If the “church” has spent nearly two thousand years developing an incomplete understanding of the New Testament, then twenty-five years spent carefully re-examining that tradition is not an excessive investment—it is a modest beginning.
New ideas rarely gain acceptance overnight, especially when they challenge assumptions that have been embedded in scholarship and tradition for nearly two millennia. Whether the covenantal-inclusion model of IO is ultimately accepted is not what motivates me.
My responsibility is simply to follow the evidence where I believe it leads, even if that places me in a very small minority and even if the view receives little recognition during my lifetime.
One of the reasons I developed the covenantal-inclusion model of IO is because I became convinced that earlier iterations of IO left significant historical and exegetical questions unanswered and often relied on inference rather than on what the biblical text actually says. Rather than defending a position simply because I had inherited it, I chose to re-examine the evidence. That process required abandoning conclusions I had previously held and allowing the biblical text, Second Temple history, and relevant scholarship to reshape my understanding.
The covenantal-inclusion model is built differently from earlier versions of IO. Instead of beginning with conclusions that most scholars reject outright, it begins with propositions that many scholars already accept: the covenantal structure of Israel’s story, the role of proselytes and God-fearers, the importance of synagogue networks, the Second Temple context of the New Testament, and the historical realities of first-century Judaism. From that common ground, the model argues toward conclusions that challenge traditional assumptions about the scope and purpose of the New Testament.
I believe this is the most promising path toward meaningful engagement with scholarship. Rather than asking scholars to embrace an entire system all at once, the model begins where agreement already exists and then asks whether those accepted historical and textual realities naturally lead to conclusions that have not yet been fully considered.
That approach does not guarantee acceptance, but it creates the possibility of genuine dialogue. Academic progress is rarely achieved by asking people to abandon everything they know at once. More often, it comes through demonstrating that accepted evidence points toward conclusions that deserve fresh consideration.
By comparison, I think we can all acknowledge that the earliest bloodline-only expressions of IO never gained meaningful traction. Under RiversOfEden (Chris Camillo) and Corey Schultz, the movement remained largely undeveloped and unknown. Later, its most visible public advocate became Jason DeCosta, an incorrigibly toxic individual whose confrontational style made productive engagement with scholars virtually impossible. Whatever one thinks of the underlying ideas, those interactions produced little meaningful academic discussion.
The covenantal-inclusion model of IO seeks a different path. Rather than defining itself by opposition to scholarship, it attempts to build upon those areas where scholarship and the biblical evidence already agree before addressing the points of disagreement.
For that reason, I expect this work to remain a project that endures for the rest of my life, probably around twenty-five more years. I anticipate continually revising Concealed in Covenant: The Case for Israel-Only—refining arguments, incorporating new research, engaging additional scholarship, correcting weaknesses, and strengthening the overall case wherever possible.
Whether the covenantal-inclusion model OF IO ultimately succeeds will not be determined by popularity, social media debates, or disagreements within the IO community. It will be determined by whether its arguments withstand careful historical, textual, and scholarly scrutiny. That is the standard I hope my work will continue to meet.
I have also begun work on a second book related to IO. It’s approximately sixty percent complete, although its central thesis will remain undisclosed until publication is much closer.
If these books prove persuasive, they will endure because they explain the evidence more convincingly than competing models. If they do not, they deserve to be revised—or abandoned altogether. That is how genuine inquiry advances, and it is the standard I intend to apply to my own work. #ThisIsIO
See less
No comments:
Post a Comment