Double trouble!

I discovered something about myself in my recent exchange with Paul Henebury. To judge by his reaction, there are two of me! There’s a me who’s a loyal foot soldier for covenant theology.  Who marches in lockstep with covenant theology.

But then there’s another me who’s AWOL. Who’s a deserter who abandoned his covenant theological post!

I don’t remember how or when this happened. Perhaps traveled through a wormhole in my sleep and bumped into my counterpart in an alternate universe. Or maybe a transporter mishap split me in two. Or maybe I’m Tuvix. It’s quite disorienting. I don’t even know which “me” is writing this. Am I’m the real me? It’s so confusing! I do hope that Scotty can put my doppelgänger and me back together again.

Me

Steve, like Beale and most CT’s does not hold this view, and therefore expects the New Creation to happen at the Second Advent.

 

But since his view belies all the internal and external evidence I have brought up, and since it so closely resembles the procedures of CT’s who openly profess to read the OT through the New; and since his examples are so unpersuasive as they stand, then I’m sorry but I think he is presupposing his knowledge of the NT and it is driving what he looks for in the OT.

 

But anyone who has even a little familiarity with the writings of covenant theology or Bible typology knows that you cannot keep the NT out of it.  Although I do grant that Steve is trying to champion a typology of the OT only, his reasoning is virtually the same as all those men, from Ball to Beale, who admit the critical role of the NT plays in their understanding of the OT.

 

Hays says we are to call the whole people of God in both Testaments “the covenant community.”  That is what Beale calls the NT church on page 203 of his NT Biblical Theology.

My alter-ego

Moreover, I was and am treating Steve Hays as a representative of CT, while attempting not to put words into his mouth.  I’m finding it a little tough because he hasn’t disclosed enough on what he believes about this matter and I keep coming across points of disagreement between him and many CT’s.  

 

I was going to cite D. Dickson’s Truth’s Victory Over Error, 194 to show that the Westminster Confession disagrees with Hays on restricting the term Church to the NT saints (I know he will play the semantics game but either way, it’s clear he doesn’t jibe with them).

 

Steve doesn’t like it that I think he is presupposing his view of the NT to inform his OT typology.  He thinks I’m placing him within the lot of those who freely admit to doing just that (i.e. covenant theologians generally).  He’s right, and I’m sorry if that irritates him.  Nevertheless, I do concede the uniqueness of Steve’s alleged position.  Indeed, he is a veritable Robinson Crusoe of biblical typology.  I know of no one else who takes his OT-only typology position.  Let us hope a ship full of CT’s will spot him and pick him up and promote his ideas.  But I wouldn’t hold my breath.  You see, though these men might agree with the results of Steve’s interpretation, I seriously doubt they would be so reckless as to pretend to convince academia that the Hays typology makes no assumptions based on the NT witness.

 

And as I’ve had cause to say, Steve’s tendency is to deny what most CT’s are happy to affirm.  Of course, I did not accuse Steve of not believing in shadows.  I assumed he would.  Hays once again puts himself outside the run of current CT’s by differentiating types from shadows. 

 

It begins to appear that Steve is not putting himself forth on behalf of CT’s in general but only on his own behalf.  I have tried not to paint him in foreign colors by accepting his rejection of “reinterpretation” for “recapitulation” and wot not, but I do not intend to turn this discussion down a narrow path.  Steve seems content to place me within the pail of dispensationalists and I had hoped he would, for sake of the discussion, allow me to view him as representative of CT – although noting any dissensions he might have from the CT’s I cite.