Deciphering Covenant Theology (Part 1)
Image
This series is bound to annoy covenant theologians who stop by to read it. To them I want to say that my purpose here is certainly not to irritate anyone. If a CT has any problem with what is asserted in these posts he is very welcome to challenge it (giving proof where necessary).
For those readers who want a quick historical intro to CT perhaps my “A Very Brief History of Covenant Theology” will help.
First Things First
I have been reading covenant theology (CT) for many years; close to thirty. In that time, I have read numerous Systematic Theologies by covenant theologians, including Hodge, Dabney, Bavinck, Frame, Horton, Reymond, as well as expositions of CT by the likes of Warfield, Packer, Horton, Vos, Witsius, Owen, Turretin, and Robertson. I attended a staunchly Reformed CT seminary in England. I went to several churches where CT was preached for extensive periods. By far the majority of books I have read in the last thirty years have been written by covenant theologians. I know covenant theology.
But even though I am well acquainted with CT, I do not agree with it. I have been sympathetic for a long time to Dispensationalism (DT), and from there to construct Biblical Covenantalism. But Biblical Covenantalism could not have come into existence without CT and its emphasis upon teleology or purpose. I do respect CT and admire many of its adherents. At the real risk of losing many dispensational readers, I think CT is superior to DT is several respects: it is more Christological, more teleological, more cohesive, and more prescriptive. Because of all these things CT is theologically richer and deeper than DT.
I shall have more to say about that controversial statement further on. However, I want to go on record to say that if it had not been for the teleological (i.e., purpose-focused) genius of Covenant Theology I would never have come up with Biblical Covenantalism, for I would not have the perspective I needed to see things the way I needed to see them, nor know the question that needed asking.
This series will attempt to introduce Covenant Theology to the outsiders and uninitiated. I have found that among dispensationalists there is as much ignorance and misunderstanding of CT as there is vice versa. I have thought long and hard about the best way to present this study and the right sources to use. As far as presentation is concerned, I shall describe aspects of CT via quotations and summaries, which I shall then go on to critique. As far as the choice of authorities to employ, I think too many would muddy the waters, and too many quotes from the 16th and 17th centuries would lose half my readers. I have therefore decided to interact with five sources while adding material from elsewhere wherever necessary. My main sources are these:
- O. Palmer Robertson – The Christ of the Covenants
- Richard P. Belcher, Jr. – The Fulfillment of the Promise of God: An Explanation of Covenant Theology
- Guy P. Waters, J. Nicholas Reid & John H. Muether, eds., Covenant Theology: Biblical, Historical and Theological Perspectives.
- Michael Brown & Zach Keele – Sacred Bond: Covenant Theology Explored
- Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man.
All these are relatively recent yet authoritative texts on CT. Of course, in the case of Baptist CT these books will have to be supplemented. For that purpose, I will repair to the excellent work of Pascal Denault, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, and also to Greg Nichols’ Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God’s Covenants.
My procedure will be to provide an accurate statement of the aspect under discussion (e.g., covenant of redemption, covenant of grace, infant baptism, federalism, Israel and the Church) before giving a more in-depth description supplemented with quotations.
CT is usually tied to Calvinist Reformed Theology (indeed, R.C. Sproul said that Covenant Theology is Reformed theology1), but that is not quite true. Jacob Arminius was a covenant theologian as anyone familiar with his works is aware. But in the main Sproul’s conviction is correct.
In the First Place – Watch for Deductions!
Before moving into the first descriptive part of this study, I feel the need to make something clear. A person will not understand CT unless they grasp two basic things. Firstly, CT reads the OT through the lens of the NT. Actually, that is not quite right. I should say that CT reads the OT through its own understanding of the NT. Which brings me to the second matter. To understand CT, one must comprehend the reasoning. CT is heavily deductive in its approach to Scripture and Theology. Let me explain what I mean.
Covenant theologians tell “stories.” The stories are persuasive because they are God-centered, Christological, NT oriented, and coherent (at least apparently). But they are stories, nonetheless. Often bits of the story get interpolated into the exegesis and explanations, so that at one moment you are reading something from Genesis, and the next a theology of Calvary via Paul is freighted in. It is difficult to many to see but there is a theological agenda always running in the background. Occasionally the veil slips a little and the background assumption can be seen. When this happens, one must pay special attention. Certain things are being taken for granted. One of the best places to see this is when CT’s are dealing with the actual covenants of God mentioned in the Bible; the Abrahamic, the Davidic, and the New particularly. Covenant theologians major on “theological interpretation.” For example, in reference to Genesis 3:15 Brown & Keele say,
[God] promises to form a community of people for himself whom he will set apart from the offspring of the devil and one day rescue from the latter’s fierce hostility…This community can be traced throughout redemptive history…not by bloodline, but by those who believe in God’s promise. As Paul says to Gentile Christians in Galatians 3:29: “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.” Thus, Genesis 3:15 reveals God’s first formation of his church.2
There are all kinds of assumptions inserted into this story. There is the assumption (based upon debatable exegesis) that the so-called “godly line” (which they will identify with the line of Seth), is set apart for God. There is the assumption that this “community of people,” though clearly a bloodline in Genesis, will become a community not based upon bloodlines, but is the same community, nonetheless. Then there is the drafting into the picture Paul’s words addressed to the churches of Galatia. Finally, there is the assumption that the church can, and indeed must exist prior to the resurrection of Jesus.
But let us remind ourselves of Genesis 3:15:
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.
I realize that this “proto-evangelium” is supposed to promise a Savior, but does it? The remarks are addressed to the serpent and imply his doom. There is nary a word about redemption from sin. Satan’s conqueror will not be unscathed, but Satan will be destroyed. In the quotation from Brown & Keele above what is being woven into the fabric of Genesis 3:15 from the outside? Well, as a matter of fact, everything! There is not one assertion in the above quote which matches what is being stated in Genesis 3:15. The statement is setting you up for the story. Two groups are being set forth, a godly line and an ungodly line, the plan of “redemptive history” which the story will rely on is mentioned. Then the apostle Paul’s reference to Abraham in Galatians 3:29 is introduced and voila! the church is equated with the godly line of Genesis 3:15 and therefore “Genesis 3:15 reveals God’s first formation of his church.”
I have not begun to describe what Covenant Theology is, but I believe it necessary to put this “warning” before the reader’s eyes before doing even that. You will not be able to comprehend CT if you fail to grasp the deductive nature of its pronouncements.
One more thing: a look through systematic theologies by CT’s will reveal how important their theological covenants are to that discipline as well as biblical theology. he same cannot be said of the role of dispensations to Dispensational systematics! Think about that a while.
Photo by Mick Haupt on Unsplash.
Notes
1 R. C. Sproul, What Is Reformed Theology?: Understanding the Basics, 117f.,
2 Michael Brown & Zach Keele – Sacred Bond: Covenant Theology Explored, 62.
Paul Henebury Bio
Paul Martin Henebury is a native of Manchester, England and a graduate of London Theological Seminary and Tyndale Theological Seminary (MDiv, PhD). He has been a Church-planter, pastor and a professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics. He was also editor of the Conservative Theological Journal (suggesting its new name, Journal of Dispensational Theology, prior to leaving that post). He is now the President of Telos School of Theology.
- 347 views
I do not share your assessment of Chou’s book, and thought it was a great disappointment [EDITED].
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
There are hardcore dispensationalist and hardcore CT adherents, but there is a huge number of people a bit in the middle. They see benefits from both and weaknesses from both. Both, I feel glosses over their weaknesses to focus on their strengths and the weaknesses of the competing theological framework. I am in a camp that is in the middle. There are many things I like about both frameworks, but I have challenges with both as well. Thus I will say that the evangelical community will never be fully aligned, and my salvation is not dependent on fully understanding and coming to an agreement on these, this side of eternity. It should not be surprising that man struggles in developing a framework around something he has little understanding about. Something truly known only by God and that He has only partially revealed in the smallest senses to man. But I do look forward to these articles.
Larry, we don’t need the NT to explain every statement of the OT. If it did, it would have to be longer than the OT. But we can observe the numerous examples in which NT authors interpreted the OT to suggest a pattern for interpreting the rest. I would think that fifteen or twenty examples should be sufficient to cause a re-thinking of DT. What I find ironic is the way in which DT often explains away these examples. They usually deny that they really mean what they seem to mean, because if the obvious meaning is the correct meaning, DT is called into question. In other words, OT wording must be taken at face value, as literally as possible, but NT statements which seem to contradict DT must not be taken at face value. So “literal whenever possible” applies to the OT, but not to the NT. Hmmm.
If one has to give way, it seems to me that the OT must give way to the NT. We don’t have divinely inspired commentary on the NT, since the canon was closed with the book of Revelation. But we have divinely inspired commentary on the OT in the NT. That forces us to endeavor to align our interpretation of the OT with NT inspired interpretation.
G. N. Barkman
Greg,
I know we’ve been over this ground before, but I do not believe the NT reinterprets the OT. What it does is offer occasional challenges to plain-sense interpretation, yet never in a way that is unfathomable. But I want to make a couple of observations: First, when we say the NT interprets the OT what we are actually saying is that our own interpretation of the NT is being used to interpret the OT. But how can we know that our interpretation is in the ballpark and not out-of-bounds (sorry for the awful metaphor)? One way is the Rules of Affinity I devised for myself a few years back where the “distance” between what a text’s words SAY and what they are claimed to mean is measured.
Another thing to keep in mind is that there may be several “plain-sense” interpretations put forward to weigh. But non-literal interpretations must take a back seat until these have been tried and found wanting (which for me means that they are always kept in the back seat). I am not of course speaking about figures of speech. Plain-sense takes those into consideration.
Lastly, you say “But we have divinely inspired commentary on the OT in the NT.” But is that really true? I think that the amount of OT textual interpretation in the NT is pretty slight. What there is can usually be readily linked to the OT in a straightforward way, with a fairly small amount of “problem passages” to grapple with.
Anyway, this subject is not right now the subject of the post, but it will feature further on.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
I’m probably speaking out of turn, but I years ago, I learned 3 simple questions to aid in interpretation that if faithfully applied would aid the reader to a solid understanding of the majority of Biblical passages.
- Who said it?
- To whom was it said?
- What were the circumstances?
Paul, I don’t think I said the NT “reinterprets” the OT. That is your wording and seems to assume that however one interprets the OT without reference to the NT must be considered its (valid) interpretation. I believe I said the NT “interprets” the OT. That wording allows our first impression of an OT passage to be reshaped in light of NT references. How could it be otherwise? I guess that’s what you call “reinterpretation.” I prefer to think of it as holding my first impression lightly until I can consider additional evidence. I am reluctant to claim any interpretation until I have examined relevant NT references, if any.
In addition, you question my statement that we have NT interpretation of the OT. You assert that there really aren’t that many instances. But I did not claim that the NT provides an exhaustive interpretation of the OT. That was the main point of my post. We don’t need many occurrences. Larry argued similarly when he said that there are only 600 OT references in the NT. That sounds like a lot to me, but if we have only a dozen, that may well be enough to guide us in our understanding of the OT. If, for example, the NT tells us that John the Baptist was Elijah, that causes us to realize that Malachi’s prophecy about the coming of Elijah should not be understood in the most literal sense. John the Baptist was clearly not the reincarnation of Elijah the Tishbite, as we might anticipate if we had only Malachi 4:5,6. It turns out that John was an Elijah like prophet who came in the same spirit as Elijah, and as such, fulfilled Malachi’s prophecy. That enables us to consider other OT statements in a similar manner.
I’m sorry if we have covered this material in the past, but Larry asked questions that required an explanation of how I interpret the OT. This explains how I grapple with NT authors who handle OT passages in a manner that does not fit into a DT mode of interpretation.
G. N. Barkman
But we can observe the numerous examples in which NT authors interpreted the OT to suggest a pattern for interpreting the rest.
It seems to me that the variation in which NT authors use the OT indicates that there is no pattern. There aren’t that many uses (the 600 is generous from EJ Young I believe but I can’t remember and that includes possible allusions which are pretty slippery), and they are tremendously varied.
There are perhaps a dozen or more different types of OT usage in the NT, everything from direct fulfillment to occasional typology to allusions to merely borrowing words without intending to say anything about the original context, plus more. So what is the pattern? There is no pattern. There are collections of usages, and even those groupings differ depending on who makes the list. Who is to determine what is the borrowing of words or the direct fulfillment? Or an analogy? And which pattern should we follow?
I could write much on this and I have but two points stand particularly poignant IMO, and drawn from Dennis Johnson and Walton (who disagree).
Johnson says that since we are limited “in contrast to the revelatory insight of the apostles” we should follow their example in interpreting texts that the NT does not invoke (Him We Proclaim, 2007). It does not seem to register that if the NT apostles are using revelation, we cannot follow their example.
Walton, in TMSJ (2002). talks about having either revelation or exegesis. If you have revelation (as the apostles did), you don’t need exegesis. If you don’t have revelation, then the only claim for authority is exegesis. Longenecker (1970) says something similar: “Apart from a revelatory stance on our part, I suggest that we cannot reproduce their pesher exegesis.” He says that NT authors are likely unaware of “varieties of exegetical genre or of following particular modes of interpretation.”
Here is a longer citation of Walton:
The NT authors never claim to have engaged in a hermeneutical process, nor do they claim that they can support their findings from the text; instead, they claim inspiration … For the NT authors, the response to the question “Why should I believe that” is that they got the information for their interpretation from God … If you have inspiration, you do not need historical-grammatical hermeneutics. If you do not have inspiration, you must proceed by the acknowledged guidelines of hermeneutics. (Walton 2002, 70)
Walton concludes by saying,
There may be value in types, symbols, role models, and fulfillments, but, being subjective methods, they do not carry the authority of God’s Word unless they become incorporated in the inspired message of the biblical author. When the authority of an author comes by means of inspiration, he does not need to validate his statements by appealing to hermeneutical principles. We do not wish to reproduce the hermeneutics of NT authors because they, by virtue of inspiration, accrued authority to themselves by means unavailable to us. We seek only to proclaim what the text, in its authority, has already revealed. (Walton 2002, 75‑76)
The point of this primarily is to discuss authority. By what authority do we say something from the text? The answer is revelation (as the apostles) or exegesis of the words. As Chapell says, ““A minister’s imagination is a poor place to discern what a biblical text means.” Why should anyone believe what a preacher says? The answer must be, “Because they can show it to me in the text.”
I would think that fifteen or twenty examples should be sufficient to cause a re-thinking of DT.
I would be interested in what these fifteen or twenty might be and I wonder how you would respond to the many dispensational scholars who no doubt know of these passages and have not thought it necessary to “re-think” DT. These things are not new. It’s not as if they haven’t been thought about.
In other words, OT wording must be taken at face value, as literally as possible, but NT statements which seem to contradict DT must not be taken at face value. So “literal whenever possible” applies to the OT, but not to the NT. Hmmm.
Again, I think you are committing a fundamental error. Almost no dispensationalist thinks the OT must be taken at “face value” all the time. All of them that I am aware of believes that you interpret it normally. And they believe the same thing about the NT. Contrary to your claim, they don’t interpret the testaments differently.
I think we perhaps miss the distinction between interpretation and application or implication. And what many claim as an “interpretation” is actually an application of a text.
If one has to give way, it seems to me that the OT must give way to the NT.
This, to me, is the heart of the trouble because it seems to lead to the position that the OT is untrustworthy in and of itself. You can’t really trust its words until you get the “divinely inspired” interpretation in the NT. I just don’t see any evidence from Jesus or the apostles that they shared your view. I think they consistently appeal to what was written as it was written, not to some special hermeneutic or interpretation. It was as if they thought they meaning could be determined from the words, from “what has been written.”
That forces us to endeavor to align our interpretation of the OT with NT inspired interpretation.
This I would not quibble with at all. The point of Jesus and the apostles is that they are aligned. I think the difficulty is that you see things in the NT that I would say aren’t there and that leads you to see things in the OT that I would say aren’t there.
I doubt there is much ground to be gained with each other here, but it is to me at least an interesting consideration and conversation that is far too easily dismissed IMO. I will close by saying that if we used your hermeneutic, you and I could barely have a conversation.
Now we’re finally getting to the crux of the matter - what is the correct way to approach the Bible?
I am amazed that Christianity has existed for about two-thousand years and Spirit-filled Christians still cannot agree on the correct way to read, understand, interpret, and apply scripture. Could it be that God intends it to be that way? Could it be that God intends some Christians to interpret the OT and NT from “in light of” and others to “give way to?” I am truly mystified by this.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
Larry, you asked how I can be certain of the interpretation of the NT, if I believe the OT needs the NT for correct interpretation. I do not claim that my interpretation of the NT is always correct. My goal is to understand it as correctly as possible with my present level of knowledge and the aid of God’s Spirit.
However, we know the OT needs the NT because Scripture was incomplete without the addition of the NT. God gave the NT, with it’s many references to the OT to aid us in our understanding of the OT. We are foolish if we disregard this divinely inspired aid. However, God did not give us additional Scripture to help us understand the NT. There is no third testament. This indicates that the OT needs the NT for helpful elucidation, but the NT can be understood without additional inspired writings.
G. N. Barkman
[G. N. Barkman]There is no third testament. This indicates that the OT needs the NT for helpful elucidation, but the NT can be understood without additional inspired writings.
How do you know there won’t be? That would sure put a pretty snag in your view, wouldn’t it?
And one would have expected Jews from about 400BC to the 1st century to say exactly the same thing about the OT.
I’m sorry, but if DT must resort to raising the possibility of another inspired testament in the future to challenge my arguments, it must not have a very solid footing.
G. N. Barkman
I’m sorry, but if DT must resort to raising the possibility of another inspired testament in the future to challenge my arguments, it must not have a very solid footing.
Isn’t it the opposite, that you are the one who should be admitting the possibility given your view of the OT?
This indicates that the OT needs the NT for helpful elucidation, but the NT can be understood without additional inspired writings.
Not to belabor the point but, well, to belabor the point, this is not what the NT says. Jesus and the apostles say they should have believed what was already written. They did not need to wait for later revelation about what they should have really believed. The meaning of the words in the OT were sufficient to bring right belief.
Larry, no, I am not the one, and why would you even suggest that? You miss my point entirely. If God had closed Scripture with the OT, we would be forced to rely upon it alone because He gave us no more. The fact that He did give us more, much more, indicates that He intends for us to include NT revelation in our evaluation of OT scripture. But the fact that He gave nothing beyond the NT indicates that the 66 books of the Biblical canon is sufficient to understand everything God intends for us to have. If you are not happy with this arrangement, you will have to take it up with Him.
G. N. Barkman
Larry, you agree that inspired NT authors produced interpretations of the OT that differ from DT. You defend this by saying that since they are inspired, and we are not, it is acceptable for them, but not for us. That explanation doesn’t make sense to me.
Consider the prophecy in Malachi 4:5,6, about the coming of Elijah before the Day of the Lord. Interpretive principles of DT give us a literal return of Elijah the Tishbite to earth. But NT authors, including Jesus, state that John the Baptist is the Elijah who fulfills Malachi’s prophecy. (Luke 1:16,17; Matthew 17:10-13, etc.) That points to a symbolic interpretation of Malachi 4:5,6. This interpretation does not follow DT hermeneutics. Saying that NT authors could do this, but we cannot, is a dodge. If the hermeneutical principles of DT produce an interpretation different than the one produced by inspired NT authors, the interpretive principles of DT are called into question. Your response is that we must nevertheless continue interpreting all other OT passages using the same principles which produced a wrong interpretation of Malachi? We are not allowed to adjust our interpretation to reflect what NT authors have shown us?
We don’t need the NT to interpret the entire OT to learn from inspired NT authors who produced interpretations at variance with DT. A handful of examples are sufficient to indicate a weakness with the DT hermeneutic, We should adjust our rules of interpretation to include the evidence given us in the NT. We must not elevate our rules of interpretation, which are logically conceived, above Scripture itself. If Scripture shows us a flaw in our hermeneutic, we should humbly accept the NT correction and improve our exegesis accordingly.
G. N. Barkman
Daniel 12: 7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream; he raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven and swore by him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time, and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be finished. 8 I heard, but I did not understand. Then I said, “O my lord, what shall be the outcome of these things?” 9 He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many shall purify themselves and make themselves white and be refined, but the wicked shall act wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but those who are wise shall understand. 11 And from the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1,290 days. 12 Blessed is he who waits and arrives at the 1,335 days. 13 But go your way till the end. And you shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days.”
Discussion