The Covenant in Classical Covenant Theology (Part 2)
Image
(Read Part 1.)
If we turn to Covenant theology’s own explanations of their system we find a curious dualism of frankness and subterfuge. I do not use “frankness” in the ethical sense, just in the sense that there is sometimes a willingness to face the text and deal with what it actually says.
Likewise, by “subterfuge” I am not saying there is an unethical motive in these men, but that they almost instinctively avoid the clear implications of passages which undermine their teaching. Robertson, for example, when dealing with the inauguration of the Abrahamic covenant, carefully picks his way through Genesis 15 (and 12:1) without mentioning God’s land-promise (The Christ of the Covenants, ch. 8). He first constructs his thesis with the help of certain NT texts, and then deals with the land issue once he has a typological framework to put it in.
He is more “up-front” when he refers to Jeremiah 31, 32 and Ezekiel 34 and 37 on pages 41-42 of his book, but this plain speaking about God’s planting of His people “in this land” to “give them one heart and one way,”10 and his explicitly linking the land promise to Jacob through the Abrahamic covenant,11 does not last for long. Needless to say the land promise to Israel withers under the flame of Reformed typology as Robertson’s book progresses (ch. 13), and the Church becomes “Israel” through its participation in the new covenant.12
In none of this does one find any solid exegetical demonstration. Instead, at the crucial moment, in order to get where they want to go, CT’s will rely upon human reasoning (e.g. “if this, then that”) to lop off covenanted promises which contravene their theological covenants. The land promise stated over and over in the Abrahamic covenant (e.g. 12:1, 7; 15:18-21; 17:7-8) and repeated in the prophets (e.g. Isa. 44; Jer. 25:5; 31:31-40; 32:36-41; 33:14-26; Ezek. 36:26-36), is ushered into a room marked “obscurity” using the covenant of grace. How ironic; the land promise is expressly stated and restated all over the OT, and the covenant of grace never once puts in an appearance! But this maneuver can be carried out under the auspices of this brand of theology due to what Gerhaardus Vos called “a consciousness of the covenant,” meaning the covenant of grace. I might humbly point out that there are other, more perspicuous covenants that ought to have our attention as Bible readers.
Another noted Covenant theologian who exemplifies the phenomena I have been referring to is Michael Horton. His book God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology, takes back with one hand what it appears to give with the other. Placing an enormous burden of proof on Galatians 4:22-31, which it was never supposed to bear, Horton sometimes seems to interpret the covenant passages at face value. He repeatedly admits that both the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants were unconditional. He rivals any dispensationalist in his belief in the unilateral nature of these biblical covenants.13 But then he makes the land promise part of the Mosaic covenant, whence it can be safely dispatched. As he says for example,
The Mosaic (Sinai) covenant is an oath of the people swearing personal performance of the conditions for “living long in the land,” while the Abrahamic covenant is a promise by God himself that he will unilaterally bring about the salvation of his people through the seed of Abraham.14
This is an amazing statement. Although he is right to say that possession of the land was tied to obedience to the Mosaic covenant (e.g. Lev. 26), even the Mosaic covenant looked forward to a New covenant whereby God would circumcise the heart (Deut. 30:6), so that “in the latter days” they would not be forsaken, but would be remembered because of the existing terms of the Abrahamic covenant (Deut.4:30-31; 30:19-20).
What happened? Is the Abrahamic covenant only about salvation as Horton claims? I invite anyone to read Genesis 12-17, Jeremiah 33 or Ezekiel 36 and demonstrate such a single track in regards to the Abrahamic covenant. It is a patently false reading. In fact, there is no provision for salvation at all in the Abrahamic covenant itself. Although the Seed promise (singular) is there, it is developed through the New covenant, not per se the terms of the Abrahamic. All the talk about typology (Horton’s book is also filled with it) cannot alter these facts.
That God must be gracious to sinners if they are to be saved is not at issue. What is at issue is whether there is any such thing as the covenant of grace (I have focused on it since it is the main support for CT’s interpretations and theology). I have no qualms in describing it is a figment overlaid on the biblical covenants. It is the lens which makes CT’s see only the salvation of the church in the covenants. It is what encourages them to transform the NT Church into “new Israel.” It stands behind many of the dogmas of covenant theology. But the covenant of grace, together with the “covenant of works,” is nonetheless absent from the Word of God.
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.
- 3 views
This is what goes on in many discussion boards but it seems, mostly devolves into carnal partisan bickering.
I believe (in general) that CT goes too far in building their system. They fail to note the future promise to Israel that God has in mind ethnic Jews whom will be the focus of the 70th week.
Just because I note separate Israel and the church, please don’t consider me in any sense Dispensational. In its ‘bare bones’ CT makes much more sense of the truth of scripture. Even Alva McClain (sp?) on the last page of his magnum opus acknowledged the idea of a Covenant of Grace. Rom. 5 sets forth Adam’s failure and the Last Adam’s righteousness of works. CT just go too far in their systematization.
It is important to note that different writers of the NT (under inspiration) term “Israel” differently. I believe, for instance, that John sees gentile Christians connected more in terms of “the one people of God” while Paul, ministering primarily to Gentiles (but certainly not exclusively), notes the ethnic (and different trajectory) distinction. The NT and OT reinforce each other and cannot be bifuricated as ‘interpretive’ of each other. Of course progressively God has spoken to us “in Son” in whom grace and truth were delivered (Jn. 1.17).
Dispensationalists fail, I believe, in not recognizing the inherent imagery which is disclosed in the text. The Mosaic Sacrificial System was revelatory and pictured the Promised Seed (singular). It won’t do just to reject the Promise and Prophecy of God’s sure word (Gen. 3.15) that Christ was crucified before the foundation of the world (when He said it, it was set and was inviolate). Believers also were seen in the seed of the woman (plural) as chosen in love freely and graciously by God. It wasn’t just Jeremiah that was known by God before he was born (known in the sense of choosing), but all believers are likewise foreknown (fore-loved).
Dispensationalism wants a ‘term’, an exegetical overt statement while the reality is in the text but ‘pictured’ in requirements of the sacrifice. The sincere worshipper under Moses’ Covenant came to personal recognition of failure and was promised reconciliation through the offering of the various types of sacrifice.
I’ve said my piece and withdraw from the further discussion. I have too much on my plate to be embroiled in (what I fear) will be fruitless.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
Still some typos in my first post in thread after an edit, but most will get the idea. I should add that I have not read any CT books since seminary (about 35 years ago). I read CT books as reference but is was rabidly Dispensational. Just from reading the bible and reflecting upon it these positions of Redemption were solidified. I read mostly Biblical Theologies which could be related to D. and CT however. I probably need to read those much more than message boards.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
I really don’t know what to do with such a set of bland assertions. The writer might note that the word “dispensation” and its cognates doesn’t show up in the article! Neither am I concerned with defending it. There’s no bickering here, neither is there any oneupmanship. There is an article based on a lot of study and experience. If he wishes to disagree with the content of the posts he might engage it instead of asserting his off-topic opinions. He says,
“I should add that I have not read any CT books since seminary (about 35 years ago). I read CT books as reference but is was rabidly Dispensational. Just from reading the bible and reflecting upon it these positions of Redemption were solidified. I read mostly Biblical Theologies which could be related to D. and CT however. I probably need to read those much more than message boards.”
Well, if he had read just a few CT books in the last 35 years, as some of us have, he might have something more than assertions to offer here.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
It is important to note that different writers of the NT (under inspiration) term “Israel” differently. I believe, for instance, that John sees gentile Christians connected more in terms of “the one people of God”
John uses the term “Israel” seven times:
- John 1:31 “I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.”
- John 1:49 Nathanael answered Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.”
- John 3:10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?
- John 12:13 took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began to shout, “Hosanna! BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD, even the King of Israel.”
- Revelation 2:14 ‘But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality.
- Revelation 7:4 And I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel:
- Revelation 21:12 It had a great and high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels; and names were written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel.
In none of these does he appear to have any notion of the “one people of God.” He may see the Gentiles more connected, though that argument would have to be made and it cannot depend on his use of the term “(Israel”).
Dispensationalists fail, I believe, in not recognizing the inherent imagery which is disclosed in the text. The Mosaic Sacrificial System was revelatory and pictured the Promised Seed (singular). It won’t do just to reject the Promise and Prophecy of God’s sure word (Gen. 3.15) that Christ was crucified before the foundation of the world (when He said it, it was set and was inviolate). Believers also were seen in the seed of the woman (plural) as chosen in love freely and graciously by God. It wasn’t just Jeremiah that was known by God before he was born (known in the sense of choosing), but all believers are likewise foreknown (fore-loved).
Dispensationalism wants a ‘term’, an exegetical overt statement while the reality is in the text but ‘pictured’ in requirements of the sacrifice. The sincere worshipper under Moses’ Covenant came to personal recognition of failure and was promised reconciliation through the offering of the various types of sacrifice.
I am curious as to what any of this has to do with dispensationalism. Dispensationalism doesn’t, to my knowledge, deny or reject any of these things though perhaps I am misunderstanding something.
I agree with Paul (I think). The idea of a covenant of grace may be attractive theologically, but it is not well-supported exegetically.
Discussion