The Covenants. As already mentioned, in this view God deals with and saves humankind in completely different ways at different times in history.

Transcription

1 The Covenants In a recent conversation with a friend he made a passing comment that he believed the next great theological battle in the church would be quote over the Covenants. Certainly it is true that amongst those who consider themselves reformed (at least in Soteriology) there is a wide divergence of views concerning this topic. A couple of years ago I had the privilege of teaching at Grace Bible College in Nepal and one thing I taught on was the covenants. I began by laying out the case for 3 understandings of covenants starting with the Dispensational, then the Covenantal and finally the New Covenant understanding. These issues were all new to the students and I later joked (though it really wasn t a joke but the truth) that after I laid out Dispensationalism they were all convinced Dispensationalists! Then after I laid out Covenant Theology they saw the flaws of Dispy and became Covenantal. That is until I laid out New Covenant at which point they became New Covenant! My previously mentioned friend said he was glad I did NCT last as he embraces a NCT perspective! LOL! Probably though no one in any of the three aforementioned camps would be completely happy with where I finally came down. That is because I personally believe there is some merit in each view (though admittedly not much in Dispensationalism!) and that there are also some flaws in each. So, in this article I hope to once and for all time definitively settle these issues! Well, not really, but I at least hope to contribute a few coherent thoughts on the issues involved. First of all let me give a brief synopsis of each view. This will of necessity be brief and I know I will not be able to cover every nuance and variation of the different understandings but will limit my comments to a general overview of each. Dispensationalism Dispensationalism is a system of Biblical interpretation that believes God has dealt with and/or saved or had relationship with humankind (both individually and as collective groups) in different ways at different times in history. These periods of history are referred to as dispensations. Depending on who s teaching, there are anywhere from 4 to 8 dispensations with the most common scheme being 8. They would be the dispensations of 1. Innocence, Gen Conscience, Gen Human Government, Gen Patriarchal, Gen.12-Ex Mosaic or Law, Ex.20-Acts 1 6. Grace or Church, Acts 2-Rev Millennial, Rev.20: Final Eternal State, Rev As already mentioned, in this view God deals with and saves humankind in completely different ways at different times in history.

2 Also, and probably most importantly, prominent in Dispensational thought is belief that Israel and the Church are completely different entities. Dispensationalists take a very literal view of interpretation and see the Old Testament promises to physical Israel, such as the possession of Canaan, as being still as valid today as they ever were. They scoff at the idea that the OT promises would somehow be spiritualized in the NT and be applied in a spiritual way to the church. Most Dispensationalists believe that the OT promises were suspended for physical Israel and will ultimately be fulfilled for them in the Millennium. In fact most believe that the central reason for the Millennium is that God might make good on His promises to the Jewish people. Thus in Dispensationalism there are in effect 2 peoples of God each with its own program going on with the Church Age forming a sort of parenthesis in God s historical dealings with Israel. Covenant Theology Covenant theology on the other hand believes that God s dealings with man have been through covenants rather than through different dispensations. While there are several covenants outlined in Scripture, 2 overarching ones form the core of Covenantal thought. These 2 covenants are the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. 1 Most (again not all) Covenant theologians would mark the beginning of the Covenant of Works with the creation of Adam. God created him and set him in the Garden with only one restriction. He was not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The penalty for doing so would be death. Thus in this, the Covenant theologian would argue, you find the necessary elements of a covenant. A unilateral one to be sure, but a covenant nonetheless. There is a stipulation given with subsequent penalty for failure to keep it. Also, Hosea 6:7 seems to affirm that the arrangement with Adam was indeed a covenant. In speaking to Israel He says that Hos 6:7 NIV 7 Like Adam, they have broken the covenant they were unfaithful to me there. I am aware of the ambiguity of this verse as Adam can also be translated here (as in the KJV) as simply man 2, but most Covenant theologians would see this as proof of a prefall covenant of works. This Covenant governed God s relationship with man however only until the fall. Since that time it is argued that all subsequent covenants have been an outworking of the Covenant of Grace, even the Sinaitic or Mosaic Covenant. There are variations of this of course (some seeing all God s dealings with man being Grace - 1 It should be pointed out here that Covenant Theology actually embraces a 3 covenant framework, the third being the Eternal Covenant or the Covenant of Redemption. This refers to a covenant not between God and His people (though these covenants are subsumed under it) but rather between the members of the Blessed Trinity before the foundation of the world was laid. In this covenant the Father promised the Son for His obedience an eternal throne and an eternal seed. In return the Son would come to earth to do the Father s will by dying for the sins of the Elect. In this great act of self-sacrifice the Father would be glorified in both His Mercy and His Justice (Jn.3:16, Ro.3:25) Likewise the Holy Spirit was involved in that He would be the One to apply the merits of Christ s work to His people. There is in my opinion much to support this idea in places such as Ps.89 ( I have made a covenant with David I.e. the greater Son of David), as well in Heb.10: Some believe an alternate reading of at Adam they transgressed is also possible here. This would then be a reference to the city of Adam near the point of Israel s entrance into Canaan (Jo.3:16). It s hard though to see the connection as Israel was actually moving in obedience there and no further mention of it is made.

3 even pre-fall) but the idea of a Bi-Covenantal framework is central to Covenant Theology. Also earmarking Covenant Theology to varying degrees is the idea of Replacement Theology, that all OT promises to Israel are fulfilled in the NT in a spiritual sense to Spiritual Israel, the Church God basically being done with physical Israel as a corporate entity. Consequently CT believes there has always been only one true people of God, saved by His Grace in Christ, which was foreshadowed by OT type and shadow. Another aspect coming into play here, unique to CT, is the belief in a 3 fold division of the Mosaic Law into Civil, Ceremonial and Moral aspects. It is generally argued that the Civil and Ceremonial aspects of Moses Law have been abrogated in the NT with the Moral aspect still in force. Thus it is still a sin to transgress God s will as outlined in the 10 commandments, but we no longer must adhere to the Civil aspects (only for Israel after the flesh) nor to the Ceremonial aspects (which were type and shadow of NT realities fulfilled in Christ). One final thought here in reviewing these systems is that it seems to me that in some ways both Dispensational theology and Covenantal theology are similar, if only in the fact that both put God s ways of dealing with mankind into certain time frames. Dispensationalism has its 8 dispensations while Covenantal has only 2, pre-fall and post-fall. Just a thought but I will flesh it out later. New Covenant Theology Of these three constructs New Covenant Theology seems to me to hold the most promise, however I do have some reservations concerning it as well. Hopefully these reservations will come out as I go but let me first attempt to define it. This is best done I believe by doing some comparisons between it and the other systems. NCT is similar in some respects to CT. Both embrace some variation of the idea of there having always been one true people of God. Even under the Mosaic economy the true believer was saved ultimately by Christ and on this they both agree. Both also believe in some variation of replacement theology believing that the OT promises are spiritualized in the NT and applied to the Church. There are however 2 central points of disagreement between them. The first centers on their understanding of the continuance of the Mosaic Law or at least certain aspects of it. NCT believes that the Mosaic Law in all it parts has been abrogated under the New Covenant. It argues that it is improper to divide the Mosaic Law into 3 parts and believes it either stands or falls all together. This I believe is correct. In fact when Paul says that we are no longer under the Law (Ro.6:14) he has specifically in mind the 10 Commandments. This can be seen when he again speaks of the Law in Ro.13:8-10. Also NCT points out that for CT to advocate the Mosaic Law as actually being a part of the Covenant of Grace would mean that the New Covenant really wasn t new at all. It would just be a reinventing or a new administration of the same. This also seems to me to be a valid criticism of CT as these 2 (Old and New) are contrasted so clearly in 2Cor.3:6-18 as well as Heb.8:6-13.

4 So, NCT, rightly I believe, teaches that the law in all 3 of its aspects was done away with in the New Covenant. (This is actually similar to Dispensationalism at this point.) Contrary to what some would say this in no way would open a door to Antinomianism since NCT also teaches that the Mosaic Law has been superseded by the Law of Christ (1Cor.9:20-21) under the New Covenant. The Law of Christ is synonymous with the Royal Law (as given by the King) in Ja.2:8 which is the Law of Love. Both the Law of Christ and the Mosaic Law are very similar because the foundation for both is the Righteous nature of God Himself. No matter how His will is expressed it is always consistent with who He is. Another place where NCT and CT part company is on whether or not there ever was a Covenant of Works established with Adam in the Garden or even whether or not there is Biblically speaking such a thing as covenants of grace or works at all. The assertion is made that neither of these are Biblical terms but rather theological ones stemming from mistaken presuppositions. While it is technically correct that the terms themselves are not strictly lifted from any text of Scripture, they nevertheless are for the sake of discussing the matter at hand convenient labels. The NCT theologians make much ado about only using Biblical language and I wholeheartedly agree. However sometimes theological terms are helpful as summations. I would also point out that the term Trinity isn t found in Scripture either but I doubt any NCT theologian would object to its use, but I digress. The central issue then is whether or not these covenants, old and new are indeed either works or grace based and whether or not God did indeed make a covenant with Adam? Admittedly the evidence for God s arrangement with Adam being a covenant at first glance does appear a little shaky, Hosea 6:7 notwithstanding. One could just say that God had an arrangement with Adam that said Obey Me or die. Whether or not that could be characterized as a covenant I m not really sure. However, there is in my opinion some validity in viewing it that way. Going back to the idea of a Covenant of Redemption between the Father and Son I believe the evidence is strong that such a thing did and does exist. Ps.89:3-4 speaks of God s covenant with David. Much that follows leads me to understand this as being ultimately fulfilled in the greater Son of David, the Lord Jesus Christ. Verses seem to affirm this as all the things spoken of David here are also true of Christ. Add to this the NT references to Christ sitting on the throne of His father David (Lu.1:32) and I think it is clear that Christ is in view in this Psalm. If so then it says specifically that the Father did indeed have covenant with Him. If this is seen as a parity covenant then the Son also had a part to fulfill and a reward that would given. That this is the case I believe is seen in Heb.10:5-9. Here it is expressed clearly that the Father had a will and that the Son came to fulfill it. His reward for obedience would be an eternal throne, a name above all names and kids, those given to Him (Jn.6:37) or in other words us! The Father s reward would be being glorified in both His love and justice at Calvary. All of this was done in the context of a covenant cut between the members of the Trinity before the foundation of the world. In this sense the Covenant of Redemption is, bottom line, truly a covenant of works. I have raised eyebrows more than once by stating in a sermon that we are very definitely

5 saved by works. Then going on to explain that it is not however our works that save us but Christ s. Christ is seen in Scripture as being a second Adam, fulfilling the Law on our behalf where the first Adam failed. This to me necessitates that the arrangement with Adam was in some sense a covenant of works. This could then indeed be what is in view in Hosea 6:7. In this covenant not only did Adam fail but the entire human race failed in Adam. (1Cor.15:22) From this understanding it would matter little if one translated Hosea 6:7 as Adam or man. If translated as man then when did man initially transgress the covenant if not in the garden? At any rate all of this to me is central to understanding how another one man could fulfill the Law on our account and also bear our penalty for breaking it. 3 What then should we make of the Mosaic Covenant? I would say that it would be a reiteration and an expansion of this already existing (and already irreparably broken) Covenant of Works that God made with Adam and by way of his headship all of humanity. In Gal.3:17-19 Paul says this Gal 3:17-19 NIV 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. Here Paul says that the Law (obviously the Law of Moses) was added because of transgressions. He goes on to make clear that the purpose of the Moses Law was never to make men right with God but only to act as a Schoolmaster, pointing out their sin and pressing them to Christ alone for salvation. But, again, it does say here that the law was added. Added to what? In my understanding it was added to the already existing one commandment that Adam broke don t eat of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was an expansion of God s Law and a further expression of His just and righteous dominion over an already fallen and condemned human race even though man, post fall, is not one wit able to keep an iota of it. It is then, as NCT affirms, a covenant based on law and not on grace as CT claims, but it is also an expansion of a covenant based on works first given to Adam as CT claims but which NCT denies. Wow, hope you got all that! So, where then does the Covenant of Grace, or more properly a covenant based on grace, 4 come in? In answering this question it is necessary to be more specific in asking 3 Also, the idea that Christ fulfilled a covenant of works is seen in the fact that Christ is not only mankind s representative as the second Adam but that He is also juxtaposed against Israel s failure as a nation to fulfill the Mosaic covenant. The book of Matthew especially presents Christ in this light though unpacking all that would have to wait for another time. 4 Again NCT theologians make much of sticking to Biblical terminology and so challenge the use of Covenant of Grace at all. They have no problem with saying Old Covenant / New Covenant, which is more correct but

6 it. If one means when did the idea of a Covenant of Grace first appear from an earthly standpoint (not counting the obvious answer of sometime before the foundation of the world 2Tim.1:9), it would have to be immediately after the fall in the Proto-Evangelium of Gen.3:15. This however was only the first of many OT promises and not the actual institution or ratification of the New Covenant. That would have to await the coming of the Savior and the shedding of His Blood. Thus the New Covenant was indeed new with the promise of Gen.3:15 being just that a promise. This would also hold true of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants as well. They were all elaborations on the promises of the New Covenant and previews of the fulfillment that would ultimately be found in the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Christ. 5 Those then of the OT period were saved only by His Blood. They simply were looking forward in time to His coming just as we are looking back in time to Calvary. Ultimately then Christ s fulfillment of the Law and the shedding of His Blood becomes the foundation of our redemption in Him under the terms of the New Covenant based on Grace. Furthermore, it seems to me that we go wrong any time we attempt to make God s dealings with man fall into any type of time frame reference. Whether one calls it a dispensation or a covenantal era there is still a time frame in mind with at least 2 of these views. Dispensationalism has its dispensations marked off by certain time frames and CT has basically 2 time frames, before and after the fall. 6 However, it seems best to me to consider not some point in time where mankind is governed by this covenant or that dispensation or this or that arrangement, but rather to view mankind as I believe God sees us, I.e. that God sees all of humanity as being either in Adam or in Christ. These two positions are clearly seen in the NT, especially in the writings of Paul. Furthermore these two positions are synonymous with being in the flesh or in the Spirit and with being either under Law or under Grace. In other words both of these things (Law and Grace) are just as applicable today as they ever have been and both are concurrently happening as they always have been. In Ro.3:19 Paul says Rom 3:19 NIV 19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. In this verse those who are under the law is not a reference to the Jewish people alone but to all of humanity who are outside of Christ, all those who are in Adam. Only in Christ do we become new creatures, part of the new creation in Him, no longer under the Law (a system of self-effort and works) but now under Grace (resting in His finished work by faith). nevertheless these two covenants are respectively based on works and grace so I personally fail to see the problem semantically so long as both are adequately defined. 5 This has bearing on the question of exactly what Gospel benefits did those under the Old Covenant enjoy. This would require a much longer article so it will have to await another time. Suffice it to say that there is a qualitative difference between the experience of the OT believer and the NT and that we enjoy a much richer and fuller experience than did they. (Heb.11:39-40) 6 The CT view is I believe partly correct here in that Pre-Fall Adam was under a Covenant of Works but incorrect in ascribing every covenant thereafter as part of a Covenant of Grace. The Mosaic Covenant is definitely spoken of in the NT as Law or a works based covenant.

7 The understanding of what it means to be in Adam or in Christ is central to understanding so much in the New Testament and especially questions concerning our relationship to the Law. I can remember speaking with a young lady from the Seventh Day Adventist Church many years ago about the Sabbath. Somehow we came to Romans 7:1-4 and it was like a lightning bolt of illumination hit us both! Rom 7:1-4 KJV 1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? 2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. Suddenly as we spoke the light dawned! The Law (the 10 Commandments, including the seventh day Sabbath along with all the rest) only has dominion over those who are the living descendants of Adam. But, vs.4, we are no longer alive but in fact are dead and risen with Christ. We are new creatures and part of a new creation in Him. The point here being that our position of being either in Adam or in Christ is what determines whether we are under Law or under Grace, not a particular time frame into which we are born. This has always been the case throughout history and hasn t changed since Adam s fall and the subsequent promise of Gen.3:15 came into view. As a final consideration then how does Ethnic Israel fit into this understanding? Is God completely done with the Jewish people as being in some sense a unique group to Him? Do they hold any special place in His heart? I would say that the answer is both yes and no. It is I believe a reality that many OT promises to Israel find spiritual fulfillment in the Church on the pages of the NT. The land promises for example will find ultimate fulfillment in the New Heavens and New Earth. 7 The Davidic Kingdom finds it s fulfillment in the greater son of David, etc. etc. Also there will not be, as far as I can find in Scripture, any unique place for ethnic Israel in the Eternal State. In short all people of all time will only find salvation in the Blood of Christ shed for them as God s Elect. This is true regardless of ethnicity. Always has been and always will be. Yet God did have His hand on Israel in a special way in the OT. The Jews were the people chosen to be stewards of God s revelation. They did enjoy many privileges that the surrounding nations did not. And, from an eschatological standpoint I do believe the Scripture affirms a great ingathering and effectual calling of many in ethnic Israel at the return of 7 The emphasis of this statement would lie on ultimate fulfillment. It is simply a geopolitical reality that the physical land of Palestine does currently belong to ethnic Israel. This was done for them in God s Providence if for no other reason than setting up the fulfillment of prophecies such as Zech.12. While the greater fulfillment of the land promises will be for Spiritual Israel (encompassing all who are saved in Christ, Jew or Gentile) in the Eternal State, it at least it seems that prophecies such as Zechariah 12 do speak of ethnic Israel possessing the land at the time of Christ s return. The gifts and calling are irrevocable.

8 Christ. Zech.12:10-13:2 I believe declares this explicitly as does Ro.11: That ethnic Israel is in view in vs seems very clear as these are said to presently be enemies of the Gospel (this could hardly be Spiritual Israel ) and that the gifts and calling of God on them is irrevocable. So, where then do I come down on the issue of the covenants? Am I a Dispensationalist? Definitely not, unless my understanding of God s eschatological moving on behalf of ethnic Israel qualifies me? Do I embrace Covenant Theology? Well, some of it, yes I do. I do agree that God s arrangement with Adam (both Adams by the way) could be characterized as a covenant of works. But, I can t agree that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of grace nor that it can be divvied up into 3 parts as it all stands or falls together in my mind. So, I must be New Covenant then, right? Well, mostly, with the caveat concerning the nature of God s arrangement with Adam being a covenant. One thing is for sure, my views have definitely changed over the years as I have studied God s word. (Hey, I used to be an Arminian not to be confused with an Armenian someone from Armenia.) This is as it should be. The older I get in the Lord the more I realize how much I don t know. One day when we get to heaven everyone will finally agree with me. Or maybe it s that I will agree with them? Actually I think it s no on both counts. We ll just all agree with Jesus and such issues will probably not be long on our minds anyway as we behold His glory and worship Him together! But at any rate we are definitely in process and hopefully we can lovingly agree to disagree on things that while important, are not primary matters of life and death. In the Savior, Pastor Kirk