[Ebooks PDF] download The revised european neighbourhood policy: continuity and change in eu foreign
The Revised European Neighbourhood Policy: Continuity and Change in EU Foreign
Policy 1st Edition Dimitris Bouris
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/the-revised-european-neighbourhood-policy-continuit y-and-change-in-eu-foreign-policy-1st-edition-dimitris-bouris/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Russia s Foreign Policy Change and Continuity in National Identity Fourth Edition Andrei P. Tsygankov
‘At a moment when the EU is once again reviewing its signature European Neighbourhood Policy, this book is instructive in assessing the last revision to this strategy in 2011. Bouris and Schumacher have assembled an interestingly eclectic mix of contributions, many of which offer useful perspectives somewhat different from standard accounts of EU foreign policy. The volume sheds light on why the promised ENP upgrade went awry and failed to divert the crises with which the EU now grapples to its east and south.’ – Richard Youngs, Professor of International Relations, University of Warwick, UK
‘This expansive set of chapters clarifies the urgency and complexity involved in the EU’s revised policy for engagement with the Union’s southern and eastern neighborhoods. Conceptually sophisticated and empirically rich, the book tackles the ontological ambivalence, normative tensions, and operational challenges in the EU’s Revised ENP, leaving no doubt about the inextricable, reflexive linkages between the future of the EU and developments in countries to the south and east.’ – Elizabeth H. Prodromou, Visiting Associate Professor of Conflict Resolution, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, USA
‘Dimitris Bouris’ and Tobias Schumacher’s book will become an indispensable read in the study of the ENP. It provides a major new critical synthesis of the Union’s relations with its immediate neighbours in the framework of the revised ENP of 2011. This is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand the ENP’s subsequent reviews and thus the EU’s evolving foreign policy towards its ‘near abroad’.’ – Sharon Pardo, Jean Monnet Chair ad personam— Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
‘The neighbourhood is crucial to the future of the EU, in terms of not only security, but also and especially governance, sustainable development and social equality. The authors in this volume draw on their unique expertise to unpack the key issues and highlight what has changed and what needs changing in the European stance.’ – Federica Bicchi, Associate Professor in International Relations of Europe, The London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
Dimitris Bouris • Tobias Schumacher Editors
The Revised European Neighbourhood Policy
Continuity and Change in EU Foreign Policy
Editors Dimitris Bouris
Department of Political Science
University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tobias Schumacher
European Neighbourhood Policy Chair College of Europe (Natolin) Warsaw, Poland
The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, , trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Macmillan Publishers Ltd. London
A cknowledgements
We are grateful and indebted to several people for their invaluable contribution to this volume. First of all, we would like to thank the authors, not only for their contributions but also for having been patient and for having replied to our numerous messages and for addressing all of our comments throughout the process of turning individual drafts into one manuscript. Editing can be quite a laborious task and sometimes, so they say, even challenge long-established relations with colleagues and friends as a result of the many critical and seemingly endless demands of the editors. Fortunately, our experience was different as our contributors did not mind our repeated queries and requests for revisions and updates, thus turning this process into a truly memorable experience. Also, we would like to thank Palgrave Macmillan for believing in this project and for their valuable input.
This volume grows out of several PhD Summer Schools that have been organised annually by the ENP Chair of the College of Europe, Natolin campus (Warsaw) throughout the last years and that have been devoted to the study of the multi-faceted dimensions of the ENP—original and revised. We thank sincerely all colleagues—some represented in this volume—who have volunteered to come to the Natolin campus of the College of Europe and offered inspiring talks and lectures to the many PhD students who participated in the various editions of the school. Equally, several institutions and consortia have collaborated and contributed to its success. We are grateful for the institutional and financial support, generously provided by the College of Europe, Natolin campus (Warsaw), the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (Israel Office), and the Centre for the Study of European Politics
and Society at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. The European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR), the ECPR Standing Group on the European Union (ECPR-SGEU), the Lisboan Erasmus Academic Network, and the Trans European Policy Studies Association (TEPSA) have been enthusiastically supporting the initial idea back in 2009–2010 of setting up an annual PhD summer school, then dedicated more generally to the EU’s role in the world, and provided crucial seed funding. Also, after the school has ‘travelled’ to the Natolin campus of the College of Europe and shifted its focus on to the study of the ENP and the EU’s neighbourhoods, they have remained committed partners ever since and we are indebted to them. Many thanks go also to the research project ‘BORDERLANDS: Boundaries, Governance, and Power in the European Union’s Relations with North Africa and the Middle East’ at the European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, and to the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (Palestinian Territories Office). Finally, we are also thankful to Maja Olszewska for her professional and cheerful assistance and her important contribution to the works of the ENP Chair. The Vice-Rector of the College of Europe, Natolin campus (Warsaw), Ms. Ewa Ośniecka-Tamecka, deserves particular mention for her relentless support of the ENP Chair, its many activities and thus its annual ENP PhD Summer School, the pedagogical value of which is probably best testified through the generous feedback of its participants. To see that many of them have become aspiring academics and are contributing impressively to the scholarship on EU foreign policy in general and the ENP and the EU’s neighbourhoods in particular fills us with joy and pride. We dedicate this volume to them and all participants of past ENP PhD Summer Schools, as well as to future generations of students, hoping that it contributes to advancing their interest in the study of the many intricacies of the EU’s ever evolving relationship with its ‘near abroad’.
Dimitris Bouris and Tobias Schumacher
3 Deconstructing the ‘Ideal Power Europe’ Meta-Narrative in the European
by Virtuous Example
4 The EU’s Regional Normative Hegemony Encounters Hard Realities: The Revised European Neighbourhood Policy and the Ring
8
9
10
11 The EU, the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Western Sahara Conflict: Executive Continuity and Parliamentary Detours 219
Irene Fernández-Molina
‘The Pot that Burns the Least’: Continuity in the EU’s Non-engagement with the Resolution of the Western Sahara Conflict 221
‘An Added Dimension to the Conflict’: ‘Dialectical Change’ in the Western Sahara Conflict and New Sahrawi International Strategies
‘But Tell Us What You Want!’: ‘Change as Addition’ in the European Parliament’s Foreign Policy Powers
12 Energy Cooperation: The Leading Light of the Revised European Neighbourhood Policy? Drivers and Limits of the EU’s Functionalist Extension
Continuity and Change: Conceptualising the Evolution of Energy Cooperation in the ENP Area
Direct Functionalist Extension: Dilemmas of the Energy Community Model
Indirect Functionalist Extension: Euro-Mediterranean Energy Cooperation, Still a Bottom-Up Experience? 251 Energy Diplomacy in the Neighbourhood: The Limits of the EU’s Leverage
13
and the EU’s
14 Conclusions. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose?
n otes on the c ontributors
e ditors
Dimitris Bouris is Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science at the University of Amsterdam. He is also an Associate Research Fellow at the European Neighbourhood Policy Chair at the College of Europe (Natolin). He is the author of The European Union and Occupied Palestinian Territories: State-Building without a State (Routledge, 2014) for which he was selected as Routledge Politics and International Relations author of the month for February 2014. He has has written scholarly articles in peerreviewed academic journals and his research focuses on the European Union’s External Relations, the European Neighbourhood Policy, the Arab Spring, the European Union’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as on the broader domains of peacebuilding, state-building and conflict resolution.
Tobias Schumacher is the Chairholder of the European Neighbourhood Policy Chair at the College of Europe, Natolin campus. He is also an Associate Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for International Studies (CEI-IUL) at the University Institute of Lisbon. Recently, he was a John F. Kennedy Memorial Fellow at the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies at Harvard University. He is the author of numerous articles and book chapters on the European Neighbourhood Policy, Euro-Mediterranean relations, EU-GCC relations, Middle East and North Africa politics, and EU and EU member states’ foreign policy. He is the co-editor (with Michelle Pace) of Conceptualizing Cultural and Social Dialogue in the Euro-Mediterranean Area. A European Perspective, published by Routledge in 2007.
c ontributors
Münevver Cebeci is a Senior Researcher at the European Neighbourhood Policy Chair, College of Europe (Natolin) and an Associate Professor at the European Union Institute (a Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence), Marmara University in Istanbul. She has taught several courses since 2001 and has also published books and scholarly articles on European Foreign Policy and Security Studies. Cebeci is the editor of Issues in EU and US Foreign Policy (Lexington, 2011) and her forthcoming book ‘De-Constructing “Ideal Power Europe”: The EU and the Arab Change’ will be published by Lexington Books in 2016.
Laure Delcour is a Visiting Professor at the College of Europe and a Scientific Coordinator and Research Fellow under the EU-FP7 project ‘Exploring the Security-Democracy Nexus in the Caucasus’. Her current research focuses on the EU’s influence on domestic change and on regionbuilding processes in the ‘contested neighbourhood’. She has extensively published on these topics, including in the Journal of European Integration, Democratization, Problems of Post-Communism and East European Politics.
Theofanis Exadaktylos is a Senior Lecturer in European Politics at the Department of Politics at the University of Surrey. His research agenda includes research on the Europeanisation of foreign policy, politics of austerity in Europe, policy implementation and political trust, the rise of populism and the emergence of national stereotypes in the media. His work has appeared among others in the Journal of Common Market Studies and Policy Studies Journal. He is the coeditor (with C. M. Radaelli) of Research Methods in European Studies: Research Design in Europeanization (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012). He is also the co-chair of the ECPR Standing Group on Political Methodology.
Irene Fernández-Molina is Lecturer in Middle East Politics at the University of Exeter. Her research interests include foreign policy analysis and conflict analysis and resolution, with a particular focus on North Africa, plus EU foreign policy and Euro-Mediterranean relations. She worked previously as a research fellow at the European Neighbourhood Policy Chair of the College of Europe, Natolin campus (Warsaw) and at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. She is the author of Moroccan Foreign Policy under Mohammed VI, 1999–2014 (Routledge, 2015).
Sabine Freizer is Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council. She has 20 years of experience working on southeastern Europe and Eurasia, most
recently as the Europe Program Director for the International Crisis Group (ICG). She has also worked with the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Open Society Foundations. Sabine Freizer has a PhD from the London School of Economics and an MA from the College of Europe (Bruges). She writes and teaches extensively on the region.
Hiski Haukkala is Associate Professor of International Relations at the School of Management at the University of Tampere. He has worked as a Special Adviser in the Unit for Policy Planning and Research at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland and as a Researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs and the University of Turku. He is the author of numerous articles on EU foreign policy and he is the co-editor (with Maxine David and Jackie Gower) of National Perspectives on Russia: European Foreign Policy in the Making? (Routledge, 2013).
Anna Herranz-Surrallés is Assistant Professor in International Relations at Maastricht University. Her current research focuses on two main areas: EU external energy policy and the practices of legitimation and democratic control of foreign and security policy. Her research has appeared in journals such as West European Politics, Journal of Common Market Studies, Mediterranean Politics, Journal of European Public Policy and Cooperation and Conflict
Joanna Kaminska is Policy Advisor at the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the European Parliament. She is also a Research Associate at the Institute for European Studies at Vrije Universiteit Brussel (IES-VUB) and holds a PhD from the University of London, Royal Holloway College. Her last book published with Palgrave Macmillan in 2014 is entitled Poland and the EU Enlargement: Foreign Policy in Transformation.
Hrant Kostanyan is a Researcher at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) ‘Europe in the World’ unit. His research focuses on EU institutions and decision making, primarily on the European External Action Service (EEAS), the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and the EU’s relations with eastern neighbours and Russia. He has published extensively on EU decision making and external policies.
Kennet Lynggaard is Associate Professor in European Union Studies at the Department of Society and Globalisation, Roskilde University. His research interests focus on EU governance, research design in EU studies, Europeanisation, European integration and globalisation and symbols and myths in European integration. He has published among others in Journal of European Public Policy, West European Politics, New Political Economy,
Comparative European Politics, Journal of European Integration and Sociologia Ruralis. He is the co-editor (with I. Manners and K. Löfgren) of Research Methods in European Union Studies (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).
Patrick Müller is Ikerbasque Research Fellow at the University of the Basque Country. Prior to that, he was Assistant Professor at Vienna University (2009–2015) as well as a Post-doctoral Research Fellow at Johns Hopkins University (Washington), the French Institute for International Relations (Paris) and the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (Berlin). His research focuses on the foreign policy of the European Union (EU), Euro-Mediterranean relations, the Middle East conflict and the EU’s role in global governance.
Michał Natorski is Marie Curie Research Fellow at the Department of Political Science, University of Liège. His research interests are the political sociology of the foreign policy of the EU, social recognition in international politics and state-society relations in Eastern Europe. His articles have appeared in European Journal of International Relations, Journal of European Public Policy, Cooperation and Conflict, East European Politics and Journal of Politics and Language.
Guillaume Van der Loo is a Post-doctoral researcher (FWO) at the Ghent European Law Institute (GELI). His research activities focus on the legal dimension of the EU’s neighbourhood relations and the EU’s trade policy. He has published several articles and book chapters on the Association Agreements and Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas with the Eastern Partnership countries and on Russia’s WTO accession. He also is a researcher at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) in Brussels.
Peter Van Elsuwege is Professor in EU law at the Ghent European Law Institute (GELI) of Ghent University and Visiting Professor at the College of Europe (Natolin). His research activities essentially focus on the law of EU external relations and EU constitutional law. Specific attention is devoted to the legal framework of the relations between the European Union and its East European neighbours.
Agnieszka Weinar has a PhD in Political Science from the University of Warsaw. She works as Research Fellow at the European University Institute in Florence and prior to that as a policy officer responsible for the external dimension of EU migration policy at the European Commission DG HOME (JLS). Her research focuses on the international dimension of migration policies in Europe and globally.
l
ist of t A bles
Table 2.1 Assessment of the most-cited articles in ENP research based on the six trade-offs of causal analysis
Table 12.1 Evolution of the EU-sponsored energy initiatives in the ENP area (1990s–2010s)
Table 12.2 Modes of interaction in the energy domain
Table 13.1 Participation in the regional consultative processes across the EU’s neighbourhood
Table 13.2 Distribution of projects according to their policy focus implemented in Moldova within the mobility partnership, 2008–2014
The 2011 Revised European Neighbourhood Policy: Continuity and Change in EU Foreign Policy
Tobias Schumacher and Dimitris Bouris
INTRODUCTION
The EU’s relations with its eastern and southern neighbours have never attracted as much attention as in recent years. The outbreak of what was prematurely called the ‘Arab Spring’ in early 2011, the fall of supposedly consolidated autocratic regimes in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, the eruption and continuation of the civil war in Syria, the emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Daesh), the military coup of 3 July 2013 in Egypt leading to the ousting of the first ever democratically elected civilian Egyptian president, the Euromaidan revolution of 2013/2014 and the subsequent Russian annexation of the Crimea, followed by the emergence of territorial conflict between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian military and paramilitary forces in eastern parts of
T. Schumacher ()
College of Europe, Natolin campus (Warsaw, Poland)
e-mail: tobias.schumacher@coleurope.eu
D. Bouris
Department of Political Science, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
D. Bouris, T. Schumacher (eds.), The Revised European Neighbourhood Policy, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-47182-6_1
1
Ukraine, growing tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the deterioration of democratic standards and practices in Georgia, Moldova’s backsliding to corrupt and unresponsive (oligarchic) rule, unprecedented waves of human displacement—these are just some of the many dramatic developments in the EU’s neighbourhood that have recently emerged on the agenda of EU foreign-policy makers. In conjunction with the remnants of the financial and economic crisis, affecting both EU member states and European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) partner countries in the EU’s neighbourhood, and the persistence and re-emergence of ‘stubborn authoritarianism’, these developments have exposed the EU’s ENP to challenges unthinkable when it was originally launched in 2003. In parallel, EU membership of central and eastern European countries in 2004 and 2007, Croatia’s accession to the EU in 2013, the entering into force of the Lisbon Treaty and thus the creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS), have altered the EU and EU foreign policy making towards the neighbourhood from within.
Considering the ENP’s limited results as regards the ‘strengthening of stability, security, and well-being’ (Commission of the European Communities 2004: 3) in its eastern and southern neighbourhood, and taking into account the Arab uprisings in early 2011 (Zartman 2015), the EU responded to some of these developments by adopting on 25 May 2011 the ‘New Response to a Changing Neighbourhood’ which forms the core of what came to be known as the revised ENP (Tömmel 2013). It goes beyond the comparatively narrow focus of its predecessor on direct democracy promotion and is designed as a true ‘umbrella’ policy framework. Thus, what Lavenex remarked already some years ago, applies all the more to the revised ENP, as it truly represents ‘a roof over an expanding system of functional regional integration that moves at different speeds and with different dynamics in different policy fields’ (Lavenex 2008: 939). The revised ENP addresses—directly or indirectly—literally any policy and cooperation sector and reflects the EU’s more general ambition to play a role as a conflict resolution actor and transformation entrepreneur in its ‘near abroad’. This, however, is contradicted by (re-) nationalisation tendencies among EU member states—a trend that is reflected in the success of populist right-wing parties in national parliamentary elections in recent years and in the European Parliament elections of 25 May 2014— and a certain fatigue to get engaged in, and committed to, collective and potentially costly EU foreign-policy action in times of growing EU scepticism and austerity.
The revised ENP has been a function of these developments and, at least until mid-November 2015, when the European Commission and the EEAS presented yet another revised ENP, it was exposed to the dynamics of change occurring both inside the EU and even more so within the neighbourhood. These dynamics also led many students of EU foreign policy to push hitherto existing scholarly boundaries and go beyond the seemingly narrow preoccupation with analytically problematic normative power-related explanations (Cebeci 2012) of the foreign policy behaviour of an allegedly benevolent, civilising, postmodern and thus postWestphalian actor such as the EU (Caporaso 1996; Manners 2002, 2006, 2014; Diez and Manners 2014) during what some observers have coined the latest wave of EU external relations and foreign policies studies (Telò 2013: 4). As a consequence, and building upon the large body of literature on the diffusion of EU norms, mechanisms, rules and institutions, EU democracy support, EU external governance and identity construction in the neighbourhood (Sasse 2008; Schimmelfennig and Scholz 2008; Youngs 2008; Lavenex and Schimmelfennig 2009, 2011; Gawrich et al. 2010; Tonra 2010; Whitman and Wolff 2010; Wetzel and Orbie 2011; Börzel and Risse 2012; Freyburg 2012; Korosteleva 2012; Peters 2012; Nicolaïdis and Whitman 2013), recent scholarship on the many facets of the EU’s ENP has advanced further. For example, patterns of social practices between the EU and its neighbours and how these relations guide agents’ interactions in various policy fields are nowadays as much subject to academic scrutiny (Korosteleva et al. 2013) as are more fine-tuned and nuanced approaches to the linkage between transnational networks, socialisation and democratisation (Freyburg 2014), the interplay between democracy promotion and functional cooperation (Leininger et al. 2013), and how the former relates to the international linkages of ENP partner countries (Sasse 2013).
CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN RESEARCHING THE ENP
While these more general research trends represent both continuity and change, they have largely left untouched and, in fact, reinforced the overarching epistemological feature that has characterised by and large the study of the ENP for years: even though the ENP is a multi-faceted, multiregional and multi-sectorial umbrella framework, the analysis of which is bound to benefit considerably from interdisciplinary approaches, the de facto research agenda has been set and defined by, and implemented within
the (sub-)disciplinary social sciences, particularly by (western) scholars of International Relations, European studies and Comparative Politics. Arguably, such a dominion seems justifiable in view of the ENP being first and foremost an expression of EU foreign policy and thus subject to those disciplinary realms which, by nature of their focus, claim to possess the most adequate research tools and instruments for its analysis. That notwithstanding, this phenomenon has hitherto had repercussions for what are considered to be legitimate research objects in the first place and it legitimated certain approaches and research techniques over others. Also, whereas this process of constituting and re-constituting ENP-specific research themes and practices through just some disciplinary lenses has produced several admittedly valuable and rather rich strands of insights and findings, all too often these fell short of drawing from, and thus capitalising on, the expertise of other (sub-) disciplines. Put differently, these strands hardly transcend the disciplinary boundaries and engage with scholarly debates in other social science sub-disciplines or academic communities. All too often ENP-related research practices and designs suffer from few encounters of country- or region-specific expertise, the study of political economy, contemporary history, sociology, law or even social psychology on the one hand with EU foreign-policy scholarship on the other, even though noteworthy exceptions exist (Cremona and Hillion 2006; Joffé 2008; Koutrakos 2011; Van Vooren 2012; Freyburg 2014). Hence the temptation to sacrifice empirical relevance ‘on the altar of theoretical coherence’ (Basedau and Köllner 2007: 7) and the predominance of studies that adopt either an almost exclusive EU foreign policy analysis focus or discuss developments in (parts of) the EU’s neighbourhood quite detached from the former. As the late Susan Strange poignantly put it, though in a different context, this resembles ‘toy trains on separate tracks, travelling from different starting-points and ending at different (predetermined) destinations’ (Strange 1988: 16), and crossing each other’s paths only occasionally.
Most visibly, this intellectual divide is reflected in disciplinary scholarly journals and area journals with a specific geographical focus as these very rarely have the same contributors and address rather different readerships. One of the explanatory reasons for this problem, which goes much beyond the study of the ENP,1 is the disagreement about ‘what constitutes, or should constitute, the paradigm by which scholars construct knowledge about politics, economics, and international relations in major world regions’ (Tessler et al. 1999: vii). In this context, area studies expertise has been exposed to particularly strong critique on the grounds that
area or regional specialisation is often considered to be incompatible with theoretical inquiry, is characterised by a lack of rigour, ‘favours description over explanation, lacks analytical cumulativeness, and shows no interest in parsimony and generalization’ (ibid.: viii).
This volume does not subscribe to these claims. Instead, it is based on the understanding that real-world problems and the analysis thereof seldom respect the boundaries of a single academic (sub-) discipline. Therefore, it sets out to demonstrate that the mutually constitutive relationship between the revised ENP and the EU’s eastern and southern neighbours can be best understood through an integrative approach that allows for the incorporation of insights from different (sub-) disciplinary paradigms, thereby reducing the ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ dichotomy that is so often apparent in the study of the ENP and the EU’s neighbourhood. Moreover, it is embedded in Hill’s and Smith’s three perspectives on international relations and the EU. This means that it is a) anchored in an understanding of the EU as being a sub-system of international relations which, in order to generate external action, is engaged in processing internally occurring international relations of its member states, b) an integral part of the multi-facetted processes of cooperation and conflict in the international system, and is c) an actor in its own right that impacts on international structures and other actors through its foreign policy (in-) action and/or identity (Hill and Smith 2011: 8).
With these substantive considerations in mind, the aim of this volume is to map conceptually, methodologically and empirically issues related to EU foreign-policy making and implementation towards the EU’s neighbourhood from the adoption of the revised ENP in 2011 until the revised ENP was submitted to yet another review in mid-2015. It has a multi-dimensional focus in so far as it takes into account local and regional dynamics in the neighbourhood itself and how they impact on, and resonate with, EU foreign policy and thus the revised ENP. The key rationale of the volume is that the revised ENP is confronted with multi-faceted and highly volatile dynamics of internal and external change and that these changes need to be understood holistically and contrasted with elements representing continuity.
CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: CONCEPTUAL CONSIDERATIONS
As the pursuit of differently developed and institutionalised relations with partner countries in the EU’s eastern and southern neighbourhood has generated a Euro-neighbourhood area of sorts (Pardo and Zemer 2005),
which in a minimalist understanding is conceived of as the vertical and horizontal intensification of governmental and transnational interactions among the EU and its neighbours across issue-areas and policy fields, continuity and change are henceforth used as organizing principles destined to allow for a better understanding of the functioning of the revised ENP since its adoption in early 2011. Taking issue with the lack of scholarly consensus on what exactly is meant by change, and in order to avoid falling into the trap of simply assuming that the distinction between change and non-change, or continuity, in international relations is self-evident, in what follows some conceptual considerations are put forward with a view to frame the analysis of the revised ENP and to generate overarching research questions that will guide the chapters in this volume.
Arguably, the issue of change is either explicitly or implicitly at the heart of the academic study of international relations and EU foreign policy, respectively (Buzan and Jones 1981; Rosenau 1990; Buzan and Little 2000; Baylis et al. 2008; Bindi 2009; Youngs 2010; Smith et al. 2014), with some pessimistic (neo-realist) scholars arguing that recurrence is the predominant feature in world politics. On the macro level this is considered to be the case because of the impossibility of transcending the consequences of anarchy (Gilpin 1981; Waltz 2010) whereas on the micro level the human condition to copy and imitate established and proven actions, in conjunction with the desire to reduce uncertainties, can serve as explanation. This perspective stands in stark contrast to those who claim that ‘in any conception of the human condition, notions of change and continuity, and the tensions between them, are unavoidably a central focus’ (Rosenau 1990: 70) and that the fundamentals of international life have changed dramatically, in particular since the end of the Cold War (Fukuyama 1992). Their conclusion is, therefore, that the main conceptual categories of the past are no longer useful to capture, describe and analyse the complexity of today’s realities—a view that is best summarised by the general critique that ‘social scientists, in politics and economics especially, cling to obsolete concepts and inappropriate theories (and that these) theories belong to a more stable and orderly world than the one we live in’ (Strange 1996: 3). And yet others, as Holsti (1998: 2) points out, can be critiqued for not recognising continuity in change (Mearsheimer 1990), thus ignoring the possibility of a synchronic or sequential existence of both phenomena.
Regardless of their theoretical underpinnings, most of these discourses have in common that they do not provide at least tentative
answers to the question how in more analytical terms change can be distinguished from continuity; equally, they underperform with respect to acknowledging that the interpretation of change and continuity depends considerably on the ideological and time perspective from which they are assessed. Or, as Rosenau (1990: 69) put it, ‘where to look for change and how to appraise it’? In other words, different/differing worldviews, mindmaps and identities, as well as larger or smaller timeframes alter the assessment of change and continuity significantly and the same applies to the role and importance that is attributed to scope conditions, path dependencies, critical junctures (Collier and Collier 1991; Ruggie 1998; Wendt 1999) and the scope of change itself. It is in this light that it is particularly noteworthy to stress that a tendency is discernible, notably in times of crisis and uncertainty, to overrate the dynamics of change and their impact on actors, their cognitive (un) certainties (Natorski 2015), practices and interactions, and the system’s structures in which they operate, whereas in fact well-established social and political patterns and institutions often tend to resume once the signs of crisis subside. Conversely, the same goes for continuity, given that it is directly rooted in history and experiences with the past, the latter of which is either regarded positively—and even idealised—or negatively and thus serves as a reference point for lesson-drawing for future action and policies.
Apart from these habitual tendencies, the scholarly appraisal of both continuity and change is also linked to whether both phenomena are studied through inductive or deductive research lenses and whether they are regarded as material or ideational and thus socially constructed realities. Obviously, from a rationalist understanding both change and continuity can be clearly delineated as they represent ‘empirical’ realities where systemic structures, actors, their capabilities and resources are seen as material facts. In contrast, constructivist approaches assume that they are social facts whose meaning is contested simply because they are derived from inter-subjective knowledge and the interpreted nature of social reality. In this light social learning is possible, interests are not static and discursive horizons are fluid (Wendt 1999). In the context of the ENP, as stressed by Browning and Joeniemi (2008), the EU’s application of different geostrategies towards its (different) neighbours, resulting in rather different external images of the EU’s underlying geopolitical models which, conversely, feed back into which neighbourhood-related geostrategies were viewed by the EU as attractive (ibid.: 544).
This acknowledged dynamism in EU neighbourhood relations links up directly with the issue of continuity and change in general and EU foreign policy in particular and thus Rosenau’s question raised above. In fact, the latter does not only serve as a powerful reminder that still ‘no shared vocabulary exists in the literature to depict change and continuity’ (Ruggie 1993: 140). More importantly, it motivates this volume to undertake the study of the different dimensions of the revised ENP along some conceptions of change, all of which can serve as a minimum set of benchmarks and, by extension, as the cornerstones of a framework of analysis. Holsti’s work on the problem of change in International Relations theory is particularly insightful in this regard, given that he addresses the two intertwined, yet analytically rather different and distinguishable aspects of change that Rosenau hints at. These are the occurrence of change and the nature of change. Put differently, Holsti is interested in two questions: when does change take place and what type of change can be identified (Holsti 1998).
Regarding the first question, he distinguishes four broad markers of change—‘trends’, ‘great events’, ‘great achievements’ and ‘significant social/technological innovations’—while the question addressing the nature of change is answered with a reference to four types of change, namely ‘change as replacement’, ‘change as addition’, ‘dialectical change’ and ‘change as transformation’. From a short-term micro perspective certain developments or events might appear as (harbingers of) change— gradual or profound, slow or rapid—but are bound to adopt a rather different form and can even be considered signs of continuity once they are assessed from a more long-term macro perspective. Trends analysis, according to Holsti, offers a way out of this conceptual challenge as it traces change through quantitative alterations of common practices. By singling out a quantitative increase or decrease of a category of behaviour, of ‘social actions’, ‘competent performances’, or ‘routinized types of behaviour’ (Korosteleva et al. 2013: 259–260), over a defined period of time, trends represent and record one kind of change. While the mere identification of such alterations is important as such, as it diagnoses general directions and movements, an exclusive focus on quantities though is too narrow as it would not allow for the designation of meaning to them. Therefore, trends analysis always resonates with consequences and implications, both of which, strictly speaking, transform quantities into qualities. It is only because of this duality that trends are interpretative phenomena and socially recognised as such.
As is the case with ‘trends’, ‘great events’ (the second marker of change that Holsti identifies) rely considerably on the extent to which significant variations of the regular occur. However, in contrast to ‘trends’, they change mainly in a dramatic, spectacular or at least highly noteworthy fashion previously existing and rather seemingly fixed practices, institutions and structures. Such disruptions of the past, or of past behaviours, while often cataclysmic in scope and breadth, often mark the beginning and/ or end of an era or period and thus generate new patterns, which—over time—contribute to the demarcation of a new epoch and/or practices. For instance, the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the Cold War have ushered in a new era marked by multi-lateralism and cooperation with an emphasis on the rights and privileges of human rights and democratic principles. Or, as regards EU foreign policy, the EU’s eastern enlargement of 2004–2007 was decisive for the way the EU would henceforth relate to those countries and societies beyond its external borders that do not have a membership perspective. And yet, whether ‘great events’ are sources of cataclysmic change or just a result of other, previously occurring developments are ultimately subject to intersubjective choices and interpretations, not least due to the fluidity of historical contingency.
Holsti’s two remaining markers of change, ‘great achievements’ and ‘significant social/technological innovations’, are linked with one another as the former encompasses the latter. Moreover, both share with the other markers that there is little consensus on the consequences of ‘great achievements’ and ‘significant innovations’. While on the one hand both might generate new patterns of practices of difference and outlive their originators, it is equally possible that they produce just temporary or even ephemeral change, thus representing ‘merely momentary deviations from central tendencies’ (Gül 2009: 205).
This leads directly to the conceptions of change. Distinguishing them from one another is important for the theoretical implications that change may or may not produce, but it is also important with a view to differentiate different types of change as it is awareness and intersubjective understandings of the exact nature of change that have the potential to inform, substantiate and sustain practices and thus future policies destined to adjust to, and cope with, change. Undoubtedly, the most drastic type of change is best captured by what Holsti coins ‘change as replacement’. This type of change is deeply rooted in the notion of novelty and the understanding that new practices, new structures and new ideas replace old and thus previously existing conditions and that the new forms are
fundamentally different from what existed before. The more evolutionary alterations aggregate and are compressed, the more likely it is that ‘change as replacement’ will occur. This unorganic and rather eruptive view of change stands in contrast to ‘change as addition’, which is not as wideranging and radical as ‘change as replacement’. The reason is simply that it rests on the assumption that continuity and change—the old and the new—can occur and exist synchronically. Put differently: this conception conceives of change as a process which is additive and complementing. This is even more the case as far as ‘dialectical change’ is concerned—a conception that synthesises the aforementioned types. ‘Dialectical change’ makes use of the old in order to generate novelty, but stops short of total replacement. Instead, the old and the new—continuity and change—are in a mutually dependent relationship leading to cross-fertilisation and the production of increased complexity. The latter is a result of the possibility of the simultaneous occurrence/existence of mutually contradictory changes and signs of continuity and the absence of coherence—a condition that is much more prominent in the context of ‘change as addition’. Lastly, ‘change as transformation’ ‘can result from quantitative changes which, when accumulated over a period of time, bring new forms to life’ (Holsti 1998: 9). It unites elements of ‘change as replacement’ and ‘change as addition’ as transformation cannot come from nowhere or operate in a contextual vacuum. Yet, it differs from ‘change as replacement’ to the extent that it is an open-ended, target-oriented and rather evolutionary process that is primarily concerned with structural and functional adjustments to fluid environments and that does not necessarily affect the overall identity of the old. Thus, this type of change revolves considerably around sustainability and attempts to make functional and structural adjustments irreversible.
ONE NEIGHBOURHOOD OR SEVERAL?
Like its predecessor, the revised ENP continues to regard the 16 countries it reaches out to—Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus—as the constituting units of one space that is, according to the EU, marked by commonalities and similar, unifying political, economic and social challenges. In contrast to the ‘Wider Europe’ strategy of 2003, which spoke explicitly of proximity, prosperity and poverty as the three characteristics that define best the challenges and opportunities that
the 16 are confronted with (Commission of the European Communities 2003: 6), the ‘New Response’, underpinning the revised ENP, no longer refers to proximity as a uniting feature. Instead, it focuses on the absence of ‘deep and sustainable democracy’ (European Commission 2011a: 3) and places socio-economic challenges (for example, issues revolving around prosperity and poverty) at its centre, yet ignoring that, for example, Israel is already a consolidated democracy with a fully functioning market economy. On the one hand, this discursive discontinuity takes into account past critique pointing to the terminological inappropriateness, given the participation of the three South Caucasus countries in the ENP scheme, none of which can even be said to be geographically close to the EU or to share with it external land borders. On the other hand, while the disappearance of the term proximity might reflect discursive change, it does not offer greater clarity as regards the geographical and in fact geopolitical rationale (Aliboni 2005) that the revised ENP is based on. In other words, in the framework of the revised ENP the EU continues to stay silent as far as the elaboration and adoption of clear-cut selection criteria are concerned according to which non-EU member states are categorised as (potential) accession countries, as neighbours, or as ‘neighbours of the neighbours’ (Commission of the European Communities 2006: 11; Gstöhl and Lannon 2015). As a consequence, this practice, in conjunction with a politically motivated and incoherent interpretation of Article 49 Treaty of European Unity (TEU), has reinforced past tendencies to hold on to the reconstruction of an imagined Euro-neighbourhood space that is de facto characterised by fragmentation and heterogeneity and rooted in a culturally and linguistically highly disputed concept (Meloni 2008).
These tendencies have implications for the development of notions of ‘self’, ‘selfhood’, ‘other’, and ‘otherness’ (Diez 2005) to the extent that they largely left untouched the way the EU sees itself and thus the neighbours in this space. Moreover, in the revised ENP, the EU continues to place itself at the centre of relations and in doing so it feeds into notions of the ‘self’ and delineates the borders that separate the ‘self’ from ‘others’. This process is further substantiated by the maintenance of a giveand-take attitude that continues to inform the revised ENP and that does not take seriously the underlying principle of true neighbourly relations commonly characterised as exchanges of mutual, neighbourly favours. In this light it is argued that the revision process of the original ENP in the second half of 2010 reflects yet again the EU’s quite self-absorbed attitude and thus the fact that—like in 2002 when it developed the original
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
“In whom we have redemption through his blood;” “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree;” “Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood.”[327]
If, therefore, any day should be observed in memory of redemption, unquestionably the day of the crucifixion should have the preference. But it is needless to pursue this point further. Whether the day of the crucifixion or the day of the resurrection should be preferred is quite immaterial. The Holy Spirit has said nothing in behalf of either of these days, but it has taken care that the event in each case should have its own appropriate memorial. Would you commemorate the crucifixion of the Redeemer? You need not change the Sabbath to the crucifixion day. It would be a presumptuous sin in you to do this. Here is the divinely appointed memorial of the crucifixion:—
“The Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.”[328]
It is the death of the Redeemer, therefore, and not the day of his death that the Holy Spirit has thought worthy of commemoration. Would you also commemorate the resurrection of the Redeemer? You need not change the Sabbath of the Bible for that purpose. The great Law-giver has never authorized such an act. But an appropriate memorial of that event has been ordained:—
“Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are
buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.”[329]
To be buried in the watery grave as our Lord was buried in the tomb, and to be raised from the water to walk in newness of life, as our Lord was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, is the divinely authorized memorial of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And let it be observed, it is not the day of the resurrection, but the resurrection itself, that was thought worthy of commemoration. The events which lie at the foundation of redemption are the death, burial, and resurrection, of the Redeemer. Each of these has its appropriate memorial; while the days on which they severally occurred have no importance attached to them. It was the death of the Redeemer, and not the day of his death, that was worthy of commemoration; and hence the Lord’s supper was appointed for that purpose. It was the resurrection of the Saviour, and not the day of the resurrection, that was worthy of commemoration; and hence burial in baptism was ordained as its memorial. It is the change of this memorial to sprinkling that has furnished so plausible a plea for first-day observance in memory of the resurrection.
To celebrate the work of redemption by resting from labor on the first day of the week after six days of toil, it should be true that our Lord accomplished the work of human redemption in the six days prior to that of his resurrection, and that he rested on that day from the work, blessing it, and setting it apart for that reason. Yet not one of these particulars is true. Our Lord’s whole life was devoted to this work. He rested temporarily from it indeed over the Sabbath following his crucifixion, but resumed the work on the morning of the first day of the week, which he has never since relinquished, and never will, until its perfect accomplishment in the resurrection of the saints and the redemption of the purchased possession. Redemption, therefore, furnishes no plea for a change of the Sabbath; its own memorials being quite sufficient, without destroying
that of the great Creator And thus the third pillar in the temple of first-day sacredness, like the other parts of that structure which have been already examined, is found to be a thing of the imagination only.
A fourth pillar in this temple is taken from an ancient prophecy in which it is claimed that the Christian Sabbath was foretold:—
“The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.”[330]
This text is considered one of the strongest testimonies in support of the Christian Sabbath. Yet it is necessary to assume the very points that this text is supposed to prove. 1. It is assumed that the Saviour became the head of the corner by his resurrection. 2. That the day of his resurrection was made the Christian Sabbath in commemoration of that event. 3. And that this day thus ordained should be celebrated by abstinence from labor, and attendance upon divine worship.
To these extraordinary assumptions it is proper to reply: 1. There is no proof that Jesus became the head of the corner on the day of his resurrection. The Scriptures do not mark the day when this event took place. His being made head of the corner has reference to his becoming the chief corner stone of that spiritual temple composed of his people; in other words, it has reference to his becoming head of that living body, the saints of the Most High. It does not appear that he assumed this position until his ascension on high, where he became the chief corner stone in Zion above, elect and precious. [331] And hence there is no evidence that the first day of the week is even referred to in this text. 2. Nor is there the slightest evidence that that day or any other day was set apart as the Christian Sabbath in memory of Christ’s resurrection. 3. Nor can there well be found a more extraordinary assumption than that this text enjoins the Sabbatic observance of the first day of the week!
This scripture has manifest reference to the Saviour’s act of becoming the head of the New-Testament church; and consequently it pertains to the opening of the gospel dispensation. The day in which the people of God rejoice, in view of this relation to the Redeemer, can therefore be understood of no one day of the week; for they are commanded to “rejoice ;”[332] but of the whole period of the gospel dispensation. Our Lord uses the word day in the same manner when he says:—
“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad.”[333]
To assert the existence of what is termed the Christian Sabbath on the ground that this text is the prediction of such an institution, is to furnish a fourth pillar for the first-day temple quite as substantial as those already tested.
The seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy extends three and a half years beyond the death of the Redeemer, to the commencement of the great work for the Gentiles. This period of seven years through which we have been passing is the most eventful period in the history of the Sabbath. It embraces the whole history of the Lord of the Sabbath as connected with that institution: His miracles and teaching, by which it is affirmed that he weakened its authority; his death, at which many affirm that he abrogated it; and his resurrection, at which a still larger number declare that he changed it to the first day of the week. We have had the most ample evidence, however, that each of these positions is false; and that the opening of the great work for the Gentiles witnessed the Sabbath of the fourth commandment neither weakened, abrogated, nor changed.
CHAPTER XI.
THE SABBATH DURING THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLES.
The knowledge of God preserved in the family of Abraham The call of the Gentiles The new covenant puts the law of God into the heart of each Christian The new covenant has a temple in Heaven; and an ark containing the great original of that law which was in the ark upon earth And before that ark a priest whose offering can take away sin The Old and New Testaments compared The human family in all ages amenable to the law of God The good olive tree shows the intimate relation between the church of the New Testament and the Hebrew church—The apostolic church observed the Sabbath— Examination of Acts 13 The assembly of the apostles at Jerusalem Sabbatarian origin of the church at Philippi Of the church of the Thessalonians Of the church of Corinth The churches in Judea and in many cases among the Gentiles began with Sabbath-keepers Examination of 1 Cor. 16:1, 2 Self-contradiction of Dr. Edwards Paul at Troas Examination of Rom. 14:1-6 Flight of the disciples from Judea The Sabbath of the Bible at the close of the first century.
We have now traced the Sabbath through the period of its especial connection with the family of Abraham. The termination of the seventy weeks brings us to the call of the Gentiles, and to their admission to equal privileges with the Hebrew race. We have seen that with God there was no injustice in conferring especial blessings upon the Hebrews, and at the same time leaving the Gentiles to their own chosen ways.[334] Twice had he given the human family, as a whole, the most ample means of grace that their age of the world admitted, and each time did it result in the almost total apostasy of mankind. Then God selected as his heritage the family of Abraham, his friend; and by means of that family preserved in the earth the knowledge of his law, his Sabbath, and himself, until the coming of the great Messiah. During his ministry, the Messiah solemnly affirmed the perpetuity of his Father’s law, enjoining obedience, even to its least commandment;[335] at his death he broke down that middle wall of partition[336] by which the Hebrews had so long been preserved a separate people in the earth; and when about to ascend
into Heaven commanded his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature; teaching them to observe all things which he had commanded them.[337] With the expiration of the seventieth week, the apostles enter upon the execution of this great commission to the Gentiles.[338] Several facts of deep interest should here be noticed:—
1. The new covenant or testament dates from the death of the Redeemer. In accordance with the prediction of Jeremiah, it began with the Hebrews alone, and was confined exclusively to them until the expiration of the seventieth week. Then the Gentiles were admitted to a full participation with the Hebrews in its blessings, being no longer aliens and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints.[339] God entered into covenant this time with his people as individuals and not as a nation. The promises of this covenant embrace two points of great interest: (1) That God will put his law into the hearts of his people. (2) That he will forgive their sins. These promises being made six hundred years before the birth of Christ, there can be no question relative to what was meant by the law of God. It was the law of God then in existence that should be put into the heart of each new-covenant saint. The new covenant, then, is based upon the perpetuity of the law of God; it does not abrogate that law, but takes away sin, the transgression of the law, from the heart, and puts the law of God in its place.[340] The perpetuity of each precept of the moral law lies, therefore, at the very foundation of the new covenant.
2. As the first covenant had a sanctuary, and within that sanctuary an ark containing the law of God in ten commandments,[341] and had also a priesthood to minister before that ark, to make atonement for the sins of men,[342] even thus is it with the new covenant. Instead of the tabernacle erected by Moses as the pattern of the true, the new covenant has the greater and more perfect tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man—the temple of God in Heaven.[343] As the great central point in the earthly sanctuary was the ark containing that law which man had broken, even thus it is with the heavenly sanctuary “The temple of God was opened in Heaven, and there
was seen in his temple the ark of his testament.”[344] Our Lord Jesus Christ as a great High Priest presents his own blood before the ark of God’s testament in the temple in Heaven. Respecting this object before which he ministers, let the following points be noted:—
1. The ark in the heavenly temple is not empty; it contains the testament of God; and hence it is the great center of the sanctuary above, as the ark of God’s testament was the center of the sanctuary on earth.[345]
2. The death of the Redeemer for the sins of men, and his work as High Priest before the ark in Heaven, have direct reference to the fact that within that ark is the law which mankind have broken.
3. As the atonement and priesthood of Christ have reference to the law within that ark before which he ministers, it follows that this law existed and was transgressed before the Saviour came down to die for men.
4. And hence, the law contained in the ark above is not a law which originated in the New Testament; for it necessarily existed long anterior to it.
5. If, therefore, God has revealed this law to mankind, that revelation must be sought in the Old Testament. For while the New Testament makes many references to that law which caused the Saviour to lay down his life for sinful men, and even quotes from it, it never publishes a second edition, but cites us to the Old Testament for the original code.[346]
6. It follows, therefore, that this law is revealed, and that this revelation is to be found in the Old Testament.
7. In that volume will be found, (1) The descent of the Holy One upon Mount Sinai; (2) The proclamation of his law in ten commandments; (3) The ten commandments written by the finger of God upon two tables of stone; (4) These tables placed beneath the mercy-seat in the ark of the earthly sanctuary.[347]
8. That this remarkable Old-Testament law which was shut up in the ark of the earthly sanctuary was identical with that in the ark in
Heaven, may be thus shown: (1) The mercy-seat which was placed over the ten commandments was the place from which pardon was expected, the great central point in the work of atonement;[348] (2) The law beneath the mercy-seat was that which made the work of atonement necessary; (3) There was no atonement that could take away sins; it was only a shadowy or typical atonement; (4) But there was actual sin, and hence a real law which man had broken; (5) There must therefore be an atonement that can take away sins; and that real atonement must pertain to that law which was broken, and respecting which an atonement had been shadowed forth.[349] (6) The ten commandments are thus set forth in the Old Testament as that law which demanded an atonement; while the fact is ever kept in view that those sacrifices there provided could not avail to take away sins.[350] (7) But the death of Jesus as the antitype of those sacrifices, was designed to accomplish precisely what they shadowed forth, but which they could not effect, viz., to make atonement for the transgression of that law which was placed in the ark beneath the mercy-seat.[351]
We are thus brought to the conclusion that the law of God contained in the ark in Heaven is identical with that law which was contained in the ark upon earth; and that both are identical with that law which the new covenant puts in the heart of each believer.[352] The Old Testament, therefore, gives us the law of God and pronounces it perfect; it also provides a typical atonement, but pronounces it inadequate to take away sins.[353] Hence what was needed was not a new edition of the law of God; for that which was given already was perfect; but a real atonement to take away the guilt of the transgressor. So the New Testament responds precisely to this want, providing a real atonement in the death and intercession of the Redeemer, but giving no new edition of the law of God,[354] though it fails not to cite us to the perfect code given long before. But although the New Testament does not give a new edition of the law of God, it does show that the Christian dispensation has the great original of that law in the sanctuary in Heaven.
9. We have seen that the new covenant places the law of God in the heart of each believer, and that the original of that law is preserved in the temple in Heaven. That all mankind are amenable to the law of God, and that they ever have been, is clearly shown by Paul’s epistle to the Romans. In the first chapter, he traces the origin of idolatry to the willful apostasy of the Gentiles, which took place soon after the flood. In the second chapter, he shows that although God gave them up to their own ways, and as a consequence left them without his written law, yet they were not left in utter darkness; for they had by nature the work of the law written in their hearts; and dim as was this light, their salvation would be secured by living up to it, or their ruin accomplished by sinning against it. In the third chapter, he shows what advantage the family of Abraham had in being taken as the heritage of God, while all other nations were left to their own ways. It was that the oracles of God, the written law, was given them in addition to that work of the law written in the heart, which they had by nature in common with the Gentiles. He then shows that they were no better than the Gentiles, because that both classes were transgressors of the law. This he proves by quotations from the Old Testament. Then he shows that the law of God has jurisdiction over all mankind:—
“Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.”[355]
He then shows that the law cannot save the guilty, but must condemn them, and that justly. Next, he reveals the great fact that redemption through the death of Jesus is the only means by which God can justify those who seek pardon, and at the same time remain just himself. And finally he exclaims:—
“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.”[356]
It follows, therefore, that the law of God is unabolished; that the sentence of condemnation which it pronounces upon the guilty is as extensive as is the offer of pardon through the gospel; that its work exists in the hearts of men by nature; from which we may conclude that man in his uprightness possessed it in perfection, as is further proved by the fact that the new covenant, after delivering men from the condemnation of the law of God, puts that law perfectly into their hearts. From all of which it follows that the law of God is the great standard by which sin is shown,[357] and hence the rule of life, by which all mankind, both Jews and Gentiles, should walk.
That the church in the present dispensation is really a continuation of the ancient Hebrew church, is shown by the illustration of the good olive tree. That ancient church was God’s olive tree, and that olive tree has never been destroyed.[358] Because of unbelief, some of its branches were broken off; but the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles does not create a new olive tree; it only grafts into the good olive tree such of the Gentiles as believe; giving them a place among the original branches, that with them they may partake of its root and fatness. This olive tree must date from the call of Abraham after the apostasy of the Gentiles; its trunk representing the patriarchs, beginning with the father of the faithful;[359] its branches, the Hebrew people. The ingrafting of the wild olive into the place of those branches which were broken off, represents the admission of the Gentiles to equal privileges with the Hebrews after the expiration of the seventy weeks. The Old-Testament church, the original olive tree, was a kingdom of priests and an holy nation; the NewTestament church, the olive tree after the ingrafting of the Gentiles, is described in the same terms.[360]
When God gave up the Gentiles to apostasy before the call of Abraham, he confounded their language, that they should not understand one another, and thus scattered them abroad upon the face of the earth. Standing over against this is the gift of tongues on the day of Pentecost, preparatory to the call of the Gentiles, and their ingrafting into the good olive tree.[361]
We have followed the Sabbath to the call of the Gentiles, and the opening events of the gospel dispensation. We find the law of God, of which the Sabbath is a part, to be that which made our Lord’s death as an atoning sacrifice necessary; and that the great original of that law is in the ark above, before which our Lord ministers as high priest; while a copy of that law is by the new covenant written within the heart of each believer. It is seen, therefore, that the law of God is more intimately connected with the people of God since the death of the Redeemer than before that event.
That the apostolic church did sacredly regard the Sabbath, as well as all the other precepts of the moral law, admits of no doubt. The fact is proved, not merely because the early Christians were not accused of its violation by their most inveterate enemies; nor wholly by the fact that they held sin to be the transgression of the law, and that the law was the great standard by which sin is shown, and that by which sin becomes exceeding sinful.[362] These points are certainly very decisive evidence that the apostolic church did keep the fourth commandment. The testimony of James relative to the ten commandments, that he who violates one of them becomes guilty of all, is yet another strong evidence that the primitive church did sacredly regard the whole law of God.[363] But besides these facts we have a peculiar guaranty that the Sabbath of the Lord was not forgotten by the apostolic church. The prayer which our Lord taught his disciples, that their flight from Judea should not be upon the Sabbath was, as we have seen, designed to impress its sacredness deeply upon their minds, and could not but have secured that result. [364] In the history of the primitive church we have several important references to the Sabbath. The first of these is as follows:—
“But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down.”[365]
By invitation of the rulers of the synagogue, Paul delivered an extended address, proving that Jesus was the Christ. In the course
of these remarks he used the following language:—
“For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.”[366]
When Paul’s discourse was concluded, we read:—
“And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.[367] Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.”[368]
These texts show, 1. That by the term Sabbath in the book of Acts is meant that day on which the Jewish people assembled in the synagogue to listen to the voices of the prophets. 2. That as this discourse was fourteen years after the resurrection of Christ, and the record of it by Luke was some thirty years after that event, it follows that the alleged change of the Sabbath at the resurrection of Christ had not, even after many years, come to the knowledge of either Luke or Paul. 3. That here was a remarkable opportunity to mention the change of the Sabbath, had it been true that the Sabbath had been changed in honor of Christ’s resurrection. For when Paul was asked to preach the same words the next Sabbath, he might have answered that the following day was now the proper day for divine worship. And Luke, in placing this incident upon record, could not well avoid the mention of this new day, had it been true that another day had become the Sabbath of the Lord. 4. That as this second meeting pertained almost wholly to Gentiles, it cannot be said in this case that Paul preached upon the Sabbath out of regard to the Jews.
On the contrary, the narrative strongly indicates Paul’s regard for the Sabbath as the proper day for divine worship. 5. Nor can it be denied that the Sabbath was well understood by the Gentiles in this city, and that they had some degree of regard for it, a fact which will be corroborated by other texts.
Several years after these things, the apostles assembled at Jerusalem to consider the question of circumcision.[369] “Certain men which came down from Judea,” finding the Gentiles uncircumcised, had “taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye cannot be saved.” Had they found the Gentiles neglecting the Sabbath; unquestionably this would have first called out their rebuke. It is indeed worthy of notice that no dispute at this time existed in the church relative to the observance of the Sabbath; for none was brought before this apostolic assembly. Yet had it been true that the change of the Sabbath was then advocated, or that Paul had taught the Gentiles to neglect the Sabbath, without doubt those who brought up the question of circumcision would have urged that of the Sabbath with even greater earnestness. That the law of Moses, the observance of which was under discussion in this assembly, is not the ten commandments, is evident from several decisive facts. 1. Because that Peter calls the code under consideration a yoke which neither their fathers nor themselves were able to bear. But James expressly calls that royal law, which, on his own showing, embodies the ten commandments, a law of liberty 2. Because that this assembly did decide against the authority of the law of Moses; and yet James, who was a member of this body, did some years afterward solemnly enjoin obedience to the commandments, affirming that he who violated one was guilty of all.[370] 3. Because the chief feature in the law of Moses as here presented was circumcision.[371] But circumcision was not in the ten commandments; and were it true that the law of Moses includes these commandments, circumcision would not in that case be a chief feature of that law. 4. Finally, because that the precepts still declared obligatory are not properly either of the ten commandments. These were, first, the prohibition of meats offered to idols; second, of blood; third, of things strangled; and fourth, of
fornication.[372] Each of these precepts may be often found in the books of Moses,[373] and the first and last ones come under the second and seventh commandments respectively; but neither of these cover but a part of that which is forbidden in either commandment. It is evident, therefore, that the authority of the ten commandments was not under consideration in this assembly, and that the decision of that assembly had no relation to those precepts. For otherwise the apostles released the Gentiles from all obligation to eight of the ten commandments, and from the greater prohibitions contained in the other two.
It is evident that those greatly err who represent the Gentiles as released from the obligation of the Sabbath by this assembly. The question did not come before the apostles on this occasion; a strong proof that the Gentiles had not been taught to neglect the Sabbath, as they had to omit circumcision, which was the occasion of its being brought before the apostles at Jerusalem. Yet the Sabbath was referred to in this very assembly as an existing institution, and that, too, in connection with the Gentile Christians. Thus when James pronounced sentence upon the question, he used the following language:—
“Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God; but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.”[374]
This last fact is given by James as a reason for the course proposed toward the brethren among the Gentiles. “For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.” From this it is apparent that the ancient custom of divine worship upon the Sabbath was not only preserved by the Jewish people and carried with them into every city of the Gentiles, but that the Gentile Christians did attend these meetings. Otherwise the reason assigned by James would lose all its
force, as having no application to this case. That they did attend them strongly attests the Sabbath as the day of divine worship with the Gentile churches.
That the ancient Sabbath of the Lord had neither been abrogated nor changed prior to this meeting of the apostles, is strongly attested by the nature of the dispute here adjusted. And the close of their assembly beheld the Bible Sabbath still sacredly enthroned within the citadel of the fourth commandment. After this, in a vision of the night, Paul was called to visit Macedonia. In obedience to this call he came to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia. Thus Luke records the visit:—
“And we were in that city abiding certain days. And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshiped God, heard us; whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.”[375]
This does not appear to have been a gathering of Jews, but of Gentiles, who, like Cornelius, were worshipers of the true God. Thus it is seen that the church of the Philippians originated with a pious assembly of Sabbath-keeping Gentiles. And it is likely that Lydia and those employed by her in business, who were evidently observers of the Sabbath, were the means of introducing the gospel into their own city of Thyatira.
“Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul, as his manner was,[376] went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.... And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.”[377]
Such was the origin of the Thessalonian church. That it was an assembly of Sabbath-keepers at its beginning admits of no doubt. For besides the few Jews who received the gospel through the labors of Paul, there was a great multitude of devout Greeks; that is, of Gentiles who had united themselves with the Jews in the worship of God upon the Sabbath. We have a strong proof of the fact that they continued to observe the Sabbath after their reception of the gospel in the following words of Paul addressed to them as a church of Christ:—
“For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus.”[378]
The churches in Judea, as we have seen, were observers of the Sabbath of the Lord. The first Thessalonian converts, before they received the gospel, were Sabbath-keepers, and when they became a Christian church they adopted the churches in Judea as their proper examples. And this church was adopted as an example by the churches of Macedonia and Achaia. In this number were included the churches of Philippi and of Corinth. Thus writes Paul:—
“And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost; so that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia. For from you sounded out the word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to Godward is spread abroad.”[379]
After these things, Paul came to Corinth. Here, he first found Aquila and Priscilla.
“And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them and wrought; for by their occupation they were tentmakers. And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.”[380]
At this place also Paul found Gentiles as well as Jews in attendance upon the worship of God on the Sabbath. The first members of the church at Corinth were therefore observers of the Sabbath at the time when they received the gospel; and, as we have seen, they adopted as their pattern the Sabbath-keeping church of Thessalonica, who in turn patterned after the churches in Judea.
The first churches were founded in the land of Judea. All their members had from childhood been familiar with the law of God, and well understood the precept, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” Besides this precept, all these churches had a peculiar memento of the Sabbath. They knew from our Lord himself that the time was coming when they must all suddenly flee from that land. And in view of this fact, they were to pray that the moment of their sudden flight might not be upon the Sabbath; a prayer which was designed, as we have seen, to preserve the sacredness of the Sabbath. That the churches in Judea were composed of Sabbathkeeping members, admits therefore of no doubt.
Of the churches founded outside the land of Judea, whose origin is given in the book of Acts, nearly all began with Jewish converts. These were Sabbath-keepers when they received the gospel. Among these, the Gentile converts were engrafted. And it is worthy of notice that in a large number of cases, those Gentiles are termed “devout Greeks,” “religious proselytes,” persons that “worshiped God,” that feared God and that “prayed to God alway.”[381] These Gentiles, at the time of their conversion to the gospel, were, as we have seen, worshipers of God upon the Sabbath with the Jewish people. When James had proposed the kind of letter that should be addressed by the apostles to the Gentile converts, he assigned a reason for its adoption, the force of which can now be appreciated: “For Moses,” said he, “of old time hath in them that preach him, being read in the synagogue every Sabbath day.” The Sabbatarian character of the apostolic churches is thus clearly shown.
In a letter addressed to the Corinthians, about five years after they had received the gospel, Paul is supposed to contribute a fifth pillar to the first-day temple. Thus he wrote them:—
“Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.”[382]
From this text it is argued in behalf of the first-day Sabbath, 1. That this was a public collection. 2. That hence the first day of the week was the day of public worship in the churches of Corinth and Galatia. 3. And therefore that the Sabbath had been changed to that day. Thus the change of the Sabbath is inferred from the public assemblies for divine worship on the first day at Corinth and Galatia; and the existence of these assemblies on that day is inferred from the words of Paul, “Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store.”
What, then, do these words ordain? But one answer can be returned: They ordain precisely the reverse of a public collection. Each one should lay by himself on each first day of the week according as God had prospered him, that when Paul should arrive, they might have their bounty ready. Mr. J. W. Morton, late Presbyterian missionary to Hayti, bears the following testimony:—
“The whole question turns upon the meaning of the expression, ‘by him;’ and I marvel greatly how you can imagine that it means ‘in the collection box of the congregation.’ Greenfield, in his Lexicon, translates the Greek term, ‘With one’s self, i. e., at home.’ Two Latin versions, the Vulgate and that of Castellio, render it, ‘apud se,’ with one’s self; at home. Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, and De Sacy, ‘chez soi,’ at his own house; at home. The German of Luther, ‘bei sich selbst,’ by himself; at home. The Dutch, ‘by hemselven,’ same as the German. The Italian of Diodati, ‘appresso di se,’ in his own presence; at home. The Spanish of Felippe Scio, ‘en su casa,’ in his own house. The Portuguese of Ferreira, ‘para isso,’ with himself. The Swedish, ‘nær sig self,’ near himself.”[383]
Dr Bloomfield thus comments on the original: “παρ ἑαυτῶ, ‘by him.’ French, chez lui, ‘at home.’”[384]
The Douay Bible reads: “Let every one of you put apart with himself.” Mr. Sawyer thus translates: “Let each one of you lay aside by himself.” Theodore Beza’s Latin version has it: “Apud se,” i.e., at home. The Syriac reads thus: “Let every one of you lay aside and preserve at home.”
It is true that an eminent first-day writer, Justin Edwards, D. D., in a labored effort to prove the change of the Sabbath, brings forward this text to show that Sunday was the day of religious worship with the early church. Thus he says:—
“This laying by in store was laying by ; for that would not prevent gatherings when he should come.”[385]
Such is his language as a theologian upon whom has fallen the difficult task of proving the change of the Sabbath by the authority of the Scriptures. But in his Notes on the New Testament, in which he feels at liberty to speak the truth, he thus squarely contradicts his own language already quoted. Thus he comments on this text:—
“Lay by him in store; . That there be no gatherings; that their gifts might be ready when the apostle should come.”[386]
Thus even Dr. Edwards confesses that the idea of a public collection is not found in this scripture. On the contrary, it appears that each individual, in obedience to this precept, would, at the opening of each new week, be found laying aside something for the cause of God, according as his worldly affairs would warrant. The change of the Sabbath, as proved by this text, rests wholly upon an idea which Dr Edwards confesses is not found in it. We have seen that the church at Corinth was a Sabbath-
keeping church It is evident that the change of the Sabbath could never have been suggested to them by this text.
This is the only scripture in which Paul even mentions the first day of the week. It was written nearly thirty years after the alleged change of the Sabbath. Yet Paul omits all titles of sacredness, simply designating it as first day of the week; a name to which it was entitled as one of “the six working days.”[387] It is also worthy of notice that this is the only precept in the Bible in which the first day is even named; and that this precept says nothing relative to the sacredness of the day to which it pertains; even the duty which it enjoins being more appropriate to a secular than to a sacred day.
Soon after writing his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul visited Troas. In the record of this visit occurs the last instance in which the first day of the week is mentioned in the New Testament:—
“And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; [388] where we abode seven days. And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep; and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted. And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul; for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot.”[389]
