Covenant Theology (CT)

Transcription

1 Covenant Theology (CT) I. Definition A. Covenant theology is a system of interpreting the Scriptures on the basis of two covenants: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. Some covenant theologians specify three covenants: works, redemption, and grace (Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, 503). B. Some Covenant theologians only see two covenants the covenant of works and covenant of grace. O. Palmer Robertson, for example does not believe there is enough evidence to conclude that there was a pre-creation covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son (O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, 54). II. Key Elements of CT > According to VanGemeren, CT is based on four interrelated concepts (VanGemeren, Continuity and Discontinuity, 43-44). A. The eternal covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son. B. The federal headship of Adam. C. The unity of the covenant of grace. D. Justification by faith. III. The Covenants of CT A. The Covenant of Works 1. Westminster Confession: The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. 2. Thus, this covenant of works was made with Adam before the Fall. According to M. E. Osterhaven, the covenant of works consisted of three things: (1) a promise of eternal life upon the condition of perfect obedience throughout a probationary period; (2) the threat of death upon disobedience; and (3) the sacrament of the tree of life. (M. E. Osterhaven, Covenant Theology, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 279). p.1

2 B. The Covenant of Grace 1. According to CT, Adam, the federal head of the human race, failed the covenant of works. As a result, God then instituted another covenant the covenant of grace. This allegedly is a covenant made between God and the elect after the Fall in which salvation is given to those who trust in Christ by faith. 2. Westminster Confession of Faith: Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe. 3. For Covenant theologians, this covenant of grace is believed to be manifested in the other covenants of Scripture such as the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New covenants (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 279). Thus, there is significant continuity between the covenants of Scripture since they are all outworkings of the alleged covenant of grace. C. The Covenant of Redemption 1. Many Covenant theologians affirm a third covenant the covenant of redemption. This is a covenant that supposedly took place in eternity past between the members of the Trinity. Louis Berkhof, The covenant of redemption may be defined as the agreement between the Father, giving the Son as Head and Redeemer of the elect, and the Son, voluntarily taking the place of those whom the Father had given Him (Berkhof, 271). 2. Osterhaven: [C]ovenant theology affirms that God the Father and God the Son covenanted together for the redemption of the human race (Osterhaven, Covenant Theology, 280). 3. According to CT, the Father commissioned the Son to be the Savior, and the Son accepted the commission, agreeing to fulfill all righteousness by obeying the law of God. IV. Other Beliefs of CT A. Covenant theologians traditionally have affirmed Reformed Theology. Thus, they hold to a high view of God and Scripture. B. One important hermeneutical belief of CT is its view of NT priority over the OT in which the NT is viewed as having logical priority over the OT. This means that the NT is viewed as the interpreter and even reinterpreter of the OT. For CT, the OT-NT p.2

3 relationship is often described as one of type-antitype and shadow-reality in which the new supersedes the old. A major implication of this type-antitype understanding of the testaments is the assertion that the nation Israel was a type that has given way to the superior anti-type the Christian church composed of both Jews and Gentiles. Thus, according to CT, the true Israel is now the church and the promises to Israel about a land and a temple find a spiritual fulfillment in the church. C. Parts of the Mosaic Law are in effect today. > VanGemeren: The ceremonial laws, civil laws, and the penal code have been abrogated, and the moral law has received further clarification in the person and teaching of Jesus Christ ( The Law is the Perfection of Righteousness in Jesus Christ, The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian: Five Views, 37). D. Christ is currently ruling His kingdom from David s throne. E. CT does not necessarily lead to any one particular view of the millennium. 1. Covenant Amillennialism: The present age between the two comings of Christ is the millennial kingdom. When Christ returns there will be a general judgment and resurrection followed by the new heavens and new earth. 2. Covenant Postmillennialism: The spread and progress of the gospel during the present age brings in the kingdom of God (millennium). Thus, there is a golden era of righteousness before the return of Christ. When Christ returns there will be a general judgment and resurrection followed by the new heavens and new earth. 3. Covenant Premillennialism: There is a sense in which the Davidic kingdom of God is operative during the present era. But there will also be a millennial reign of Christ over the earth immediately after His second coming. V. History of CT A. Historically, CT was birthed out of the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, particularly from those in the Reformed tradition. B. CT itself is generally to be identified with the Reformed tradition. While CT and Reformed Theology are not synonymous, it appears that most Covenant theologians affirm Reformed Theology. C. Some of the Reformers, Ulrich Zwingli especially, began to emphasize the importance of covenant in the plan of God. Some consider Caspar Olevianus ( ) to be the founder of the system, though he was more of a middle-man in the development. German theologians involved in the development of CT include Heinrich Bullinger ( ), Wolfgang Musculus ( ), and Zacharias Ursinus ( ). In the early 17 th century, the system of CT began to take shape. CT found a mature p.3

4 form in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646 which is often viewed as a primary expression of CT. D. CT came to America via the Puritans and the writings of Francis Turretin and John Cotton. E. CT is not that much older than its competing school Dispensationalism. CT began in the 17 th century while Dispensationalism began in the mid-19 th century. VI. Critique of CT A. It is debatable whether the concept of covenant is the theme by which Scripture should be interpreted. Certainly, the concept of covenant is important but so too are the concepts of kingdom, God s glory, and salvation. To claim that covenant is the overwhelming framework by which we understand the Bible is unwarranted. B. The covenants of CT, which are claimed to be the framework for understanding the Scripture, do not find support in Scripture. Thus, CT is flawed at its foundation since it argues for foundational covenants that really don t find biblical support. 1. Is there a covenant of works? a. Commenting on the covenant of works Charles Hodge states, This statement does not rest upon any express declaration of the Scriptures (Systematic Theology, 2:117). b. James Orr: It is impossible, e.g., to justify by Scriptural proof the detailed elaboration of the idea of a covenant of works in Eden (The Progress of Dogma, ). c. Grudem (Systematic Theology, 516): Some have questioned whether it is appropriate to speak of a covenant of works that God had with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The actual word covenant is not used in the Genesis narratives. However, the essential parts of the covenant are all there a clear definition of the parties involved, a legally binding set of provisions that stipulates the conditions of their relationship, the promise of blessings for obedience, and the condition for obtaining those blessings. d. Grudem: Hosea 6:7, in referring to the sins of Israel, says, But like Adam they transgressed the covenant (ESV). This passage views Adam as existing in a covenant relationship that he then transgressed in the Garden of Eden. covenant 1) KJV / NKJV: But like men they transgressed the p.4

5 2) like Adam (~d"a'k.): Adam is a singular noun that can mean: (1) collective singular man or mankind ; (2) proper name Adam ; (3) proper location at Adam, referring to a city in the Jordan Valley (Jos 3:16). 3) BDB 9 s.v. ~d"a' 2 suggests the collective sense man / mankind here in Hos 6:7, referring to sinful men (Nu 5:6; 1Ki 8:46; 2Ch 6:36; Jer 10:14; Job 31:33; etc.). KJV and NKJV translate like men ; NASB, ESV, NIV like Adam ; RSV, NRSV at Adam. 4) The exact phrase like Adam (~d"a'k.) refers to evil mankind in all of the other occurrences (Job 31:33; Ps 82:7). 5) Grudem: The word translated Adam (~d"a') can also be translated man, but the statement would make little sense: there is no single wellknown transgression of a covenant by man to which it could refer. Moreover, it would do little good to compare the Israelites to what they already are (that is, men) and say that they like man broke the covenant. Such a sentence would almost imply that the Israelites were not men, but some other kind of creature. For these reasons, the translation like Adam is to be preferred. (The identical Hebrew expression is translated like Adam in Job 31:33 in the NASB, RSV margin, and NIV margin.) 6) Robert Vasholz (Covenant Theological Seminary) in ESV Study Bible on Hos 6:7: virtually certain that the covenant in view is the Mosaic covenant. The hard issue is: to whom or to what does Adam refer? Many commentators suggest a geographical locality. The difficulty is that there is no record of covenant breaking at a place called Adam (Jos 3:16), and it requires a questionable taking of the preposition like (Hb. ke-) to mean at or in. There represents the act wherein Israel was unfaithful to the covenant (cp. Hos 5:7; 6:10). Mankind is another suggestion for Adam, but that would be a vague statement with no known event indicated, and therefore it would not clarify the sentence. It is best to understand Adam as the name of the first man; thus Israel is like Adam, who forgot his covenant obligation to love the Lord, breaking the covenant God made with him (Ge 2:16-17; 3:17). This also implies that there was a covenant relationship between God and Adam, the terms of which were defined in God s words to Adam, though the actual word covenant is not used in Genesis 1-3. e. Theological Reasoning Grudem: Romans 5:12-21 Paul sees both Adam and Christ as heads of a people whom they represent, something that would be entirely consistent with the idea of Adam being in a covenant before the fall. 2. Is there a covenant of grace? a. Passages used to support a covenant of grace include Ge 3:15; Jer 31:31-34; and Heb 8. p.5

6 b. But, it must be asked, where is covenant of grace revealed in the Bible? (Jon Zens, Is There a Covenant of Grace? ) c. Nevertheless, it now seems clear that a mistake has been made in speaking of this purpose as the Covenant of Grace. We may agree in asserting the unity of God s purpose through the ages, but the selection of the word covenant to describe this unity has lent itself to important misunderstanding (Tom Wells and Fred G. Zaspel, New Covenant Theology: Description, Definition, Defense, 45). 3. Is there a covenant of redemption? a. Grudem lists the following passages as support for a covenant of redemption: Jn 3:16; 17:2,6; Ro 5:18-19; Col 2:9; Heb 10:5; and Mt 28:18 (Systematic Theology, 518). It is difficult to see how any of these support a covenant of redemption. b. O. Palmer Robertson states, affirming the role of redemption in the eternal counsels of God is not the same as proposing the existence of a pre-creation covenant between Father and Son. A sense of artificiality flavors the effort to structure in covenantal terms the mysteries of God s eternal counsels. Scripture simply does not say much on the pre-creation shape of the decrees of God. To speak concretely on an intertrinitarian covenant with terms and conditions between Father and Son mutually endorsed before the foundation of the world is to extend the bounds of scriptural evidence beyond propriety (Christ and the Covenants, 54). 4. Covenant theologians do not agree on the three covenants of CT. a. John Murray does not accept the covenant of works. b. The Westminster Confession of Faith lists the covenants of works and grace but does not list the covenant of redemption. c. O. Palmer Robertson rejects the covenant of redemption as understood by most Covenant theologians. He does, though, accept the ideas of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. He changes these designations, however, because he believes them to be confusing. He then titles the covenants of works as the covenant of creation and the covenant of grace as the covenant of redemption (Christ and the Covenants, 56-57). VII. Evaluation of the covenants of CT > John Reisinger, who may be considered the father of New Covenant Theology, rightly states that the covenants of CT are the children of CT s theological system and are not the products of exegesis. In addressing a group of Reformed ministers who adhered to CT he said: We agree that the Bible is structured around two covenants. However, the two covenants that you keep talking about, namely, a covenant of works with Adam in the garden of Eden and a covenant of grace made with Adam immediately after the fall, have p.6

7 no textual basis in the Word of God. They are both theological covenants and not biblical covenants. They are the children of one s theological system. Their mother is CT and their father is logic applied to that system. Neither of these two covenants had their origin in Scripture texts and biblical exegesis. Both of them were invented by theology as the necessary consequences of a theological system (Abraham s Four Seeds, 129). > Richard Mayhue: How can you build your whole theological superstructure on the foundation of three covenants that are not once mentioned or described in any clear uncontested passage of Scripture? ( Futuristic Premillennialism, audio tape from The Master s Seminary). > A true, Biblical covenant theology should start with the actual Biblical covenants: Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New NOT covenants that find no basis in Scripture. A. The CT perspective on NT priority in which the NT is viewed as the starting point for understanding the OT to the expense of the historical-grammatical contexts of OT passages causes serious hermeneutical error. 1. This perspective does not grant justice to the historical-grammatical context of the OT passages. 2. The NT does NOT reinterpret the OT promises and covenants. 3. James Orr: [Covenant theology] by an artificial system of theology, and allegorizing interpretation, sought to read back practically the whole of the NT in the Old. But its most obvious defect was that, in using the idea of the Covenant as an exhaustive category, and attempting to force into the whole material of theology, it created an artificial scheme which could only repel minds of simple and natural notions (Progress of Dogma, 304). 4. Daniel Fuller: In CT there is the tendency to impute to passages a meaning which would not be gained merely from their historical and grammatical associations ( The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism, 147). B. The replacement theology / supersessionism of CT disregards God s undeniable promises in the OT to restore His chosen nation Israel. 1. Ge 12:1-3; 15:18-21; Dt 30:1-6; Jer 30-31,33; Eze 36-37; Amos 9:11-15; Zep 3:14-20; Zec 12-14; etc. 2. The Bible does not present the NT church as the new Israel that becomes the sole heir of national Israel s covenants and promises. Nowhere does the NT identify the church as Israel. In fact, the NT affirms the OT expectation of a salvation and restoration of national Israel (Mt 19:28; 23:37-39; Acts 1:6; 3:19-21; Ro 11). p.7

8 C. In contrast to CT, the church did not exist in the OT with Adam or Abraham. 16:18). 1. Jesus viewed the church as future during His earthly ministry (Mt 2. The church is built on the foundation of the NT apostles and prophets (Acts 2:20) that came into existence after Christ s ascension (Eph 1:19-23; 4:7-12). 3. The beginning of the church is linked with the Spirit baptism of the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2; 1Co 12:13). D. The Mosaic Covenant is NOT a part of the outworking of the covenant of grace and thus is NOT a permanent grace covenant that is essentially the same as the Abrahamic covenant. 1. Thus, Berkhof is in error: The covenant of Sinai was essentially the same as that established with Abraham though the form differed somewhat (297). 2. The Bible makes a strong distinction between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. Paul, in Gal 3:17-18, contrasts the Mosaic covenant of which our inheritance is not based on with the Abrahamic covenant of which it is based on. Plus, the nature of the Abrahamic covenant is eternal and unconditional but the Mosaic covenant was a temporary, conditional covenant that passed away with the coming of the New Covenant (cp. Heb 8:8-13; 2Co 3:6-11). E. All Biblical covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New) are NOT all basically the same and are NOT the outworking of the one covenant of grace. 1. VanGemeren is in error: The Reformed exegete approaches the prophets from the perspective of the unity of the covenant. Although God has entered into several administrations of grace (Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New), there is but one covenant of grace. The various administrations are expressions of one covenant between the Father and the elect ( Israel as the Hermeneutical Crux in the Interpretation of Prophecy, WTJ 46, Fall 1984, 269). 2. Where does the Bible, whether explicitly or implicitly, state that the Biblical covenants are the outworking of a covenant of grace? The Mosaic covenant was not a grace covenant but a temporary, conditional covenant. The Biblical covenants should be defined and differentiated based on how the Bible describes them. F. The Mosaic Law is NOT operative in some ways today. Covenant theologians often make a functional distinction between the moral, civil, and ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law. While many Covenant theologians do not view the ceremonial and civil elements of the Mosaic Law as binding on the believer today, some of them believe that the Decalogue or moral laws of the Mosaic Law are still binding on believers today. p.8

9 1. Although the Mosaic Law can be analyzed by looking at its ceremonial, civil, and moral elements, the Mosaic Law is a unit that cannot be divided. We do not have biblical warrant to believe that some parts of the Mosaic Law are for today while others are not. Evidence that emphasizes the unity of the law includes: a. Jas 2:10: For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. b. Gal 5:3: And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 2. D. A. Carson has argued that the tri-fold distinction in law, which is often stressed in CT, does not find its roots in Scripture: Although this tripartite distinction is old, its use as a basis for explaining the relationship between the testaments is not demonstrably derived from the NT and probably does not antedate Aquinas. ( Matthew, EBC, 143). 3. Covenant Theologians typically divide the Mosaic Law into moral, civil, and ceremonial categories. Then they say that Christ has fulfilled the civil and ceremonial elements of the Mosaic Law but not the moral laws. I don t believe that there is a biblical basis for dividing the Mosaic Law into different categories of laws (Steve Lehrer, New Covenant Theology, 134). G. CT s doctrine of infant baptism is based on a faulty hermeneutic that imposes artificial covenants upon the Word of God. 1. According to CT, if the Israel of the OT used circumcision on its children, then the new Israel the church should use baptism on its children as well, as a sign of the new covenant community of God. The covenant theologian sees this sign of the covenant continued in the NT in baptism which carries the same basic meaning as circumcision. (Smith, The Church and Covenant Theology, 57). 2. Scripture passages that prove water baptism was always a result of personal faith and salvation in the NT. a. Mt 28:19-20: Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always even to the end of the age. b. Mk 16:15-16: And He said to them, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. c. Acts 2:41: Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. p.9

10 d. Acts 8:12: But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. e. Acts 8:36-38: Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized? Then Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. f. Acts 10:47-48: Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. g. Acts 18:8: Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. h. Acts 16:30-33: Then he brought them out and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household. And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. i. Acts 22:15: Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord. j. 1Pe 3:21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ p.10