We read in 1 Kings 2.4
'If your sons take heed to
their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their
soul,' He said, 'you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.'
The Davidic promise is
two-fold. It contains both a temporal/provisional aspect which is typological
and an eternal/unconditional aspect which is the reality.
Peter makes this clear in Acts
2.30-36
He refers to the promise and
said it referred specifically to Christ. Jesus is the Davidic King. I don't
think anyone disputes that.
But many believe his Kingship
is not currently in effect. This is because they still believe the New
Testament concept of the Kingdom is tied to the earthly Jerusalem and based on
a misinterpretation of Apocalyptic symbolism, a literal and physical 1000 year
reign.
On the contrary Peter argues
the promise of Davidic Kingship was fulfilled in his day. The Resurrection and
Ascension lead to the fulfillment of the promise when Christ the Davidic King
sat down on the throne in heaven (v33).
The Son cannot be seated above
the Father but has been exalted to sit at the right hand of the Father. That
arrangement stretches and strains the economic ordering of the Trinity. The Son
is almost equal to the Father but of course in another sense the Son is
certainly equally to the Father. The imagery would also be familiar to
contemporary readers. The right hand of the throne was a place of honour and distinction
reserved for a prince ruling as co-regent.
He then invokes Psalm 110 which
also invokes the imagery of the Davidic King...once again in heaven. The
Kingdom was fully established (Already) with Ascension and Enthronement of
Christ.
It could be said that at that
very moment Christ should have returned as Judge and Avenger, but he didn't.
Why?
As I've explained before, God
sometimes institutes what we might call Eschatological Delay.
When Adam and Eve sinned in the
garden, by all rights death and the end of the world should have come upon
them. God instead promises the Seed of the Woman would defeat the Serpent. And
instead of instant physical death, Adam and Eve are allowed to live for many
centuries.
The Curse stands. The promise
of Judgment stands. But there's mercy and thus a delay in its execution.
Again by way of comparison, when
Christ ascended and was enthroned, by all rights he should have returned to
bring wrath and judgment upon the earth and the New Heavens and Earth should
have been brought to fruition. This earth and all of its works should have
burned and the Great White Throne Judgment should have occurred.
Peter in his second epistle
tells us that God is longsuffering. Another example of delay would be the
period wherein the Ark was being built. The Judgment had been made, but God was
being merciful and delaying the execution of that Judgment. Or again think of
the exile. It was already promised to Hezekiah but there was a delay.
At present we're awaiting the
return of Christ. He could come at any moment and this reality has been true
since the 1st century. Many verses have been misread and
misunderstood and have led many to believe that he couldn't return until this
or that time, in many cases until fairly recently.
Christ will come soon. It's
just that soon doesn't mean the same to God as it does to us.
Though difficult to grasp, it
could be argued the New Heavens and Earth are already in existence and in a
sense though it transcends our empirical experience, through union with Christ,
we are already present in the Heavenly Realm, the Holy Zion.
This issue regarding the
Davidic Covenant is yet another example of the dialectical or dynamic tension
that is often present in Scripture. The categories defy our attempts at
reconciliation. What might be true in terms of the shadowy symbol is not always
absolutely true with regard to the eternal reality.
It comes across to the
logician's ears as a contradiction. Is the Davidic Covenant provisional? Yes
and no.
Unbreakable and Eternal? Yes
and no.
In terms of temporality, the
promise was provisional. The earthly kingdom failed and was removed. This
happened with the division of the kingdom into Israel and Judah, followed by
captivity and exile and its abrogation was finalized by the destruction of the
Temple in AD70.
Interestingly even some Jews
acknowledge that only God Himself can covenantally reinstate what we as Christians
would call the physical or Old Covenant Israel. He has not done so and based on
what the New Testament teaches will not do so.
The Zionist state founded in
1948 is a-covenantal and in no way a fulfillment of prophecy nor does it
represent a reactivation of the Old Covenant or even a preparation for it.
I commonly read that many in
the early Church and particularly Augustine of Hippo did much to introduce
Platonism into the Church. While the early Church Fathers are certainly not
above criticism I don't think this is a completely fair charge.
Augustine was a great man both
in his intellect and wisdom and in his error. He was human and flawed but in
many ways profound and certainly one who sought to honour God even if he was
sometimes misguided.
But what I cannot accept is
that his categories were just simply an introduction of Neo-Platonism into the
Church. That's a reductionist assessment and interpretation of not only his
thought but frankly the categories provided by Scripture.
It is true that Platonic
Philosophy, particularly with regard to the Forms allows for distinctions to be
made that seem prima facie contradictory and certainly unverifiable when subjected
to Empiricist criteria. It could also allow for modes of thought that would
seem to be subtle, difficult and nebulous or even at times somewhat mysterious.
But I would argue when
Scripture presents similar categories, this isn't Neo-Platonism. This is simply
Apostolic Theology. That's not to say they were Platonists. Far from it. Perhaps
it might be said that in some ways Plato approached mental categories that were
conceptually closer to Christian doctrinal frameworks than certain other
philosophers such as Aristotle.
A familiarity with these
concepts might have helped theologians such as Augustine to express theology in
linguistic and conceptual terms and categories that people could understand.
This does not necessarily mean
they were introducing Platonism. It's simply making use of the vocabulary that
was available. There's certainly a danger in that as there is with all
analogies.
If that's Platonism then Peter
and Paul were also Platonists and certainly so was the author of Hebrews.
Many Baptists have attacked
Augustine for his doctrine which allows a distinction between the Invisible and
Visible Church.
More often than not it is clear
the critic has not properly understood the nature of the doctrine.
And certainly I would agree the
doctrine is subject to abuse and undue emphasis to the exclusion of other
teachings. This is true with all doctrines. This is a common fruit of attempts
at creating coherent rationalistic systems of thought rather than build a body
of doctrine that is correspondent to and reflective of revelation.
But just because the doctrine
was abused by its synthesis with Sacral Christendom does not negate the
concept, nor is it acceptable to simply pin the misunderstanding on some kind
of Platonist syncretism.
Paul himself declared in Romans
9 that not all who are of Israel are of Israel. He's speaking in terms of
particular and universal, a temporal manifestation versus eternal form or
reality. This sounds like Platonism but is not. Rather it is temporality and
form being compared and contrasted with eternal substance.
But again a person familiar
with Platonic categories will probably and more readily be able to grasp the
truth. And it is clear (at least to me) that those who utterly reject the
Scriptural Dialectic are just as committed to Aristotelian modes of thought
that place reality solely in the temporal and visible.
Though not a few would find the
mere suggestion to be irksome and offensive, I posit that Aristotle syncretised
with Biblical Theology has led to a host of bad theologies from Scholasticism
to Baptistic theology to Hyper-Calvinism to Theological Liberalism.
It is no wonder that not a few
of the Early Apologists believed (rightly or wrongly) that the pagan
philosophers had in the past appropriated truths from the Old Covenant people
and merely distorted them.
As much as I might greatly appreciate
the criticisms of someone like John Yoder with regard to Christendom, his
criticisms of Augustine and the Reformers at times are woefully misguided. The
problem was not baptized Neo-Platonism but rather another pagan philosophy
rightly identified by Leonard Verduin... the dangerous and destructive heresy
of Sacralism.
By viewing society as a Corpus
Christianum, a Christian body or society a number of categories were introduced
which came to abuse actual Biblical frameworks.
I would strenuously argue this
also occurs any time a denominational framework is added on to the Scriptural
polity. It creates additional tiers and covenantal structures that are
extra-Scriptural and consequently (even if unintentionally) distort the
inspired teaching.
These tensions, which we can
clearly see in the various Covenant arrangements, are essential to
understanding Scripture. We will misunderstand the doctrines otherwise and in
every case fall into reductionism and distortion.
I think it could be argued the
modern mind has been shaped by various Enlightenment ideologies but for many,
Empiricism with its understanding of logic, rationality and coherence have
greatly hindered modern man's ability to grasp the Biblical categories.
The Scriptures themselves teach
us a form of internal and Subordinate Logic. The Scriptures are not bits of
atomized data that we study and assemble into frameworks that our minds can
interact with and comprehend.
It is revelation from God that
we are to submit to, even if its categories transcend and even defy our
perceptive limitations.
When read rightly the
Scriptures open to us a metaphysical realism, a spiritual world that we cannot
interact with apart from the help and guidance of divine revelation.
But we must also be careful
that we don't fall into another trap of Platonic deduction wherein we grasp
forms or key doctrinal ideas and treating them in an a priori fashion, we
autonomously work out elaborate deductive schemes.
Our doctrine must operate
within the categories we are given. This does not disallow the introduction of
theological terminology but it does limit the concepts to revelatory dependence,
not philosophical speculation.