receiving God’s blessing must consist in an action that all people are equally capable of fulfilling. The only such action for which all peoples, despite their great diversities, have an equal aptitude, is ceasing to place any value on some particular distinctive they possess, in contrast to that of some other ethnic entity, and to trust instead in the God who holds before all men the merciful promise to be their God. . . . If God favored one nation because of some distinctive like circumcision, then it would not be true that he was equally the God of other nations who did not practice circumcision. (Fuller 1980, 101-102)
The Jews, Fuller contends, were twisting the Shema to their own selfish ends. They were boasting in externals, such as circumcision, as the ground of their relationship with God. This is why God removed "the middle wall of separation," the ceremonial law, not ethnic identity (see Eph 2:1,15; Col 2:11-17; Fuller 1980, 102-103). He removed it so that the Jews and the heathen peoples (
taV e#qnh) could be justified by faith alone and not on the basis of ceremonial (or any other law-keeping). At present, ethnic Jews and ethnic Greeks, barbarians and Scythians have equal access to God (Eph 2:17-18). They are not longer "foreigners and aliens" to the Abrahamic covenant of promise. All are equally citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, the commonwealth of Israel above, without sacrificing their ethnic identity (Eph 2:19-22, 3:6).Reformed Theological Seminary professor, James Hurley substantiates this thesis in his study of Galatians 3:28:
The central issue at stake in Galatians 3 and 4 is the role of the law in relation to faith. A strong secondary theme is that Jew and Gentile both come to God on the basis of faith. It is within this frame that our text must be read. Verse 22 prepares the way by establishing that the law is not a special avenue of approach to God, open only to Jews, but a statement from which God condemns both Jews and Gentiles. Because all kinds of men are thus under judgment and can be saved only by faith, Paul insists, all men come before God on the equal footing, their race [i.e., ethnic group], state of bondage, and sex (Jew/Greek, slave/free, male/female) having no effect whatsoever on their right to stand before God. Thus, says Paul, "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. . . . There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed." (Hurley 1981, 126)
Hurley then concludes:
Within its context, Galatians 3:28 addresses the question, "Who may become a son of God, and on what basis?" It answers that any person, regardless of race [ethnicity], sex or civil status, may do so by faith in Christ. Here we have the apostolic equivalent of Jesus’ welcoming of the outcasts and the Samaritans and Canaanite women. The gospel is for all persons. . . .
Our study of the context of Galatians 3:28 has shown that Paul was not reflecting upon relations within the body of Christ when he had the text penned. He was thinking about the basis of membership in the body of Christ. This means that it is an error to say that "all one" in Christ means that there are no distinctions within the body. (Hurley 1981, 126-127)
To illustrate this contention, Hurley writes:
When we speak of allowing all men to join the army, we do not mean that there will be distinction between the tank corps and the infantry, or between the captain and the major. If we call all persons to join our soccer team, it does not mean that all will be goalies or full-backs. While a military or sporting analogy has certain drawbacks when applied to the body of Christ, it is inescapable that Paul himself did not seem to feel any tension between his proclamation that all are one in Christ and his teaching that the one body of Christ has many different members or that his own authority was distinctive and all who would not acknowledge it should not be acknowledged (Gal. 3:28; 1 Cor. 12:12; 14:38). (Hurley 1981, 127)
Paul discusses ethnic Israel and the Gentile peoples in Romans 11. Ethnic Israel was cut out of the covenant (with the exception of the remnant) so that the non-Hebrew peoples can be engrafted into enlarged Israel. Only then, out of jealousy, will all ethnic Israel be saved (except, by analogy, the remnant of unbelievers). In this, Paul is consistent with the Old and New Testament prophesies of the conversion of the peoples (see Ro 15:8ff, 16:25ff, 1:5, 3:29ff, 10:12, et al) (see: [Iain] Murray 1971; [John] Murray 1984; Moo 1996).
Abrahamic Covenant in Both Testaments
Yahweh promised that Abraham would be the Father of all believers, the heir of the world (Ro 4): "I will make you into a great nation . . . and all the families of the peoples will be blessed through you" (Ge 12:1-3: NASB).
All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations will bow down before him, for dominion belongs to the LORD and he rules over the nations" (Ps 22:27-28: note the reference to the Abrahamic covenant).
In that day [i.e., the day of Messiah] Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth [the Abrahamic covenant; Ps(s) 22:27ff, 66:1ff]. The LORD Almighty will bless them, saying, "Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance. (Isa 19:19ff)
Clap your hands, all you nations. . . . How awesome is the LORD Most High, the great King over all the earth. . . . Sing praises to God . . . For God is the King of all the earth. . . . God reigns over the nations; God is seated on his holy throne. The nobles of the nations assemble as the people of the God of Abraham, for the kings of the earth belong to God; he is greatly exalted. (Ps 47 NIV, note the reference to the Abrahamic covenant)
He has set his foundation on the holy mountain. . . . Glorious things are said of you, O city of God: "I will record Rahab [Egypt] and Babylon among those who acknowledge me — Philistia too, and Tyre, along with Cush—and I will say, "This one was born in Zion." (Ps 87:4-6)
Summary: ECSOL and Babel/Pentecost Relationship
MARC scholars Dayton and Fraser summarize this biblical, covenantal theme by contrasting New and Old Testament terms:
New Testament [ethnic] terms are more comprehensive and set within a different phase of God’s redemptive action. Whereas the Old Testament accent is on achieving a cultural uniformity in a single, holy people set apart to serve Yahweh [mono-ethnicity], the stress in the New Testament is upon a unity that incorporates great cultural diversity. (Dayton and Fraser 1980, 118)
Therefore, because the New Testament does not destroy real ethnic diversity, it does not reverse Babel:
Pentecost is a signal that the new people of God will incorporate the vast array of tribes, clans, castes, languages, and subcultures [multi-ethnicity]. The miracle of tongues signals that each language group is to hear the mighty acts of God in its own tongue. The Church does not reduce the people of God to one culture [the heresy of the Judaizers] or to one people in the same sense that Israel was single people sharing a single culture. Rather, the people of God is a community sharing a common loyalty to the same Lord, confessing the same faith, and yet retaining distinctive ethnic and cultural ways of life. The unity of the church is a unity of the Spirit, not of cultural or linguistic uniformity. (Dayton and Fraser 1980, 118-119)
[Goto Chapter 8] [Goto Chapter 10]
[Back to Index] [Mail to: Ligstryders] [Home] [Top of Page]
