BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 16
August, 1990
Copyright 1990, Biblical Horizons
Cornelius van der Waal, The Covenantal Gospel (Neerlandia, Alberta: Inheritance Publications, 1990), 204 pp., paperback, indexed. $16.20. Available from Biblical Horizons.
The Covenantal Gospel was the last book written by the remarkable South African theologian and exegete Cornelius van der Waal. Two other works of van der Waal’s have been translated: Hal Lindsey and Biblical Prophecy, and Search the Scriptures.
Because this book was written in 1979, it does not include any interaction with the "five-point covenant model" advocated by Ray Sutton and Gary North, but in discussing the elements of the covenant in the Bible, van der Waal covers much of the same ground. And of course, the "five-point model" is not the only way the covenant is set forth in the Bible.
Van der Waal insists that the only way God relates to man is covenantally, which means personally. God speaks words to men, face to face, mouth to ear, and men are to listen. There is nothing more personal than such covenantal linguistic communication. In sin, however, men prefer to eliminate God’s words — His covenant — and substitute speculation, philosophy, mystical encounters, and contemplative ideas. Thus, the corruption of natural law theology invades the Church and diminishes the impact of God’s spoken-written Word. After all, in the Garden Adam did not rebel against morality, but against the idea that God could tell him what to do. He rebelled against the spoken law-word of the Person of God, not against "general ideas of morality." General morality does not lead us to God, but to an impersonal substitute. For men to come to God, we must proclaim His Word and call men to bow the knee.
In Chapters 1-5 of his book, van der Waal surveys about twenty covenants in the Bible. This discussion is especially important for showing that such words as "love," "hate," "good," "evil," and "brother" have specific covenantal meanings, and not merely sentimental or moralistic ones. Van der Waal insists and proves that the Noahic covenant was redemptive, and not some "common grace" covenant, as is all too often taught in Reformed circles today. In fact, van der Waal strongly attacks the nominalistic notion that there are "law covenants" and "grace covenants," "common grace covenants" and "special grace covenants." Such Bible chopping is thoroughly rejected in the interest of a genuinely Biblical approach to the covenant. This is most refreshing since the neo-dispensationalism associated with the school of Meredith Kline has seemingly overwhelmed the American Calvinistic academic world. Similarly, van der Waal insists that the Mosaic covenant is simply one more expansion of the One Covenant, and that its provisions are transformed in Christ and still thoroughly applicable today.
The second half of the book contains one of the best statements of New Testament theology I have ever read. Too often, even Reformed exegetes take the New Testament as a series of "timeless truths," instead of as God’s covenantal words spoken in a particular covenantal-historical situation, a situation of transition. The common view is that the Old Covenant was relevant for "then," while the New Testament is for "now." In fact, both sets of books were first addressed to "then," and both are equally still relevant to "now."
Particularly today, the vengeance aspect of the New Covenant is overlooked, since the school of Kline sees vengeance as postponed (compare the "kingdom postponement" of Scofield). Van der Waal does full justice to the revelation of covenant wrath upon the Temple and Jerusalem in A.D. 70, rightly seeing this event as the final close of the Old Covenant and as an integral part of the warp and woof of the New Covenant revelation.
Moreover, van der Waal rightly understands that as the Garden was the center and starting point of the land of Eden, and the Temple the center of Jerusalem, so the Church is the center and starting point of all renewed civilization. Thus, prophecy is centrally concerned with the Church, the sanctuary. Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation, he says, have to do with the opposition of true and false worship, not with politics. The "man of sin" of 2 Thessalonians 2 is an ecclesiastical phenomenon, not a political one.
The Covenantal Gospel deals with the transitional period between Pentecost and Holocaust in a thoroughly Reformed fashion, arguing for the cessation of tongues and other apostolic signs. Van der Waal calls for New Testament exegetes to take seriously the covenant-history-groundedness of the New Testament books, and to do better justice to the fact that all of them were written in a transitional period. In a valuable but too brief discussion, van der Waal argues that Romans 11 does not forecast a future conversion of "Israel," but was fulfilled in the transitional period. Modern "Jews" are no different from anyone else covenantally. This certainly is an attractive exegetical position, and should caution postmillennialists against leaning too heavily on the Puritan approach to Romans 11.
Van der Waal closes by telling us that we need to "make the covenant into a fist." (Sound tough?) He insists that we must sing all the psalms, including the imprecatory ones. We must preach the enthronement and crown rights of King Jesus, who extends grace but who also pours out wrath upon those who go too far. He calls on us to take the destruction of Jerusalem as a salutary warning for the Church of all times and in every specific place. "The snug and inane Christianity that no longer creates warriors in the true sense of the word, can only be healed by conversion to the true respect of the God of the covenant, who will not be mocked. Our God is a consuming fire" (p. 169).
One other quotation and I think you’ll agree that this is a book to buy and read: "Spineless Christianity has made itself ridiculous and is in retreat to the defense line. It is not realized that God’s wrath is invoked by all this, and that He more and more withholds the powerful prophetic guidance from His churches. The greyness of mediocrity has come up, a democratization that has more and more adapted the biblical truths to suit the man of the street. It is visible in the legion of Bible translations that become more and more dynamic, because thinking, too, is being `transliterated’ on a sociological level. A harmless Bible or a ventriloquized Bible is the end result of this development" (p. 168).
I strongly recommend this book. It would make a good guide for a serious Bible study. The translation is a bit rough in places, but only in a couple of places was I unsure of what was being said.
Having recommended it, I need to note briefly a few places where I disagree, for the record. On p. 118, van der Waal says that Jesus’ coming on the clouds is a coming to destroy Jerusalem. I believe on the basis of Daniel 7 and Revelation 4-5 that it was a coming to the Father, at the ascension, not a coming to the earth at all. Jesus told the Jews that they would see that He had come on the clouds — been enthroned — and the destruction of Jerusalem was one of the ways they would see (perceive) this fact. The destruction of Jerusalem was not a "coming," but a revelation of His coming to the Father and what it entailed.
On p. 120, van der Waal relates Matthew 24:29-30, the fall of heavenly bodies, to the destruction of Jerusalem. The text says that these things happened after the destruction of Jerusalem, so that they actually refer to the shakedown of the nations of the world as the gospel went forth after A.D. 70. Here and other places, van der Waal does not seem to do enough justice to the theme that when the sanctuary-center is judged, the outlying world is also judged. Notice in Ezekiel that when Jerusalem was destroyed, then letters of judgment were also sent to all the nations.
In the same way, van der Waal sees the Beast of Revelation 13 as a Jewish figure associated with the Temple. I think he fails to see that the false Church (synagogue/Temple) is a harlot who fornicates with the Beast of paganism, and that this is a major theme in the Old Testament (see again the book of Ezekiel). In line with the Old Covenant, the Beast turns against the Harlot and devours her, only later to be destroyed himself. (Van der Waal wrote two commentaries on Revelation, one rather extensive, and perhaps it will be translated, or at least this portion of it, so that we can see the basis for his opinion at this point.)
Van der Waal sees the "man of sin" of 2 Thessalonians 2 as a "collective" reference to apostate Jewry. I think that the reference is first and foremost to the High Priest, who of course represented apostate Jewry.
These, though, are very minor reservations. This is one of the few books I have read in the area of Biblical theology that I can recommend with enthusiasm. Get it.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 16
August, 1990
Copyright 1990, Biblical Horizons
In an earlier article in Biblical Horizons , while examining the biblical symbolism of dew, I noted the parallel in Psalm 133 between the dew upon Mount Hermon and the oil poured upon the head of Aaron. Both the dew of Hermon and the oil of ordination are compared to the pleasantness of unity among the brethren. Recently, I have learned a few more details about Hermon itself, details which give additional richness to the parallelism of Psalm 133. Essentially, I wish to answer the question, Why is oil on the high priest like dew on Mount Hermon? Why not like the dew on Mount Sinai or Mount Tabor? (Psalm 133:3 also says that the unity of the brethren is like dew on Zion. This is a more obvious image, given the associations of Mount Zion.)
The answer becomes apparent when we learn some facts about Mount Hermon. It is located in far north of Israel, north of Dan and east of Tyre, nearly as far north as Damascus. It is one of the highest points in the region. Significantly, it is snow-capped, and the dew that descends on its heights is in marked contrast to the aridity of the surrounding areas. Additionally, Hermon is a major source of the Jordan River. When the ice caps thaw, water from Hermon flows down to water the whole land.
This suggests several biblical-theological connections. First, the waters flowing through the land from Mount Hermon reminds us of the four rivers flowing from Eden to the four corners of the earth. Second, this association with Eden makes it highly appropriate for the Psalmist to compare the oil of Aaron’s ordination with the dew of Hermon. Just as the oil flows from Aaron’s head down over his garments, so also the dew of Hermon flows down throughout the land. Aaron is Israel’s point of contact with Paradise: Israel enjoys the benefits of Aaron’s ordination and access to the Holy of Holies, just as they enjoy the life-giving waters that flow from Hermon. The waters of Hermon refresh the land just as the Spirit, of which the oil is symbolic, refreshes those who are in union with the anointed one.
Another dimension to this symbolism is found in Matthew 16:13-20. Hermon is not mentioned in that passage, but Caesarea Philippi (modern Baniyas, Syria) was located at the foot of Hermon. In addition to the geographic connection, several details suggest the possibility that Psalm 133 provides part of the theological background for the incident recorded in Matthew 16:13-20. Peter’s confession is that Jesus is the "Christ," the anointed one, which recalls, among other things, the anointing of Aaron in Psalm 133:2. Moreover, Jesus speaks of building a new assembly, which would imply a new priesthood. The unity of this new assembly will be guaranteed by the True Anointed One, just as the priest united the Old Covenant Church.
More speculatively, we might find in Matthew 16 a connection between the Paradise imagery of Hermon and the fact that the Church is the seed form of the New Heavens and New Earth. Christ is the Greater Aaron, and the Spirit Who anointed Him without measure has been poured out upon His Church, His Mount Hermon. And from the Church it flows to the four corners of the earth.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 16
August, 1990
Copyright 1990, Biblical Horizons
A year of so ago, my wife and I were invited to a Christian school in order to preview a film on drug abuse that was going to be shown to our children. One of the children in this film turned out, of course, to be using drugs. This child’s mother was shown drinking martinis. During the question & answer session, we were asked if parents who drink produce kids who use drugs. The group immediately agreed that the answer was yes. Discretion being the better part of valor, I kept my mouth shut.
Now has just arrived the September 1990 issue of Keeping in Touch, a newsletter for parents from the editors of Campus Life magazine. The lead article is "Substance Abuse: Not Just a Teen Problem." The article begins by making the same point the film made: parents who drink produce kids who dope. The article cites a study that supposedly proves this to be the case. The third paragraph summarizes the viewpoint of the editors of Campus Life this way: "Although 47% of adults surveyed are current users of alcohol and 20% smoke cigarettes, only 3% expressed interest in learning how to control their own drug use."
Whoa! Simply using alchohol and tobacco is the same as drug use? The writers babble on: "What was it that Jesus said about the plank in your own eye? It’s clear that if we as adults are going to deal with youth substance abuse, we must deal with our own substance abuse patterns first."
In other words, alcohol and tobacco are drugs, just as cocaine and marijuana are.
The idea that alcohol and tobacco are drugs in the same sense as LSD, crack, opium, and heroin, originated in the Cocaine Lobby. Those who want drugs legalized have every reason to associate them with such legal substances as wine, cigars, and catsup. Once the distinction between these things has been blurred, the Cocaine Lobby can then argue for legalization, on the grounds that if alcohol and tobacco are permissible, so are "other drugs."
True to form, the evangelicals now come traipsing along behind the liberals. In the nineteenth century, liberals (unitarians) attacked alcohol as something evil, and then the evangelicals got in line, eventually removing wine from the Lord’s Supper. In the "scholarly" realm, a generation after liberals invented the "framework hypothesis" to get rid of the six days of Genesis 1, this idea has become entrenched in evangelical circles. Now we see the evangelicals parroting the line invented by the dopeheads of the Cocaine Lobby.
Now, it is doubtless true that parents who are snobbish and materialistic tend to produce children who are the same way. Parents who are thieves tend to produce children who are thieves. Parents who are rebels against authority tend to produce children who are rebels against authority. And parents who are drunkards can produce children who are drunkards, or who use other materials to achieve the same effect.
(At the same time, however, many people with drunken parents become teetotalers. In fact, the major cause of teetotaling is parents or near relatives who are drunkards.)
What does the Bible say? First of all, it says that wine cheers both God and man (Judges 9:13). God enjoys wine. That makes God a substance abuser, I suppose?
Second, it says that at the feasts of the Lord the people were to spend their tithe money on "wine or strong drink" and then "make merry before the Lord" (Deuteronomy 14:26). This makes God a dope-pusher, I suppose, since God encouraged the Israelites to drink, and we all know that parents who drink produce kids who crack.
Third, Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana. He made six huge (man-sized) waterpots full of it. The people had already drunk some, and Jesus gave them a bunch more. I suppose that this means Jesus was encouraging drunkenness, and since alcohol is a drug, Jesus was encourage drug abuse!
Fourth, and here we can stop, Jesus put wine in the Lord’s Supper. Jesus pushed wine on His people, and that makes Him the greatest dope-pusher of all time. We all know that a life of drunkenness starts with that first sip (of communion wine), and that parents who drink produce kids who snort coke.
It should be fairly obvious that this line of argument is implicitly blasphemous. The Bible does not condemn the proper use of alcohol, which includes a medicinal use (getting people stoned drunk before performing surgery; Proverbs 31:6), a use for festivity and celebration (which would involve getting a little high, but not becoming drunk), a use for social camaraderie (Matthew 11:19), and a use in religious worship (the Lord’s Supper).
Forbidding the moderate use of alcohol is also implicitly demonic, as 1 Timothy 4:1-3 shows: "In later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons . . . men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods, which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth." Since the Bible teaches clearly that wine and strong drink are appropriate for Christians to use in moderation, those who forbid such use, or who seek to associate it with dope addiction, have fallen (unwittingly, we trust) into advocating demonic ideas.
It is not wrong to abstain, but it is wrong to advocate abstention. If we choose to abstain, for whatever reason, let us be clear about this: We are abstaining (fasting) from something that is good, not from something that is bad.
What about children? Sometimes we hear people say that they will not go to a movie or read a book or do anything that they would not want their children to do. This is a very foolish attitude. There are all kinds of things that it is appropriate for adults to deal with, which we would not want our children to have to encounter. Would you refuse to go to war, or to go to work, or to visit someone in prison, just because you would not want your children to do so?
Similarly, Christian parents should make it clear to children that there is a line of demarcation between children and adults. Some things that are perfectly all right for adults to handle, such as the moderate use of tobacco and alcohol, may be inappropriate for children. At the very least, it is up to parents to decide when and how much of such things their children may have (as in communion wine in the Lord’s Supper). The Bible age for adulthood is not 18 but 20 (Numbers 1:3). Until that time, children are not free to make completely independent judgments.
Biblically speaking, it should be clear that setting an example of moderate drinking is very healthy for children. I am not impressed with statistics that indicate that pagan parents who drink produce pagan children who use dope. I am quite confident that a careful study will show that if a child grows up in a serious Christian church, with wine at the Lord’s Supper and with parents who use wine and other strong drinks moderately and properly, he will not be oriented toward "substance abuse." The history of Christianity shows that this is the case.
Consider, moreover, the impact on a young person when he or she is told that alcohol is a drug, and drinking alcohol is the same as drug abuse. The child then reasons that since his parents drink, it is okay for him to use drugs. The Christian teacher or youthworker says that both drugs and alcohol are bad. The child figures that since is it all right for his parents to be "bad" with alcohol, it cannot be too dangerous for him to be "bad" with drugs. After all, such social drinking does not seem to have any bad effects. So, the child reasons, drugs don’t really have bad effects either. In fact, of course, alcohol in small amounts is good for you, while drugs are dangerous in any amount.
The kind of teaching promulgated by these Evangelicals (a) contradicts the teaching of the Bible, (b) undermines the authority of parents, and (c) encourages children to use drugs.
Are Christian kids getting into drugs? I don’t think that children reared in strong Christian homes and churches very often go into drugs, but I have no problem believing that "evangelical" children are attracted by them. Evangelicalism focuses on emotion instead of doctrine and obedience. Worship is "do what feels good" (mindless "praise choruses") in Evangelicalism. If Evangelical kids are going into drugs, the Evangelicals might take a good look at their churches. Are they teaching God’s law as law, as something to be obeyed unquestioningly? Are they singing (or better, chanting) the psalms, all of them, in worship? Do they discipline (excommunicating where necessary) people who are in open sin? Are they communicating to their children that Christianity is a serious thing, and that God is a consuming fire?
It is no surprise that a "sweetness and niceness" religion, like modern Evangelicalism, produces kids who wander off into drugs and sex. Genuine, authentic, tough, Biblical Christianity, however, is something else altogether.
Finally, the praise of wine in the Bible indicates that this is a career field that is pleasing to God. The production, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages should be in the hands of Christians, for then we can control it. Israel was the great wine producing nation of the ancient world.
For further reading, I recommend two relatively short but powerful and well-balanced books: Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., The Christian and Alcoholic Beverages: A Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986); and G. I. Williamson, Wine and the Bible and the Church (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co., 1976). Both of these studies are very valuable, and I cannot recommend them too highly to those who want further study of this important issue.
