Hoeksema, Schilder, and the URC on the Essence of the Covenant (1)

Transcription

1 Hoeksema, Schilder, and the URC on the Essence of the Covenant (1) I believe that it is important to re-examine how the Dutch Reformed spoke of and defined the essence of the covenant. The language of the essence of the covenant is important for understanding the relationship between the covenant of grace and the historical administration of the covenant. Confusions over the essence of the covenant can result in a covenant theology that lacks the legal constructs necessary for a confessional doctrine of sola fide. It is also vital to look at how theologians like Louis Berkhof and Herman Hoeksema used the language of friendship or a communion of life when referring to the essence of the covenant. We will begin by exploring what is at the core of Herman Hoeksema s covenant doctrine. We start with Hoeksema since I was trained in his tradition and I think that the place for Reformed theologians to begin constructive criticism is from within their own traditions. Herman Hoeksema wanted to define the essence of the covenant only in organic terms. One explanation for this is that he was responding to how his contemporaries developed the covenant in legal terms. For example, Louis Berkhof made a distinction between the covenant as a purely legal relationship and the covenant as a communion of life. Given the significant legal aspects related to sola fide it is a mistake to set up a false dichotomy between the covenant as an organic relationship or legal relationship. Berkhof was interested in making the point that all outward or external members of the church institute were said to be in the covenant as legal relationship, but only the elect enjoyed the covenant as communion. It would seem to be in the light of this distinction that the question should be answered, Who are in the covenant of grace? If the question is asked with the legal relationship, and that only, in mind, and really amounts to the query, Who are in duty bound to live in the covenant, and of whom may it be expected that they will do this?-the answer is, believers and their children. But if the question is asked with a view to the covenant as a communion of life, and assumes the quite different form, In whom does this legal relationship issue in a living communion with Christ?-the answer can only be, only in the regenerate, who are endowed with the principle of faith, that is in the elect. 1 Berkhof explains what it means only to be in the covenant legally: Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology. As Cited by Joseph A. Pipa in The Auburn Avenue Theology, 276-1

2 The covenant may be regarded as an agreement between two parties, with mutual conditions and stipulations, and therefore as something in the legal sphere. The covenant in that sense may exist even when nothing is done to realize its purpose, namely the condition to which it points and for which it calls as the real ideal. The parties that live under this agreement are in the covenant, since they are subject to the mutual stipulations agreed upon. In the legal sphere everything is considered and regulated in a purely objective way. 2 Since Hoeksema did not agree with Berkhof s approach to the matters of conditionality or a bilateral covenant, it is not surprising that he would not find Berkhof s distinction unattractive. It is important to note that Berkhof was not developing legal concepts related to sola fide. One explanation for Hoeksema s discomfort with understanding the covenant of grace in legal terms is because his contemporaries were not doing this to develop and explain the doctrines of grace. The legal concepts were used to refer to those in the sphere of the covenant who were not the objects of saving grace. Contemporary debates have reminded the Reformed churches about how important it is to systematize the covenant of grace with the judicial concepts underlying justification by faith alone. I have a manuscript of a sermon that Hoeksema preached on March 12, 1950 on the essence of the covenant. The timing of this sermon is significant because it is three years before a split that occurred in the Protestant Reformed Churches. The sermon is also significant because Hoeksema distinguishes his view of the essence of the covenant from that of the Liberated churches influenced by K. Schilder. The sermon also helps us understand the context in which Hoeksema developed his covenant theology--what the issues were to which he was responding. I do not know if this sermon was ever published, the copy I have is apparently the original typewritten draft of it--which has turned brown with age. The sermon is useful because it encapsulates Hoeksema s view of the essence of the covenant at the time of the split in I will quote from this sermon in some detail to demonstrate what Hoeksema s view of the essence of the covenant clearly was. During this sermon it is clear that Hoeksema is trying to give an indepth, detailed definition of the essence of the covenant: Instead of that, we must maintain that the covenant, as far as the essence and idea of the covenant is concerned, is the eternal, everlasting relation of most intimate friendship between God and His elect people in Christ as their head and as their center in which God gives and promises, not in the sense of Heyns, but promises in the sense of absolutely giving life and everlasting salvation in His favor and His grace to His people and in which they as the fruit of that covenant relation which God establishes love Him with all their heart and mind and soul and strength. That is the reformed [sic] idea and the true 2 Ibid.,

3 Scriptural idea of the Covenant of Grace. May I repeat it? I can. The covenant is that eternal, that everlasting relation of most intimate friendship and fellowship between God and His elect people in Christ Jesus as their head in which relation he gives, bestows upon His elect people all the blessings of His salvation, righteousness, eternal life and His favor and friendship and in which they as the fruit of the establishment of the covenant, love Him with all their heart and mind and soul and strength. If you can, jot it down please. That is the truth. That means, if I may explain for just a minute, that the essence of the covenant is not an agreement, is not a way, is not a promise, but the the [sic] essence is the living relation of friendship between God and His people. That is the essence. You know what friendship is. Friendship is in distinction from mere love to which of course it is closely related. Friendship is, let me say, that relation of communion of intimate fellowship that is based upon the most, the highest possible likeness by personal distinction. 3 Hoeksema is clear that the essence is the living relation of friendship between God and His people. It is striking that he distinguishes friendship from mere love. This is astonishing language mere love especially given the fact that even the ancients, including Aristotle understood agape love to be superior to phileo friendship. Does the Bible teach that in the covenant of grace the idea of friendship trumps that of love? Hoeksema bases his definition of the essence of the covenant on the Trinitarian life of God: God is a covenant God. He is a covenant God. He is a covenant God in Himself, beloved, apart from any relation to us God is a covenant God. 4 Father, Son and Holy Ghost are absolutely like in essence, in will, in mind, in nature, alike in life, alike in every respect, but the Father lives in that covenant in that life as Father, and the Son as Son and the Holy Spirit as Holy Spirit. And these three in that one distinctive life form a bond of perfectness, a bond of perfection which we call the covenant life of God. 5 Hoeksema grounds his view of the essence of the covenant in the ontological Trinity. He assumes that because the economic Trinity covenants with men that covenanting occurs within the ontological Trinity. Hoeksema is outside of the received opinion in his view that the essence of the covenant is a relationship of friendship. His move to ground the essence of covenant in the ontological Trinity is outside of the Reformed tradition. But even in this respect Hoeksema is not novel. He is dependent upon Abraham Kuyper for this formulation. In his Reformed Dogmatics 3 Ibid., Ibid. p Ibid. p

4 Hoeksema quotes Kuyper with whom he agrees on the existence of a covenant relation natura sua in the Trinity: If the idea of the covenant with regard to man and among men can only occur in its ectypical form, and if its archetypical original is found in the divine economy, then it cannot have its deepest ground in the pactum salutis that has its motive in the fall of man. For in that case it would not belong to the divine economy as such, but would be introduced in it rather incidentally and change the essential relation of the three persons in the divine essence. Besides, the objection arises that the third person of the holy Trinity in that case remains outside of this covenant and that the three persons in the eternal essence are placed in such a relation over against one another that one runs the danger of falling into the error of tritheism. This danger can be escaped only when the divine economy of the three persons is presented natura sui [by its own nature] as a covenant relation We then confess that in the one personality of the divine essence there consists a three-personal distinction, which has in the covenant relation its unity and an inseparable tie. According to this conception, God himself is the living and eternal foundation, not only of every covenant, but also of the covenant idea as such, and the essential unity has its conscious expression in the covenant relation. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost stand over against all that is not God or that opposes God in that unity of faithfulness in such a way that the one does not will anything else than the other, and the entire power of the divine essence turns itself with the highest consciousness in federal unity against all that is not God. 6 Hoeksema picks up on this idea in Kuyper and says himself: It is herein [the Trinity] that the essence of the covenant is to be found. That life of God is a covenant life, a life of the most intimate communion of love and friendship, resting in the unity of God s Being and living through the personal distinction. 7 Therefore Hoeksema by definition will view the covenant as not a means unto salvation, but the end itself. Hoeksema explains his view of the Adamic covenant. A friendship was possible between God and Adam because Adam was made in the image of God. And God blessed him with all the covenant blessings of His favor and friendship and therefore and in that relationship Adam had life as the covenant friend of God. That is the covenant with Adam. 8 6 Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1, p Herman Hoeksema, Believers and Their Seed. P

5 Hoeksema is convinced and thinks that it is vitally important to see that there are Scriptural passages that teach that the essence of the covenant of grace is a relationship of friendship. He states: And I would like to pump this into your head, rather die than not have this known, so serious I am. Remember that. Take it. But there are many texts, several texts that speak literally of the covenant as a tie of friendship. Texts that very plainly speak of the covenant as everlasting, so that it cannot be a way. Texts that speak of the church as being the temple of the living God, so that God dwells with His people and they with Him. Texts for instance as that beautiful verse in John 17:25 where in His prayer the Lord Jesus Christ says with respect to the relation between Him and His people and between God and Him, I in them and thou in me that they may be perfect in one. That is the covenant. That is the covenant-- I in them and thou in me that they may be perfect in one. And finally you know that in the end of Scripture that speaks of the final consummation and the realization of God s everlasting covenant, the tabernacle of God is found to be with men and I will dwell with them and walk with them and call them my sons and daughters. That is the everlasting covenant of God. 9 Hoeksema claims that the covenant involves a relational, not a legal or judicial structure. Supporters of Federal Vision reject the legal aspects of old views of the covenant and affirm relational categories. The problem with this is that the Bible does not present the covenant relationship solely in terms of personal/relational categories. For example, a son justly inherits an inheritance in the way of obedience. Family relationships do not lack legal constructs. Are family relationships reduced to mush? Federal Vision claims to reject the business model for the covenant as family. There are a number of problems with Hoeksema s attempt to use the above passages and examples to provide a definitive definition of the covenant of grace essentially as a relationship of friendship. First, a convincing argument can be made that the dominant relationship between God and Adam in the Adamic covenant was not a friendship relationship, but rather the love of a family relationship between Father and son. One might as well argue that the covenant of grace is essentially a family relationship of agape love between God the Father and His children. In the geneology of the Messiah in Luke 3:38 we read the last stunning words: Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. That the primary relationship between God and Adam is a family, not friendship relation is evident in 9. 8 Herman Hoeksema. Unpublished sermon on L.D. 27. Psalm 25:14 on Sunday morning, March 12, Ibid.,

6 Genesis 5:1,3. First we read that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him (Genesis 5:1). Then we read: And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth (Genesis 5:3). What is striking is that Seth is said to be after the image of his father Adam. There is a family likeness between the two. The reference to a family likeness in verse 3 harks back to verse 1 where we are told that God made Adam in His likeness. The image of God is a family likeness. God and Adam are Father and son. Therefore the dominant relationship between God and Adam is not presented in Scripture as friendship, but rather as a filial relationship. There is clear evidence that Hoeksema sensed the incongruity between how he was defining the essence of the covenant of grace and how the word covenant is actually used in the Bible. He sensed the tension between his definition and the words in Scripture for covenant. This leads to what should be read as a startling and troubling claim: He explains: Now, beloved, as far as the covenant is concerned, the essence or the meaning and the idea of the covenant, the words in Scripture for the covenant do not express the idea of the covenant as such at all. 10 The Old Testament word for the covenant in the Hebrew comes probably from a word that means to cut, and has probably, reference to that fact that when a covenant was concluded or ratified, the custom prevailed of dividing animals and putting them over against one another and passing between the pieces in order to show that the parties would rather die than ever violate the covenant that was so established. That is undoubtedly the Old Testament word for covenant and the meaning of it. The word to cut having reference to the cutting of the animals. And in the New Testament, the most familiar word although there are two, the one very seldom used, the most familiar is the word that means to ordain, to appoint and therefore to dispense; dispensation or testament, in fact the word for testament, the translation of the New Testament word for covenant. Testament or dispensation is the word in the New Testament that is most generally used for covenant, although sometimes one or two places in the New Testament the word is a little different and probably means a bond. But, beloved, the covenant is what is according to Scripture, not simply according to the word covenant. 11 Hoeksema does not clearly explain what he means by the essence of the covenant. Schilder takes us in the right direction when he talks about the substance of the covenant. I take the words essence and substance to mean the same thing. Schilder writes: By 10 Ibid., Ibid., 4. 6

7 substance is understood the center, the core, the content, the actual fundamental idea. The Reformed teach that in each covenant stage the same substance obtains, namely, the reality of I am your God and you are My people. Now wherever the unity of substance is surrendered, the unity of covenant history gets lost. 12 Schilder presents a workable definition of substance. He understands the importance of understanding the substance of the covenant because this is the structure of the covenant that remains the same in the various administrations of the covenant. Although the various administrations of the covenant have various accidental properties, the substance or essence of the covenant is same both in the covenant with Adam and the covenant of grace, the old covenant and the new covenant. Strauss writes about Schilder s view of the relationship of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace: For the covenant of works is called the primeval form of the covenant. This is no temporary stage, but the unique, first, original covenant, and thus in terms of its fundamental structure, a covenant never to be annulled or abolished. If this is true, then one should be able to find all the articles of the constitution of the covenant in the covenant of works. Schilder was convinced that this is indeed possible. He once said, in a lecture: God declared the substance of the matter already in Paradise. Before the Fall, God already revealed to Adam the essential content of the covenant: I am your God. 13 Something that is of the essence or substance of the covenant is referred to by Strauss as constitutive structural element of the covenant. He writes about Schilder s views: Only if it is established without doubt that a particular facet belongs both to the administration of the covenant of works as well as to the administration of the covenant of grace, can this serve as a constitutive structural element of the covenant. 14 It seems to me that Strauss terminology is helpful. The essence of the covenant includes the constitutive structural elements that define a covenant as a covenant. These structural elements will include a number of elements that Hoeksema did not include in his definition of the essence of the covenant. They will certainly include more than the idea of friendship and fellowship. In Conclusion We have learned that we need to be careful about using words like essence in our definitions of the covenant partly because there are a number of constituent structural elements 12 Cited by S. Strauss in Everything or Nothing : The Covenant Theology of Klaas Schilder, (a yet unpublished work) transl. N. Kloosterman 2009, chapter 2, footnote 41. Cited from K. Schilder, Het verbond in the geref. Symbolen, S. Strauss in Everything or Nothing : The Covenant Theology of Klaas Schilder, transl. N. Kloosterman 2009, chapter 2, footnotes S. Strauss in Everything or Nothing : The Covenant Theology of Klaas Schilder, transl. N. Kloosterman 2009, chapter 2, footnote

8 that function like a web at the heart of the covenant doctrine. Hoeksema s approach is reductionistic when he wants to define the essence of the covenant only in terms of personal friendship and fellowship. My central thesis on the subject of the essence of the covenant is: It is reductionistic to identify the essence of the covenant as solely a relationship of friendship. The covenant includes personal relationships, but also much more. Related to this we need to challenge the clarity of the language of the essence of the covenant. Hoeksema believed that what separated him from his theological opponents was his definition of the essence of the covenant as a relationship of friendship and fellowship. Hoeksema viewed himself as holding to an organic concept of the covenant while Schilder held to a forensic. Ministers within the Protestant Reformed Churches have characterized Hoeksema s definition of the essence of the covenant as warm in contrast to the cold, scholastic definitions of the covenant as, for example, a mutual pact. The controversies over Federal Vision have exposed that it is problematic to define the essence of the covenant primarily in personal, relational terms as a bond of love or friendship. As we examine definitions of the essence of the covenant we discover that the views of Herman Hoeksema and supporters of Federal Vision intersect. It should become clear that defining the essence of the covenant only in personal, relational terms should not be a requirement for closer ecumenical relations between the Protestant Reformed Churches and the United Reformed Churches. While Hoeksema really does include legal concepts in his covenant theology (for example, when he refers to Christ s federal headship), this is always at tension with his attempt to define the essence of the covenant primarily in personal/relational terms. 8