KINGDOM<\/p>\n
through<\/p>\n
COVENANT<\/p>\n
A BIBLICAL-THEOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE COVENANTS<\/p>\n
SECOND EDITION<\/p>\n
PETER J. GENTRY
\nSTEPHEN J. WELLUM<\/p>\n
WHEATON, ILLINOIS<\/p>\n
Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Second Edition)<\/p>\n
Copyright \u00a9 2012, 2018 by Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum<\/p>\n
Published by Crossway
\n1300 Crescent Street
\nWheaton, Illinois 60187<\/p>\n
First edition 2012. Second edition 2018.<\/p>\n
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher, except as provided for by USA copyright law. Crossway\u00ae is a registered trademark in the United States of America.<\/p>\n
Cover design: Studio Gearbox<\/p>\n
Cover image: Tower of Babel, 1563, by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam, The Netherlands<\/p>\n
First printing of second edition 2018<\/p>\n
Some material in chapter 17 is adapted from Stephen J. Wellum, Christ Alone: The Uniqueness of Jesus; What the Reformers Taught \u2026 and Why It Still Matters, Five Solas Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017). Used by permission of Zondervan. Material adapted from other sources is noted in the text.<\/p>\n
Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are the authors\u2019 translations.<\/p>\n
Scripture quotations marked ESV are from the ESV\u00ae Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version\u00ae), copyright \u00a9 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.<\/p>\n
Scripture quotations marked HCSB\u00ae are taken from The Holman Christian Standard Bible\u00ae. Copyright \u00a9 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2009 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. HCSB\u00ae is a federally registered trademark of Holman Bible Publishers.<\/p>\n
Scripture references marked JB are from The Jerusalem Bible. Copyright \u00a9 1966, 1967, 1968 by Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd. and Doubleday & Co., Inc.<\/p>\n
Scripture quotations marked KJV are from the King James Version of the Bible.<\/p>\n
Scripture quotations marked NASB are from The New American Standard Bible\u00ae. Copyright \u00a9 The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995. Used by permission.<\/p>\n
Scripture references marked NEB are from The New English Bible \u00a9 The Delegates of the Oxford University Press and The Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, 1961, 1970.<\/p>\n
Scripture references marked NIV are taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version\u00ae, NIV\u00ae. Copyright \u00a9 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.\u2122 Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.<\/p>\n
Scripture references marked NKJV are from The New King James Version. Copyright \u00a9 1982, Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission.<\/p>\n
Scripture references marked NLT are from The Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright \u00a9 1996, 2004. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, IL, 60189. All rights reserved.<\/p>\n
Scripture references marked NRSV are from The New Revised Standard Version. Copyright \u00a9 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. Published by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.<\/p>\n
Scripture references marked RSV are from The Revised Standard Version. Copyright \u00a91946, 1952, 1971, 1973 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.<\/p>\n
All emphases in Scripture quotations have been added by the authors.<\/p>\n
Hardcover ISBN: 978-1-4335-5307-3
\nePub ISBN: 978-1-4335-5310-3
\nPDF ISBN: 978-1-4335-5308-0
\nMobipocket ISBN: 978-1-4335-5309-7<\/p>\n
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data<\/p>\n
Names: Gentry, Peter John, author.
\nTitle: Kingdom through covenant : a biblical-theological understanding of the covenants \/ Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum.
\nDescription: Second Edition. | Wheaton : Crossway, 2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index.
\nIdentifiers: LCCN 2017033085 (print) | LCCN 2018018661 (ebook) | ISBN 9781433553080 (pdf) | ISBN 9781433553097 (mobi) | ISBN 9781433553103 (epub) | ISBN 9781433553073 (hc)
\nSubjects: LCSH: Covenants\u2014Biblical teaching. | Covenants\u2014Religious aspects\u2014Christianity. | Theology, Doctrinal.
\nClassification: LCC BS680.C67 (ebook) | LCC BS680.C67 G46 2018 (print) | DDC 231.7\/6\u2014dc23
\nLC record available at https:\/\/lccn.loc.gov\/2017033085<\/p>\n
Crossway is a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.<\/p>\n
A LEGACY
\nfor
\nMy Children
\nStewart John,
\nLaura and Stephen,
\nJoseph Daniel, Emma Grace, and Sophie Rose
\n\u2014Peter Gentry<\/p>\n
He established a testimony in Jacob
\nand appointed a law in Israel,
\nwhich he commanded our fathers
\nto teach to their children,
\nthat the next generation might know them,
\nthe children yet unborn,
\nand arise and tell them to their children,
\nso that they should set their hope in God
\nand not forget the works of God,
\nbut keep his commandments.
\nPsalm 78:5\u20137 ESV<\/p>\n
WITH GRATITUDE TO OUR TRIUNE COVENANT LORD
\nfor
\nMy Parents
\nColin and Joan Wellum
\n\u2014Stephen Wellum<\/p>\n
CONTENTS<\/p>\n
List of Illustrations<\/p>\n
Preface to the Second Edition<\/p>\n
Preface to the First Edition<\/p>\n
Abbreviations<\/p>\n
PART 1
\nPROLEGOMENA<\/p>\n
1 The Importance of Covenants in Biblical and Systematic Theology<\/p>\n
2 Covenants in Biblical-Theological Systems
\nDispensational and Covenant Theology<\/p>\n
3 Hermeneutical Issues in \u201cPutting Together\u201d the Covenants<\/p>\n
PART 2
\nEXPOSITION OF THE BIBLICAL COVENANTS<\/p>\n
4 The Notion of Covenant in the Bible and in the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n
5 The Covenant with Noah<\/p>\n
6 The Covenant with Creation in Genesis 1\u20133<\/p>\n
7 The Covenant with Abraham (1)<\/p>\n
8 The Covenant with Abraham (2)<\/p>\n
9 The Mosaic Covenant
\nExodus\/Sinai<\/p>\n
10 The Mosaic Covenant
\nDeuteronomy\/Moab<\/p>\n
11 The Davidic Covenant<\/p>\n
12 The New Covenant
\nIntroduction and Isaiah<\/p>\n
13 The New Covenant
\nJeremiah<\/p>\n
14 The New Covenant
\nEzekiel<\/p>\n
15 The New Covenant in Daniel\u2019s Seventy Weeks<\/p>\n
PART 3
\nTHEOLOGICAL SUMMARY AND INTEGRATION<\/p>\n
16 Kingdom through Covenant
\nA Theological Summary from Creation to the Promise of the New Covenant<\/p>\n
17 Kingdom through Covenant
\nThe Biblical Covenants Fulfilled in Christ Jesus and the New Covenant<\/p>\n
18 Kingdom through Covenant
\nSome Theological Implications: Christology and the Christian Life<\/p>\n
19 Kingdom through Covenant
\nSome Theological Implications: Ecclesiology and Eschatology<\/p>\n
Appendix: Lexical Analysis of b\u0115r\u00eet (\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea)<\/p>\n
General Index<\/p>\n
Scripture Index<\/p>\n
ILLUSTRATIONS<\/p>\n
FIGURES<\/p>\n
6.1 Words Describing Each Day of Creation<\/p>\n
8.1 Map of the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n
8.2 Relationships of Genesis 12; 15; 17; and 22<\/p>\n
10.1 Comparison of Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Forms<\/p>\n
10.2 Comparison of Ancient Near Eastern Laws\/Treatises and Deuteronomy<\/p>\n
15.1 God\u2019s Progressive Revelation of Detail<\/p>\n
15.2 God\u2019s Progressive Revelation in Daniel<\/p>\n
16.1 Time versus Scope of Covenant Membership<\/p>\n
16.2 Time versus Covenant Partners\/Roles<\/p>\n
17.1 Old Testament<\/p>\n
17.2 New Testament<\/p>\n
TABLES<\/p>\n
4.1 The Major Covenants<\/p>\n
4.2 Old Testament Canon: The Twenty-Four Books<\/p>\n
4.3 Comparison and Contrast between Covenant and Contract<\/p>\n
4.4 Yahweh Yahweh (Hebrew)<\/p>\n
4.5 Yahweh Yahweh (English, ESV)<\/p>\n
5.1 Comparison of the Covenants with Noah and with Creation<\/p>\n
5.2 The History of the World: The Macrocosm<\/p>\n
6.1 Sequence of Day Six versus the Other Days of Creation<\/p>\n
7.1 The Abram Narratives<\/p>\n
7.2 The Giving of the Promise: The Call of Abram (Genesis 12)<\/p>\n
8.1 Parallels between Genesis 9 and 17<\/p>\n
9.1 Structure of the Covenant in Exodus<\/p>\n
9.2 Legal Treatises of the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n
9.3 The Ten Words as Inalienable Human Rights<\/p>\n
9.4 The First Two of the Ten Words as an Exposition of the Covenant Formula<\/p>\n
9.5 Literary Context of the Law in the Pentateuch and the Ancient Near East<\/p>\n
10.1 Deuteronomy as a Suzerain-Vassal Treaty (Kitchen)<\/p>\n
10.2 Deuteronomy as a Suzerain-Vassal Treaty (Gentry)<\/p>\n
10.3 Ancient Near East Covenants\/Treaties and Legal Treatises<\/p>\n
10.4 Literary Structure of the Early Legal Treatises (Phase II)<\/p>\n
10.5 Phases III and IV<\/p>\n
10.6 Phases V and VI<\/p>\n
10.7 The Covenant Relationship Formula (CRF) in the Literary Sections of Deuteronomy<\/p>\n
10.8 Treaty Obligations in Their Infinitival Forms<\/p>\n
10.9 Mutual Covenant Commitments (Deut. 26:16\u201319)<\/p>\n
12.1 Text of Psalm 87<\/p>\n
12.2 Comparison of Zechariah 2:10\u201312 and Psalm 87<\/p>\n
13.1 Argument of Jeremiah 31:31\u201334<\/p>\n
13.2 Covenant Violation and False Teaching in 1 John 1:5\u20132:2<\/p>\n
13.3 Comparing and Contrasting Jeremiah 31:31\u201334 and 32:37\u201341<\/p>\n
13.4 Possible Meanings of \u05e6\u05b6\u05de\u05b7\u05d7<\/p>\n
15.1 God Reveals in Greater and Greater Detail<\/p>\n
15.2 A Symmetry of Sabbaths in Israelite History<\/p>\n
15.3 The Division of the Weeks<\/p>\n
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION<\/p>\n
We are extremely grateful to Justin Taylor and the entire Crossway team for an opportunity to present a revised edition of Kingdom through Covenant. Although we are delighted in the reception that the first edition (2012) has received and are thankful for how it has stimulated discussion regarding how our triune God\u2019s eternal plan is disclosed to us through the Bible\u2019s covenantal unfolding, we wanted to update parts and clarify others in light of some of the reviews and helpful feedback we have received. In this new edition, we have attempted to read and critically reflect on all the reviews of the first edition of Kingdom through Covenant known to us. Since the book\u2019s publication, we have realized that some matters required correction and other matters clarification, given some of the reviewers\u2019 misunderstandings of our overall proposal. In addition, we have also grown in our understanding of Scripture and further wrestled with issues that did not appear to us when we began this journey. In what follows, we would like to explain what has been updated in each of our respective parts and also how close cooperation and work together have helped us to improve the other\u2019s part and the whole.<\/p>\n
NOTE FROM PETER GENTRY<\/p>\n
Serious reflection on all known reviews led me to reconsider my exegesis in a few areas. The one reviewer who noted genuine problems in the exegesis was Doug Moo. He highlighted that the explanation given of \u201caffirm\/uphold a covenant\u201d (h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet) in Ezekiel 16 was unsatisfactory. Nor did I explain properly why \u201ccut a covenant\u201d (k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet) was used of Deuteronomy, since the covenant at Moab appears to be a reaffirmation of the covenant at Sinai. I am grateful for the opportunity to acknowledge my errors and am especially thankful for his review.
\nSeveral months of study on Ezekiel 16 led me to a different explanation, which I published in the abridgment of this volume, God\u2019s Kingdom through God\u2019s Covenants (Crossway, 2015). Further research on the literary structure of Deuteronomy, which covered chapters 1\u201333 and not just 1\u201328, led me to what I believe is a more satisfactory treatment of the relationship between the covenant at Sinai and the covenant at Moab and to not only why the expression k\u0101rat b\u0115r\u00eet was necessary for the latter but also why the expression h\u0113q\u00eem b\u0115r\u00eet was inappropriate there.
\nThe chapter on Daniel 9 has been completely rewritten. The basic position taken is much the same, but many exegetical issues are reconsidered that make the presentation more satisfactory in dealing with unanswered questions.
\nMuch of the material on the new covenant in the Prophets was reworked. In the first edition, the contribution of each prophet was analyzed within the plot structure of their individual works. At the time, this approach was an advance on previous books on the topic since they did not treat the covenants in this manner. However, what I did not adequately do was consider the chronological development in the Prophets as each prophet meditated on what earlier prophets had spoken and written, thus demonstrating better innerbiblical and intertextual relationships. Thus, Jeremiah clarifies the discussion in Isaiah, and Ezekiel further explains questions unanswered in Jeremiah. In addition, in my discussion of the Prophets\u2019 treatment of the new covenant, I incorporated more material from the New Testament to satisfy some of our critics who did not think we dealt adequately with how the Old Testament\u2019s teaching of kingdom through covenant is fulfilled in the New.
\nWhen the first edition of our book went to press, we did not have sufficient time to evaluate Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God\u2019s Saving Purposes (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), by Scott W. Hahn. The comment in the first edition that Hahn is not quite up to date on the ancient Near Eastern cultural setting necessary for the best exegesis remains true. Yet Hahn\u2019s book is full of helpful insights, and we would certainly agree that the covenant at Sinai, in particular, establishes kinship between Yahweh and Israel. The same is true of the Davidic and new covenants.
\nIn 2015, Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles appeared, edited by Richard J. Bautch and Gary N. Knoppers (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns). This is a collection of twenty-two essays by an international spectrum of scholars. The advertisement on the back cover claims that the \u201cessays in this new and comprehensive study explore how notions of covenant, especially the Sinaitic covenant, flourished during the Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and early Hellenistic periods.\u201d With no mention of our work and no mention of the three-volume work of over 1,600 pages by Kenneth Kitchen and Paul Lawrence dealing with every covenant, law treatise, and treaty in the ancient Near East from the third millennium to the Hasmonean period, it is difficult to consider this work a disinterested and honest treatment of the subject. The title itself, Covenant in the Persian Period, reveals a major bias about the origin of the documents of the Old Testament, which we seek to counter in our volume. In the end, the treatment of the covenants presented is neither comprehensive nor new.
\nFinally, in 2017, Biblical Theology: Covenants and the Kingdom of God in Redemption History, by Jeong Koo Jeon, was published (Eugene: OR, Wipf & Stock). This is a work by a systematic theologian committed to classical covenant theology. Strangely, all the book does is explain and reaffirm the framework of the system and then cite passages of Scripture within this framework as though the evidence is obvious, without any sense that it is ultimately the overall metanarrative that is at debate. One can only show that one\u2019s metanarrative is correct when it encompasses more data than other competing metanarratives and has better explanatory power in dealing with the details. The view of the whole must account for the parts, and the understanding of the parts must reshape the view of the whole. Overall, there is little exegesis in the book by Jeon, and when the author takes issue with our work in four or five places, he does not offer any exegetical evidence for his rejection of our positions. There is also a simple repeating of the analysis provided so many years ago by Meredith Kline for dealing with the biblical text. Ironically, contrary to the review by Jonathan Brack and Jared Oliphint, who questioned our appeal to the cultural setting in our interpretation of Scripture, covenant theologians, as represented by Jeon and Kline, do that very thing.<\/p>\n
NOTE FROM STEPHEN WELLUM<\/p>\n
Given the opportunity to write a revised edition, I carefully edited and rewrote parts 1 and 3. I sought to update, clarify, and remove anything that was not necessary to our overall argument and biblical-theological proposal. Some of the reviews of the first edition illegitimately picked up on material in footnotes and then pitted those discussions against other sections of the book. Or other reviews jumped on a word or phrase\u2014replacement or via media\u2014and then attributed positions to us that we did not intend. In light of this, I was careful to remove material or restate it to achieve maximal clarity. It is our hope that readers will read our new edition by first seeking to do justice to our argument on its own terms before offering a critique of a view that we do not endorse. But as we learned in writing the first edition, no matter how carefully one states one\u2019s position\u2014especially when it centers on key differences between theological systems\u2014it is difficult to hear exactly what the other person is saying. It is our prayer that this revised edition will continue to foster discussion among Christians who agree on so much but still differ on important details, especially in terms of how the Bible\u2019s overall plotline works. For this reason, I have sought to clarify our view and state other theological positions in a more precise and accurate manner.
\nIn part 1, I sought to describe with greater precision the nature of biblical and systematic theology, the theological systems of dispensational and covenant theology, and some of the hermeneutical differences between our proposal and the dominant theological systems within evangelical theology. My description and exposition of these matters did not change substantially, but I have updated the footnotes and, I believe, nuanced the discussion better.
\nIn part 3, I thoroughly reworked chapter 16, which summarizes our overall viewpoint, trying to discuss with more clarity our proposal of progressive covenantalism. We added chapter 17, on the New Testament, with the aim of discussing how the progression of the biblical covenants reaches its fulfillment in Christ and his people, the church. One of the main criticisms of the first edition is that it did not adequately discuss the New Testament data. We sought to respond to this criticism by Peter adding more New Testament material in his exposition of the covenants and by me adding this new chapter. Obviously, the New Testament data could be discussed in a number of ways, but we thought it best to demonstrate how our Lord Jesus Christ brings to fulfillment the previous covenants in himself as the head and mediator of the new covenant and how the church, as God\u2019s new covenant community, is the recipient of all God\u2019s promises in Christ alone. Discussing it in this way allows us to see better how our Lord Jesus is the one who brings all God\u2019s promises to fulfillment and how the church is a transformed, new community (contra covenant theology) yet a community that lasts as a covenant people forever and not merely a present-day illustration of what believing nations will be like in the future (contra dispensational theology).
\nFinally, in chapters 18\u201319, some of the theological entailments of our position are delineated with some previous material removed and new material added. The decision for what to include or omit was based on which material would contribute best to demonstrating key differences between the theological systems of dispensational and covenant theology and our proposal of progressive covenantalism. As we have repeatedly stated, although we as Christians agree on more than we disagree on, our focus in this book is on areas that still divide us. This needs to be kept in mind as the book is read so that readers do not think that Christians disagree on essential truths of the gospel. What we are trying to do is to wrestle with some of the differences among us to attain a greater unity as we sit under the truth of God\u2019s Word.
\nOne note about my dedication of the book to my parents, Dr. Colin and Joan Wellum. In the midst of finishing this work, on October 11, 2017, my dear father passed from this life into the presence of his Lord and Savior. I am so thankful for the legacy he left me and his entire family. As stated in the first edition, we all stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us\u2014men and women who were faithful in their generation, who stood firm on God\u2019s Word, and who passed it on to the next generation. This truth is more real to me now than it was before the passing of my father, and I am pleased to rededicate this second edition to the memory of him and the continued life and influence of my mother. I cannot imagine where I would be today without faithful, godly parents who loved me and my brothers so much to sacrifice their lives to train their children in the truths of God\u2019s Word, to proclaim the glories of Christ Jesus, and to place their children under the faithful exposition of God\u2019s Word by William E. Payne at Trinity Baptist Church, Burlington, Ontario, Canada. I thank our gracious God for the precious gift of my parents.<\/p>\n
In addition to the people to whom the first edition was dedicated, the administration and trustees of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (where we have the privilege of teaching), and the colleagues we thanked in the first edition, we would like to thank those who have worked with us on making progressive covenantalism known and defended as a theological position. Specifically, we are thankful for the contributors to Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenant Theologies (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), who are both colleagues and students and who played an important role in the revision of this new edition.
\nIt is our prayer that this new edition will bring us back to Scripture to wrestle with all that God has revealed to us of his glorious plan centered on Christ Jesus. Moreover, it is our prayer that this work will promote further biblical and theological discussion in the church for her life and health and for God\u2019s glory.
\nPeter J. Gentry
\nStephen J. Wellum<\/p>\n
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION<\/p>\n
The design for Kingdom through Covenant is based on the conviction that biblical theology and systematic theology go hand in hand. To be specific, systematic theology must be based upon biblical theology, and biblical theology in turn must be founded upon exegesis that attends meticulously to the cultural-historical setting, linguistic data, literary devices\/techniques, and especially the narrative plot structure, namely, the larger story that the text as a unitary whole entails and by which it is informed. The converse is also true: exegesis and biblical theology are not ends in themselves but are means to the larger end of doing systematic theology, which simply attempts to bring all our thought and life captive to Scripture and thus under the lordship of Christ.
\nIn this work, the disciplines of biblical and systematic theology have joined forces to investigate anew the biblical covenants and the implications of such a study for conclusions in systematic theology. Such a work has demanded a book written by a biblical scholar and a systematic theologian.
\nPeter Gentry has served as the biblical scholar, who has expounded at length the biblical covenants across redemptive history in part 2, which comprises chapters 4\u201315. He has also written the appendix on \u201ccovenant\u201d at the end of the book. In these chapters, a detailed exegesis is undertaken of the crucial covenantal texts plus those biblical passages that are essential for putting the biblical covenants into a larger story\u2014a story that comes from the Bible and not from our own imagination or worldview, be they present or past. Care has been taken to let the Scripture speak for itself as the biblical covenants are progressively unfolded in God\u2019s plan, reaching their culmination in the new covenant inaugurated by our Lord Jesus Christ.
\nStephen Wellum has served as the systematic theologian, who has written part 1, comprising chapters 1\u20133, and part 3, comprising chapters 16\u201317. In part 1, he provides the framework for the discussion of the biblical covenants in terms of covenantal discussion within systematic theology. Specifically, he sets the backdrop for Gentry\u2019s discussion over against the two dominant theological viewpoints today, namely, dispensationalism and covenant theology. After discussing how each biblical-theological system understands the biblical covenants, he lays out crucial hermeneutical issues that underlie the entire discussion and the way forward if arbitration between the two viewpoints is to be achieved. In part 3, he provides a \u201cbig picture\u201d summary of our via media proposal of Kingdom through Covenant and begins to draw out some of the implications of the study for systematic theology, especially in the areas of theology proper, Christology, ecclesiology, and eschatology.
\nAfter the time of writing and before final publication, a number of major works have appeared on the same topic. Only comments of a limited nature are possible concerning these works. One is by Scott W. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God\u2019s Saving Purposes (Yale University Press, 2009). Although Hahn is now a confessing Roman Catholic, he was trained at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and was given a good background in biblical theology. His work is focused more on the New Testament, while our work is focused more on the Old Testament and how the New Testament is a direct line from Old Testament thought. Hahn\u2019s exegesis dealing with the covenants in the Old Testament follows the ancient Near Eastern categories of royal grant versus suzerain-vassal treaty more rigidly than exegesis of the text of Scripture permits.
\nAnother is by James M. Hamilton, God\u2019s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (Crossway, 2010). Hamilton correctly emphasizes the unity of the biblical texts and claims a center for biblical theology, namely, that the idea or theme of \u201csalvation through judgment\u201d is the theme that unites the entirety of Scripture and that the parts or individual texts of Scripture cannot be understood without reference to it. We agree with the former, but we do not argue for the latter. We do not deny that \u201csalvation through judgment\u201d is a theme of Scripture, even a major one, but we will not defend the assertion that it is the theme to the neglect of other themes. In addition, Hamilton unfortunately does not give much attention to the biblical covenants, their unfolding, progressive nature, and how the biblical covenants provide the entire substructure to the plotline of Scripture. Yet it is our contention that apart from thinking through the relationships between the biblical covenants, one does not fully grasp the Bible\u2019s own intrasystematic categories and thus how the parts are related to the whole in the overall plan of God. Before one argues for the overarching theme of Scripture, one must first wrestle with the unfolding nature of the biblical covenants and their fulfillment and consummation in Christ.
\nA third is that of Greg Nichols, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God\u2019s Covenants (Solid Ground Christian Books, 2011). This work assumes much of the standard exegesis found in classic covenant theology and seeks to modify it in a way that is consistent with Baptist theology. Yet research during the last fifty years provides information on culture, language, and literary structures that both makes possible and necessitates exegesis de novo.
\nA fourth is a guide to the Old Testament for laypeople by Sandra Richter entitled The Epic of Eden: A Christian Entry into the Old Testament (InterVarsity Press, 2008). She uses Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David as key figures both for covenants and for periods of history. Thus she argues, as we do, that the covenants are the key to the plot structure of the Old Testament. The scope of her work is more limited than ours, and differences in exegesis cannot be defended in her work as they are here.
\nFinally, in November 2011, a magisterial volume entitled A New Testament Biblical Theology, by G. K. Beale, appeared (Baker, 2011). Comparison of Beale\u2019s work and ours would require more than we can do in this preface, but one difference between his approach and ours centers on how he unpacks the storyline of Scripture. Beale argues that the \u201cthought\u201d and \u201cthemes\u201d of Genesis 1\u20133 and the later patterns based on them form the storyline of Scripture. His metanarrative turns out to be essentially creation, judgment, and new creation. He summarizes as follows:<\/p>\n
The Old Testament is the story of God, who progressively reestablishes his new-creational kingdom out of chaos over a sinful people by his word and Spirit through promise, covenant, and redemption, resulting in worldwide commission to the faithful to advance this kingdom and judgment (defeat or exile) for the unfaithful, unto his glory.<\/p>\n
We are the first to acknowledge that there is much that is good and right in Beale\u2019s work. It is filled with rich insights and is worth careful reflection. Beale does rightly acknowledge a covenant in Genesis 1\u20133, and he speaks of the commission of Adam as inherited by Noah, Abraham, and Israel. Nonetheless, he does not provide a detailed unpacking of the biblical covenants. Instead, he treats creation and new creation as the main themes of Scripture, but in our view, creation and new creation only serve as the bookends of the plot structure and not the structure itself. Beale fails to use the covenants to develop adequately and properly the plot structure between creation and new creation. It is not the case that the canon merely provides a repetition of the patterns and themes in Genesis 1\u20133 as we progress through redemptive history. Instead, the covenants provide the structure and unfold the developing plotline of Scripture, and thus a detailed investigation of those covenants is necessary to understand God\u2019s eternal plan of salvation centered on Christ. Each covenant must first be placed in its own historical-textual context and then viewed intertextually and canonically if we are truly going to grasp something of the whole counsel of God, especially the glory of the new covenant that our Lord has inaugurated. It is for this reason that we are convinced that Beale\u2019s otherwise full treatment of subjects goes awry. When he comes to the end of his work, he does not provide a detailed treatment of the covenantal unfolding that reaches its climax in Christ and the new covenant. In our view, he wrongly identifies Sunday as a Christian Sabbath when the former is a sign of the new creation and the latter is a sign of the first creation and (now obsolete) old covenant. He also argues for infant baptism, thus confusing the sign of the new covenant with circumcision, which is the sign for the Abrahamic covenant. These are distinct and separate as covenants and covenant signs. Thus Sabbath and baptism are not sufficiently discussed in their covenantal contexts and fulfillment in Christ. In the end, Beale leaves us with a sophisticated treatment of covenant theology that we are convinced needs to be modified in light of the Bible\u2019s own unfolding of the biblical covenants.
\nIn a work of this magnitude we have received help from our colleagues, family, and students. We would like to thank our colleagues Daniel Block, Stephen Dempster, Stephen Kempf, Tom Schreiner, Charles Halton, Miles van Pelt, and Gregg Allison for their many helpful comments as the entire manuscript or parts of it were read and valuable feedback was given to us. In addition, various family members and students also helped in a variety of ways, and we want to thank specifically Barbara Gentry, Laura Musick, John Meade, Jason Parry, Brent Parker, Andrew Case, Brian Davidson, Joseph Lumbrix, Chip Hardy, Richard Lucas, Oren Martin, Matt Dickie, Uche Anizor, and Andrew McClurg. We would also like to thank Paul Roberts and the library staff at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for help in digging up materials necessary for our research.
\nOne final note in regard to the dedication of this work. Peter dedicates this work to his children and grandchildren. His G\u00f6ttingen edition of Ecclesiastes will be dedicated to his parents, Norm and Marg Gentry, who inspired a love for diligent study of the Word of God. In the passage from Psalm 78, \u201ctestimony\u201d (\u201b\u0113d\u00fbt) and \u201claw\u201d (t\u00f4r\u00e2) are synonyms for \u201ccovenant\u201d in the Old Testament. God has entrusted the transmission of covenant instruction to a covenant community: the family. We have a great heritage that must be passed on.
\nStephen dedicates this work to his parents. We all stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us\u2014men and women who were faithful in their generation and who stood firm on God\u2019s Word and who passed it on to the next generation. In my case, I (Stephen) owe much to my parents, Colin and Joan Wellum, who did precisely this in their lives and ministry to their children. It is due to my parents\u2019 faithfulness to the Lord, exhibited in their teaching their children to love God\u2019s Word; to their sacrificial love in so many ways; to their conviction to place their children under the sound teaching of God\u2019s Word in a local church committed to expounding \u201cthe whole counsel of God\u201d; and to their living out in the home what they taught, that I stand where I stand today. I give our triune covenant God thanks for my parents as ongoing evidence of God\u2019s grace in my life.
\nIt is our prayer that this work will not only enable us to think through the biblical covenants better but will also lead us to know, love, and serve our great covenant God as his holy people\u2014those who are completely devoted and faithful to him.
\nPeter J. Gentry
\nStephen J. Wellum
\nWritten on the cloud between G\u00f6ttingen, Louisville, and Toronto<\/p>\n
ABBREVIATIONS<\/p>\n
AB Anchor Bible
\nAIL Ancient Israel and Its Literature
\nAKM Abhandlungen f\u00fcr die Kunde des Morgenlandes
\nAnBib Analecta Biblica
\nAnOr Analecta Orientalia
\nAOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
\nApOTC Apollos Old Testament Commentary
\nASOR American Schools of Oriental Research
\nASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute
\nAuOr Aula Orientalis
\nBBR Bulletin for Biblical Research
\nBBRSup Bulletin for Biblical Research, Supplements
\nBECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
\nBibInt Biblical Interpretation Series
\nBijdr Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie
\nBJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester
\nBN Biblische Notizen
\nBSac Bibliotheca Sacra
\nBST The Bible Speaks Today
\nBZ Biblische Zeitschrift
\nBZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
\nCBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
\nCHANE Culture and History of the Ancient Near East
\nCM Cuneiform Monographs
\nConBNT Coniectanea Neotestamentica (or Coniectanea Biblica: New Testament Series)
\nConBOT Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series
\nConcC Concordia Commentary
\nCTJ Calvin Theological Journal
\nCTR Criswell Theological Review
\nDJD Discoveries in the Judean Desert
\nEGGNT Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament
\nErIsr Eretz-Israel
\nEV English version
\nFAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament
\nFRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments
\nGKC Gesenius\u2019 Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, rev. A. E. Cowley, 2nd English ed. (Oxford, 1910)
\nGTJ Grace Theological Journal
\nHALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, et al., trans. M. E. J. Richardson, study edition, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2001)
\nHdO Handbuch der Orientalistik (or Handbook of Oriental Studies)
\nHS Hebrew Studies
\nHSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
\nHSS Harvard Semitic Studies
\nHThKAT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament
\nHUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
\nITC International Theological Commentary
\nInt Interpretation
\nJAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
\nJBL Journal of Biblical Literature
\nJESOT Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament
\nJETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
\nJHebS The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures
\nJNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
\nJNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
\nJOTT Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics
\nJR Journal of Religion
\nJSJSup Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism
\nJSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
\nJSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series
\nJSS Journal of Semitic Studies
\nJSSEA Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities
\nJTI Journal of Theological Interpretation
\nJTISup Journal for Theological Interpretation, Supplements
\nKAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament
\nLCL Loeb Classical Library
\nLHBOTS Library of Hebrew Bible \/ Old Testament Studies
\nMAJT Mid-America Journal of Theology
\nMC Mesopotamian Civilizations
\nMNTS McMaster New Testament Studies
\nMRS Mission de Ras Shamra
\nMSJ The Master\u2019s Seminary Journal
\nMT Masoretic Text
\nNABU Nouvelles assyriologiques br\u00e9ves et utilitaires
\nNAC New American Commentary
\nNDBT New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, ed. T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000)
\nNIBCOT New International Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
\nNICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament
\nNICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament
\nNIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary
\nNIVAC New International Version Application Commentary
\nNovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum
\nNSBT New Studies in Biblical Theology
\nOBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
\nOTS Old Testament Studies
\npar. parallel
\nPNTC Pillar New Testament Commentary
\nRB Revue Biblique
\nRevQ Revue de Qumran
\nRTR Reformed Theological Review
\nSBET Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology
\nSBJT The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology
\nSBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
\nSBT Studies in Biblical Theology
\nSCS Septuagint and Cognate Studies
\nSem Semitica
\nSJT Scottish Journal of Theology
\nSJTOP Scottish Journal of Theology Occasional Papers
\nSOTBT Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology
\nSR Studies in Religion
\nSSBT Short Studies in Biblical Theology
\nStPohl Studia Pohl
\nSTR Southeastern Theological Review
\ns.v. sub verbo (listed alphabetically under that word)
\nTDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, 15 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986\u20132015)
\nThSt Theologische Studi\u00ebn
\nTJ Trinity Journal
\nTNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries
\nTOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries
\nTS Theological Studies
\nTynBul Tyndale Bulletin
\nUF Ugarit-Forschungen
\nVT Vetus Testamentum
\nVTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
\nWAW Writings from the Ancient World
\nWBC Word Biblical Commentary
\nWTJ Westminster Theological Journal
\nZAW Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft<\/p>\n
PART 1<\/p>\n
PROLEGOMENA<\/p>\n
1<\/p>\n
THE IMPORTANCE OF COVENANTS IN BIBLICAL AND SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY<\/p>\n
The idea of covenant is fundamental to the Bible\u2019s story. At its most basic, covenant presents God\u2019s desire to enter into relationship with men and women created in his image. This is reflected in the repeated covenant refrain, \u201cI will be your God and you will be my people\u201d (Exodus 6:6\u20138; Leviticus 26:12 etc.). Covenant is all about relationship between the Creator and his creation. The idea may seem simple; however, the implications of covenant and covenant relationship between God and humankind are vast.<\/p>\n
The purpose of this book is to demonstrate two claims. We want to establish, first, how central and foundational the concept of covenant is to the Bible\u2019s narrative plot structure and, second, how a number of crucial theological differences within Christian theology, and the resolution of those differences, are directly tied to one\u2019s understanding of how the biblical covenants unfold and relate to each other. Regarding the first claim, we are not asserting that the biblical covenants are the center of biblical theology or merely a unifying theme of Scripture. Instead, we assert that the progression of the covenants forms the backbone of Scripture\u2019s metanarrative, the relational reality that moves history forward according to God\u2019s design and final plan for humanity and all creation, and unless we \u201cput together\u201d the covenants correctly, we will not discern accurately \u201cthe whole counsel of God\u201d (Acts 20:27). Michael Horton nicely captures the significance of \u201ccovenant\u201d to Scripture and theology when he writes that the biblical covenants are<\/p>\n
the architectural structure that we believe the Scriptures themselves to yield.\u2026 It is not simply the concept of the covenant, but the concrete existence of God\u2019s covenantal dealings in our history that provides the context within which we recognize the unity of Scripture amid its remarkable variety.<\/p>\n
If this is so, and we contend that it is, then apart from properly understanding the nature of the biblical covenants and how they relate to each other, one will not correctly discern the message of the Bible and hence God\u2019s self-disclosure, which centers on and culminates in our Lord Jesus Christ.
\nOur claim is not a new insight, especially for those in the Reformed tradition who have written at length about the importance of covenants and have structured their theology around the concept of covenant. In fact, most varieties of Christian theology readily admit that the biblical covenants establish a central framework that holds the storyline of Scripture together. From the time of Christ\u2019s coming and the ongoing theological debates in the early church to our present time, Christians have wrestled with the relationships between the covenants, particularly the old and new covenants. It is almost impossible to discern many of the early church\u2019s struggles apart from viewing them as covenantal debates. For example, think of how important the Jew-Gentile relationship is in the New Testament (Matt. 22:1\u201314 par.; Acts 10\u201311; Romans 9\u201311; Eph. 2:11\u201322; 3:1\u201313), and consider the claim of the Judaizers, which centers on covenantal disputes (Galatians 2\u20133); the reason why the Jerusalem Council was called (Acts 15); the wrestling with the strong and weak within the church (Romans 14\u201315); and the implications for the church on how to live vis-\u00e0-vis the law-covenant now that Christ has come (Matthew 5\u20137; 15:1\u201320 par.; Acts 7; Romans 4; Hebrews 7\u201310). In truth, all these issues and struggles within the church are simply God\u2019s people wrestling with the nature of fulfillment that has occurred in the covenantal shifts from the old to the new due to the coming of Christ, his work, and the inauguration of the new creation.
\nThroughout church history, Christians have differed on their understanding of the relationship between the biblical covenants\u2014hence one of the reasons why different theological systems have developed. Today, this is best illustrated by ongoing debates between dispensational and covenant theology, although it is certainly not limited to these two theological systems. Adherents of these views agree on the main issues central to \u201cthe faith that was once for all delivered to the saints\u201d (Jude 3), and it is important not to exaggerate our differences at the expense of our unified gospel convictions. Yet significant disagreements remain that require resolution, and if the systems are probed deeply, many of these differences center on disputes in our understanding of the biblical covenants and how the covenants are fulfilled in Christ. Thus, while we share basic agreement that the Bible\u2019s storyline moves from Adam to Abraham to Sinai, which ultimately issues in a promise of a new covenant, whose advent is tied to Jesus\u2019s cross work (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:23\u201326), beyond this there are larger disagreements on how to \u201cput together\u201d the biblical covenants. These disagreements inevitably spill over to other issues, such as debates on the newness of what our Lord has achieved; how the law in its moral demands applies today, as reflected in debates regarding the Decalogue and the Sabbath \/ Lord\u2019s Day observance; and how previous Old Testament promises are now fulfilled in Christ and the church, which is tied to the larger relationship of Israel and the church and the role of national Israel in God\u2019s plan. When these differences surface, we discover that despite our agreement on aspects of mere Protestant theology, there are still significant disagreements among us that demand resolution.
\nFor this reason, putting together the biblical covenants is central to the doing of biblical and systematic theology and to the theological conclusions we draw from Scripture in many doctrinal areas. If we are going to make progress in resolving disagreements within evangelical theology, especially between covenant theology and dispensationalism, we must face head-on how we understand the nature of the covenants, their interrelationships, and their fulfillment in Christ and must not simply assume this or leave it unargued. It is our conviction that the present ways of viewing the covenants and their fulfillment in Christ, as represented by the two dominant theological systems (and their varieties), are not quite right. That is why we are offering a slightly different reading, which seeks to rethink and mediate these two theological traditions in such a way that we learn from both of them but which also constitutes an alternative proposal, a kind of via media. We are convinced that there is a more accurate way to understand the relationship of the covenants, which better accounts for the overall presentation of Scripture and which, in the end, will help us resolve some of our theological differences. If, as church history warns, our goal is too ambitious, minimally our aim is to help us become more epistemologically self-conscious in how we put together Scripture. Our hope in presenting our view is to foster more discussion regarding where precisely we differ, with the goal of arriving at a greater unity in truth and doctrine, centered on Christ Jesus.
\nKingdom through covenant is our overall proposal for what is central to the Bible\u2019s narrative plot structure. Central to our proposal is that God\u2019s saving kingdom comes to this world through the covenants in a twofold way. First, it comes through the covenant relationship God establishes with his image bearers, that is, his priest-kings. Through this relationship, God\u2019s rule is extended in his people and to the creation, and we learn what it means to love our triune God and our neighbor. Yet, sadly, humans have failed in their calling due to sin. Second, God\u2019s saving rule and reign\u2014his kingdom\u2014comes through biblical covenants over time. Following the loss of Eden, redemption is linked to a promised human (Gen. 3:15) and is given greater clarity and definition through Noah, Abraham, Israel, and the Davidic kings. Through the progression of the covenants, our triune God, step-by-step, reveals how his image bearers ought to live and how he will establish his saving reign \/ kingdom and restore creation through a promised, obedient Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.
\nIf a label is to be applied to our view, especially over against the labels of dispensational and covenant theology, our view is best captured by the term progressive covenantalism. Previously, we identified our view as a species of \u201cnew covenant\u201d theology, yet given significant differences within new covenant theology, progressive covenantalism better describes our overall viewpoint. Let us briefly outline our view before we develop it at length in subsequent chapters.
\nProgressive covenantalism argues that the Bible presents a plurality of covenants that progressively reveal our triune God\u2019s one redemptive plan for his one people, which reaches its fulfillment and terminus in Christ and the new covenant. Each biblical covenant, then, contributes to God\u2019s unified plan, and to comprehend \u201cthe whole counsel of God\u201d (Acts 20:27), we must understand each covenant in its own context by locating that covenant in relation to what precedes and follows it. Through the progression of the covenants, we come to know God\u2019s glorious plan, how all God\u2019s promises are fulfilled in Christ and applied to the church as God\u2019s new covenant and new creation people (Heb. 1:1\u20133; cf. Eph. 1:9\u201310, 22\u201323; 3:10\u201311) and how we are to live as God\u2019s people today.
\nTo reiterate, in accentuating kingdom through covenant, we view the covenants as theologically significant and as the backbone to Scripture\u2019s entire storyline, similar to covenant theology. However, unlike most advocates of covenant theology, the biblical covenants are not divided into two categories: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. Rather, God\u2019s one, eternal plan unfolds in history through a plurality of interrelated covenants, starting with Adam and creation and culminating in Christ and the new covenant. The creation covenant serves as the foundation that continues in all the covenants, and it, along with all the covenants, is fulfilled in Christ and his obedient work. As God\u2019s eternal plan is enacted on the stage of human history, it moves from creation in Adam to consummation in Christ.
\nConcerning the Israel-church relationship, we argue two important points. First, God has one people, yet there is an Israel-church distinction due to their respective covenants. The church is new in a redemptive-historical sense precisely because she is the community of the new covenant. Second, we must think of the Israel-church relationship Christologically. The church is not directly the \u201cnew Israel\u201d or her replacement. Rather, in Christ Jesus, the church is God\u2019s new creation, composed of believing Jews and Gentiles, because Jesus is the last Adam and true Israel, the faithful seed of Abraham who inherits the promises by his work. Thus, in union with Christ, the church is God\u2019s new covenant people, in continuity with the elect in all ages but different from Israel in its nature and structure.
\nThis way of viewing the Israel-Christ-church relationship differs from dispensational and covenant theology in at least two areas. First, against dispensationalism, Jesus is the antitypical fulfillment of Israel and Adam, and in him, all God\u2019s promises are fulfilled for his people, the church, including the land promise fully realized and consummated in the new creation (Rom. 4:13; Eph. 6:3; Heb. 11:10, 16; cf. Matt. 5:5). Second, against covenant theology, Jesus\u2019s new covenant people are different from Israel under the old covenant. Under the old covenant, Israel, in its nature and structure, was a mixed community of believers and unbelievers (Rom. 9:6). Yet the church is constituted by people who are united to Christ by faith and partakers now of the blessings of the new covenant, which minimally includes the forgiveness of sin, the gift of the Spirit, and heart circumcision. Thus, in contrast to Israel, the church\u2014as God\u2019s new covenant\u2014new creation people\u2014is constituted now as a believing, regenerate people, although we await the fullness of what Christ inaugurated at his glorious return. For this reason, baptism, the sign of the new covenant, is applied only to those who profess faith and give credible evidence that they are no longer in Adam but in Christ, and circumcision and baptism do not signify the same realities, due to their respective covenantal differences. In fact, to think that circumcision and baptism signify the same truths is a covenantal-category mistake.
\nIn a nutshell, this is our basic proposal, and what follows is our exposition and defense of this third way of understanding the nature of the biblical covenants and their relationship to the new covenant in Christ. How will we proceed? We will begin by establishing the importance of covenants for biblical and systematic theology. We could demonstrate this point in numerous ways but will do so by setting our discussion of the covenants in the context of the two dominant theological systems within evangelical theology. Dispensationalism and covenant theology (along with their varieties) largely frame how evangelicals \u201cput together\u201d their Bibles. Each view attempts to serve as an interpretive grid for how to understand the metanarrative of Scripture. In this way, both systems function as examples of biblical theologies, or \u201cwhole-Bible theologies,\u201d which then lead to various systematic-theological conclusions. Yet it is well known that each system draws different conclusions on significant theological matters (if not so much on primary gospel issues). Specifically, unique theological differences surface in ecclesiology and eschatology, but it is not limited to these areas, as we will demonstrate. Thus, it is helpful to establish the importance of covenants by doing so through the lens of these two theological systems, discerning where they differ from each other especially in their understanding of the biblical covenants. In this way, our proposal is viewed against the backdrop of current theological discussion within evangelical theology.
\nBefore we turn to that task, we will conclude this chapter by discussing how we conceive of the nature of biblical theology and its relation to systematic theology. Since we are viewing dispensational and covenant theology as examples of biblical and systematic theologies, it is important to describe our use of these terms, given that scholars do not unanimously agree on their definition and use.
\nChapter 2 will describe the basic tenets of dispensational and covenant theology, noting variations and debates within each system. As one would expect, neither view is monolithic; however, in describing these biblical-systematic theologies, we attend particularly to their respective understandings of the biblical covenants and to how each approach differs, given the way they relate the biblical covenants to each other.
\nBuilding on this description of the two theological systems, chapter 3 will conclude the prolegomena, or introductory, section of part 1 in two ways. First, we will describe some basic hermeneutical assumptions we employ in our reading of Scripture and thus disclose something of our theological method. Second, we will resume our discussion of dispensational and covenant theology by outlining both some of the hermeneutical similarities between them and some of the hermeneutical differences that require resolution, with the goal of adjudicating these two systems and thus arguing for a via media as a better option.
\nPart 2, chapters 4\u201315, will serve as the exposition of the Old Testament covenants as they are unfolded and point forward to Christ. As the covenants are expounded, so our proposal of kingdom through covenant is described in detail; each biblical covenant is treated in its own redemptive-historical context and then in its relationship to the dawning of the new covenant.
\nPart 3 will begin by summarizing the results of part 2 in an overall presentation of kingdom through covenant in the Old Testament in chapter 16 before we turn to how the New Testament announces that all that the Old Testament anticipated and predicted is now coming to fulfillment in Christ Jesus. As we turn to the New Testament, in chapter 17, we will think about the fulfillment of God\u2019s covenant promises in three steps: first, in how Christ fulfills the previous covenants in himself; second, in the nature of new covenant fulfillment in terms of inaugurated eschatology; and third, in how the church is new and receives all God\u2019s covenant promises in and through Christ. After this, in chapters 18\u201319, we will draw some systematic-theological entailments of our proposal in sample areas, including Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology.
\nLet us now turn to a brief discussion of our understanding of the nature of biblical theology and its relation to systematic theology. This will allow us to describe how we are using these terms and to explain why we view dispensational and covenant theology as examples of biblical and systematic theologies, even though we disagree with various aspects of each view.<\/p>\n
THE NATURE OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY<\/p>\n
The task of exegeting and expounding the progression of the biblical covenants across the canon and then thinking through how each covenant is fulfilled in Christ is an exercise in biblical theology. It is also the first step in drawing legitimate theological conclusions from Scripture and thus applying all of Scripture to our lives, which is broadly the task of systematic theology. But given the fact that people mean different things by biblical and systematic theology, let us explain how we are using these terms and how we conceive of the relationship between them.
\nAt a popular level, when most Christians hear the term biblical theology, it is heard as expressing the desire to be \u201cbiblical\u201d or \u201cfaithful to Scripture\u201d in our teaching and theology. To be \u201cbiblical\u201d in this sense is what all Christians ought to desire and strive for, but this is not how we are using the term. In fact, throughout church history, biblical theology has been understood in a number of ways.
\nGenerally speaking, before the last two or three centuries, biblical theology was often identified with systematic theology, although many in church history practiced what we currently call \u201cbiblical theology,\u201d that is, an attempt to unpack the redemptive-historical unfolding of Scripture and to put together the entire canon. One can think of many examples, such as Irenaeus (ca. 115\u2013ca. 202), John Calvin (1509\u20131564), and Johannes Cocceius (1603\u20131669). In this sense, then, biblical theology is not entirely new, since the church has always wrestled with how to put together the whole canon, especially in light of the coming of Christ. Any view, then, that seeks to think through the unity of God\u2019s plan as unfolded across the canon is doing \u201cbiblical theology\u201d in some sense. Granting this point, it is still important to note that, in the past, there was a tendency to treat Scripture in more logical and atemporal categories rather than to think carefully through the Bible\u2019s developing storyline as it was forged across time. Even in the post-Reformation era, when there was a renewed emphasis on doing a \u201cwhole-Bible theology,\u201d biblical theology was usually identified with systematic theology, and systematic theology was identified more with \u201cdogmatic\u201d concerns.
\nWith the rise of the Enlightenment, biblical theology began to emerge as a distinct discipline. Some have argued that this is tied to the Enlightenment\u2019s \u201chistorical consciousness.\u201d However, one must carefully distinguish the emergence of biblical theology in the Enlightenment era along two different paths: one path serving as an illustration of an illegitimate approach to biblical theology tied to the Enlightenment\u2019s Zeitgeist, and the other path a legitimate one seeking to develop previous insights in church history but now in a more precise, detailed, and historically conscious manner, dependent upon the Bible\u2019s own internal presentation. Let us first think about the illegitimate development of biblical theology associated with the Enlightenment and classic liberal theology before we discuss what we believe is the legitimate view of biblical theology consistent with historic Christian theology.
\nDuring the period of the Enlightenment, there was a growing tendency to approach Scripture critically and thus uncoupled from historic Christian theology. This resulted in approaching the Bible \u201cas any other book,\u201d rooted in history but, unfortunately, also open to historical-critical methods. This meant that the Bible was not approached on its own terms, that is, as God\u2019s Word written. Instead, the idea that Scripture is God-breathed through human authors\u2014a text that authoritatively and accurately unfolds God\u2019s redemptive plan centered on Christ\u2014was rejected as the starting point of biblical theology (and systematic theology).
\nThe person first associated with this path of biblical theology was Johann Philipp Gabler, often viewed as \u201cthe father of biblical theology.\u201d In his inaugural lecture at the University of Altdorf on March 30, 1787\u2014\u201cAn Oration on the Proper Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each\u201d\u2014he defined biblical theology as an inductive, historical, and descriptive discipline, in contrast to systematic theology, which he viewed as a deductive, ahistorical, and normative discipline. It is crucial to note that Gabler used the term \u201chistorical\u201d more in a historical-critical sense. He did not use the term in the sense that we ought to read Scripture as God\u2019s authoritative, trustworthy Word, rooted in history, nor that we ought to read it along its redemptive-historical axis. In its critical use, he meant that we ought to read Scripture in light of Enlightenment rationalist presuppositions, which minimally assumed the following points: (1) in doing biblical theology we do not need to assume the Scripture\u2019s inspiration; (2) biblical theology involves the work of carefully collecting the ideas and concepts of individual biblical writers, and this task is accomplished by means of historical, literary, and philosophical criticism (tied to an Enlightenment rationalist epistemology); and (3) as a historical discipline, biblical theology must distinguish between the several periods of the old and new religion, which, for Gabler, is basically following the \u201chistory of religions\u201d approach to Scripture, thus assuming from the outset that Scripture is not authoritatively and accurately given in its totality. In Gabler\u2019s understanding of \u201cbiblical theology,\u201d then, his overall goal was to uncouple the study of Scripture from dogmatic or doctrinal aims and to study Scripture according to historical criticism to distinguish what was legitimately true from what was not. In so doing, he continued the drift of a rejection of a high view of Scripture that resulted in an increasingly atomistic reading of Scripture, given the fact that he did not believe that Scripture was ultimately God given and unified.
\nAs this path of biblical theology developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, practitioners increasingly made use of the historical-critical method, which for the most part assumed a methodological naturalism. Over time, the end result of such an approach was the fragmentation of Scripture, and biblical theology as a discipline became merely a \u201cdescriptive\u201d discipline, governed by critical methodologies and worldview assumptions foreign to historic Christian theology. As a result, this approach to biblical theology emphasized more diversity than unity in Scripture, and ultimately, as a discipline that sought to unpack the unified plan of God, it came to an end. In the twentieth century, there were some attempts to overcome the Enlightenment straightjacket on Scripture. In theology, the work of Karl Barth is notable. He is often seen as the forerunner of narrative theology and the postliberal school, a school that broadly attempts to read Scripture as a unified canon but that, when all is said and done, does not operate with a traditional view of the authority and accuracy of Scripture and thus renders the theological task problematic. In biblical studies there was also the \u201cbiblical theology movement.\u201d Its goal was to overcome the more negative results of the historical-critical method and allow the biblical text to speak to the contemporary church, although, sadly, it did not return to the assumptions of historic, orthodox Christianity. In Old Testament theology, for example, Walther Eichrodt, who was part of this movement, wrote an Old Testament biblical theology centered on the notion of the covenant. Others in the movement wrote biblical theologies centered on different corpora or themes. None of these, however, wrote or attempted to write a \u201cwhole-Bible theology\u201d because, given their view of Scripture and their theological commitments, very few of them believed that there was a unified message in the whole canon. As a result, just as Geerhardus Vos, the evangelical pioneer of a legitimate approach to biblical theology, had predicted at the beginning of the twentieth century, the biblical theology movement failed. Vos had warned that \u201cbiblical theology\u201d on the grand scale cannot be done if one denies the full authority of Scripture and dismisses the historic Christian theology that grounds it.
\nToday in nonevangelical theology there are a variety of options that attempt to read Scripture as a unified whole, but most of them are weak on Scripture and do not operate under consistent Christian presuppositions. This is why for most nonevangelicals biblical theology, in the sense of doing a \u201cwhole-Bible theology,\u201d is viewed as impossible. Given their rejection of the unity of Scripture as a divine revelation and the naturalistic assumptions of the historical-critical method, which questions the integrity of the narrative of biblical history, Scripture is viewed, more often than not, simply as an anthology of religious writings put together by the religious communities of Israel and the church.
\nWe contend that this is not the proper way to view, let alone to do, biblical theology. Already this approach to biblical theology stands in antithesis to historic Christian theological convictions, especially in regard to theology proper, the entire God-world relation, and the doctrine of Scripture. In the history of the church, and particularly in the Post-Reformation and post-Enlightenment eras, another path was taken that provides a legitimate way to view and do biblical theology. This path also emphasized a renewed attempt to root the Bible in history by stressing the \u201cliteral sense\u201d (sensus literalis), tied to the intention(s) of the divine and human author(s), and by seeking to discern how God had disclosed himself through the biblical authors across redemptive history, grounded in a larger Christian theology and worldview. We have already mentioned Johannes Cocceius, who sought to read Scripture with a focus on \u201ccovenant\u201d throughout redemptive history and who operated self-consciously within Christian theological presuppositions. This was also true of John Calvin before him and of the post-Reformation Reformed Protestant scholastics after him.
\nProbably the best-known twentieth-century pioneer of biblical theology who sought to follow the path distinct from that of the Enlightenment was Geerhardus Vos, who developed biblical theology at Princeton Seminary. Vos, who was birthed out of the Dutch Calvinistic tradition, along with such figures as Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck, sought to do biblical theology with a firm commitment to the authority of Scripture. Vos defined biblical theology as \u201cthat branch of Exegetical Theology which deals with the process of the self-revelation of God deposited in the Bible.\u201d In contrast to Gabler, Vos argued that biblical theology, as an exegetical discipline, must not only begin with the biblical text but must also view Scripture as God\u2019s own self-attesting Word, fully authoritative and reliable. Furthermore, as one exegetes Scripture, Vos argued, biblical theology seeks to trace out the Bible\u2019s unity and multiformity and find its consummation in Christ\u2019s coming and the inauguration of the new covenant era. Biblical theology must follow a method that reads the Bible on its own terms, following the Bible\u2019s own internal contours and shape, in order to discover God\u2019s unified plan as it is disclosed to us over time. The path that Vos blazed was foundational for much of the resurgence of biblical theology within evangelicalism, in the twentieth and now the twenty-first century.
\nWe reject the former view despite its label of \u201cbiblical theology\u201d and adopt the latter view. Accordingly, in light of this history, we define biblical theology by employing Brian Rosner\u2019s helpful definition: \u201cBiblical theology\u201d is \u201ctheological interpretation of Scripture in and for the church. It proceeds with historical and literary sensitivity and seeks to analyze and synthesize the Bible\u2019s teaching about God and his relations to the world on its own terms, maintaining sight of the Bible\u2019s overarching narrative and Christocentric focus.\u201d In this definition, Rosner emphasizes some important points crucial to the nature and task of biblical theology. Biblical theology is concerned with the overall message of the whole Bible. It seeks to understand the parts in relation to the whole. As an exegetical method, it is sensitive to literary, historical, and theological dimensions of various corpora, as well as to the interrelationships between earlier and later texts in Scripture. Furthermore, biblical theology is interested not merely in words and word studies but also in concepts and themes, as it traces out the Bible\u2019s own storyline on the Bible\u2019s own terms, following the plotline to its culmination in Christ. In a similar way, D. A. Carson speaks of biblical theology as an inductive, exegetical discipline that works from biblical texts, in all their literary diversity, to the entire canon\u2014hence the notion of intertextual, or better, innerbiblical. In making connections between texts, biblical theology also attempts to let the biblical text set the agenda. This is what we mean by saying that we are to read Scripture on its own terms, that is, intratextually. Scripture is to be interpreted in light of its own categories and presentation since Scripture comes to us as divinely given, coherent, and unified. In other words, all theologizing starts with the Bible\u2019s own presentation of itself as we seek to live under its authority and teaching and not over it.
\nWith these basic ideas in mind, let us now summarize what we believe biblical theology to be. Simply stated, it is the discipline that seeks to do justice to what Scripture claims to be and to what it actually is. In terms of its claim, Scripture is God\u2019s Word written, and as such, it is a unified revelation of his gracious plan of redemption. In terms of what Scripture actually is, it is a progressive unfolding of God\u2019s plan, rooted in history, and unfolded along a specific redemptive-historical plotline demarcated by the biblical covenants. Biblical theology as a discipline attempts to exegete texts in their own context and then, in light of the entire canon, to examine the unfolding nature of God\u2019s plan and carefully think through the relationship between before and after in that plan, which culminates in Christ. As such, biblical theology provides the basis for understanding how texts in one part of the Bible relate to all other texts, so that they will be read correctly, according to God\u2019s intention, which is discovered through the individual human authors and fully at the canonical level. In the end, biblical theology is the attempt to understand \u201cthe whole counsel of God\u201d and \u201cto think God\u2019s thoughts after him,\u201d and it provides the basis and underpinning for our theological conclusions since it allows us to see what the entire canon of Scripture teaches. Yet biblical theology is not presuppositionless since it approaches Scripture according to its own claim and presupposes the central truths of historic Christian theology, hence its intertwined relationship with systematic theology. With this understanding of biblical theology in place, let us now briefly reflect on what systematic theology is before we think through the relationship between the two disciplines.<\/p>\n
THE NATURE OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY<\/p>\n
As with biblical theology, there are various understandings of what systematic theology is. In this book, it is not necessary to delve into all these diverse views; rather, we simply want to state how we conceive of the discipline of systematic theology. As with biblical theology, one\u2019s construal of systematic theology is tied to one\u2019s larger theological, worldview commitments, and any differences between various definitions can be traced back to this. For our purposes, we will enlist as our basic definition the one given by John Frame: systematic theology is \u201cthe application of God\u2019s Word by persons to all areas of life.\u201d No doubt many points could be developed from this definition, but we will develop it by emphasizing two concepts in order to describe the nature and task of systematic theology as a discipline.
\nSystematic theology involves an intertwined twofold task. First, in order to apply Scripture properly, we must interpret Scripture correctly. This requires the doing of biblical theology, namely, as related above, unpacking the biblical storyline and letting the Bible, on its own terms, describe for us how God\u2019s plan unfolds, centered on Christ. This is why biblical theology provides the basis for all theologizing and doctrine, since we are not drawing proper theological conclusions unless we first correctly understand all that the Bible teaches in the way the Bible presents it. Yet our reading of Scripture presupposes theological commitments consistent with Scripture and orthodox theology. Second, systematic theology is more than just the mere repeating of Scripture or the doing of biblical theology since it involves the application of Scripture to all areas of life. Systematic theology inevitably entails theological construction and doctrinal formulation, which is grounded in biblical theology and done in light of historical theology but which also includes interacting with all areas of life\u2014history, science, psychology, ethics, and so on. Systematic theology, then, leads to worldview formation as we seek to set the biblical-theological framework of Scripture over against all other worldviews and learn \u201cto think God\u2019s thoughts after him,\u201d even in areas that the Bible does not directly address. In this important way, systematic theology presents a well-thought-out worldview, over against all its competitors, as it seeks to apply biblical truth to every domain of our existence.
\nSystematic theology, then, is based on the conclusions of biblical theology, but it goes further. As an exercise in \u201cfaith seeking understanding,\u201d it seeks to account for all that Scripture teaches in the way the Bible teaches it, in a coherent way, and in light of the church\u2019s tradition and contemporary questions. It seeks to make sense of the ontological presuppositions of the Bible\u2019s storyline and to draw out theological judgments for today, consistent with the Bible\u2019s worldview and teaching across the entire canon. In this way, systematic theology applies Scripture to new contexts, sometimes using different terms and concepts, while always remaining true to the Bible\u2019s own \u201cbiblical-canonical judgments.\u201d So, for example, in Christology, the church, in responding to Arianism, employed the extrabiblical language of homoousios, \u201cof the same substance,\u201d to express \u201cthe same judgment about the relationship of Father and Son as Paul\u2019s \u2018equality with God\u2019 (isa the\u014d) in Philippians 2:6.\u201d The church did so in order to proclaim the Jesus of the Bible correctly in a new context and to defend the biblical teaching against the Arian heresy. The nature of systematic theology is to move from canon (biblical theology) to concept (theological construction) so that God\u2019s people will know rightly how to handle the Word of truth and apply it faithfully to their lives.
\nFurthermore, as a discipline, systematic theology is also critical in seeking to evaluate ideas within and outside the church. Outside the church, systematic theology takes on an apologetic function as it first sets forth the faith to be believed and defended and then critiques and evaluates views that reject the truth of God\u2019s Word. In this sense, apologetics is rightly viewed as a subset of systematic theology. Within the church, theology is critical by analyzing theological proposals, first, in terms of their fit with Scripture and, second, in terms of the implications of these proposals for other doctrines. In these ways, systematic theology is the discipline that attempts \u201cto bring our entire thought captive to Christ\u201d (see 2 Cor. 10:1\u20135) for our good, for the good of the church, and ultimately for God\u2019s glory.
\nWith this basic understanding in mind, what is the best way to think of the relationship between biblical and systematic theology? As presented here, we view them as intimately interrelated and central to the theological task of conforming our thinking and lives to God\u2019s Word. It is simply impossible to think of one discipline apart from the other. Yet with that said, we think it best to view biblical theology as the discipline that seeks to grasp the entirety of Scripture on its own terms and according to its own presentation, tied to the progression of God\u2019s plan through the unfolding of the biblical covenants. Biblical theology allows us to make sure that the parts are fitting with the whole. This is why our theological judgments must first be true to the exegetical conclusions of biblical theology. Systematic theology builds on the results of biblical theology, but it goes further by making sense of the ontological presuppositions of the Bible\u2019s story, by constructing coherently how the pieces fit with the whole, and by rendering judgments from Scripture for today\u2019s issues and questions. Alongside this task, systematic theology also critiques other theological proposals within the church and false ideas of other worldviews outside the church. By doing all this, systematic theology enables God\u2019s people to live under the lordship of Christ and to live faithfully as the church as we await Christ\u2019s return and the consummation.
\nHow does all this discussion apply to what we are doing in this book? Basically, we are setting forth a theological proposal for a better way of discerning the nature of the biblical covenants and how the covenants relate to each other. By doing so, we are doing systematic theology and warranting our conclusions in biblical theology. We are first seeking to grasp how God\u2019s plan unfolds across redemptive history by the progression of the covenants\u2014to trace out the Bible\u2019s own \u201cbiblical-canonical judgments\u201d\u2014and on the basis of these judgments, to draw the theological conclusions and judgments that we think follow from the Bible\u2019s own presentation. Our argument is that the traditional ways of putting together the biblical covenants are not quite right\u2014or better, they do not fully do justice to the Bible\u2019s own \u201cbiblical-canonical judgments\u201d regarding the covenants. To make our case, we will describe how others have put the covenants together, discerning the key points of difference between the views, which will then allow us to set our alternative view over against those views. We will argue that to correct the places where other theological conclusions have gone awry in \u201cputting together\u201d the covenants, we must return anew to Scripture and make sure our understanding of the covenants is true to how Scripture unpacks those covenantal relations.
\nLet us now turn to this task by first setting the context for our proposal. In chapter 2, we will describe the two dominant biblical-theological systems within evangelical theology in order to understand the nature of the biblical covenants and their relations to each other, which will be the subject matter of chapter 3.<\/p>\n
2<\/p>\n
COVENANTS IN BIBLICAL-THEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS<\/p>\n
Dispensational and Covenant Theology<\/p>\n
Within evangelical theology, dispensational and covenant theology largely frame how people \u201cput together\u201d their Bible, and as such, they function as major theological viewpoints. Each \u201csystem\u201d serves as an interpretive matrix for understanding the Bible\u2019s overall storyline, and thus they both constitute examples of \u201cwhole-Bible theologies\u201d (i.e., biblical theologies) that entail various systematic-theological conclusions. Both views are similar in their attempt to discern the overall unity of God\u2019s plan from creation to consummation. And both views, despite their differences, acknowledge some idea of \u201cprogressive\u201d revelation, redemptive epochs (or \u201cdispensations\u201d), inaugurated eschatology, the fulfillment of God\u2019s plan in Christ, and various changes or discontinuities in the administration of God\u2019s plan across redemptive history. They differ, however, over the specifics of God\u2019s plan, the kind of changes that result, and especially over the Israel-church relationship and the role of national Israel in the fulfillment and consummation of God\u2019s plan. One must be careful not to overplay the differences between the views, for when it comes to a basic understanding of the gospel, there is far more agreement than disagreement.
\nYet at crucial points, dispensational and covenant theology differ on how to think through \u201cthe whole counsel of God,\u201d and much of that disagreement centers on their understanding of the nature of the biblical covenants and their relationships to each other. For this reason, it is helpful to compare and contrast these two views to discover precisely how they relate the biblical covenants one to another and thus where the two views uniquely differ from each other. In addition, thinking through these two views also allows us to set the context for offering our alternative view\u2014kingdom through covenant, or progressive covenantalism\u2014as a better way of thinking through the Bible\u2019s overall storyline and covenantal progression. If we disagree with each other, we need to know where and, more importantly, why. Although our discussion of these theological systems is necessarily brief, our goal is twofold. First, we want to demonstrate how central one\u2019s understanding of biblical covenants is to each view. Second, we want to set the stage for a different way of thinking through the Bible\u2019s covenantal progression and how all God\u2019s plans find their fulfillment in Christ.<\/p>\n
DISPENSATIONALISM AND ITS VARIETIES<\/p>\n
Dispensationalism as a movement first took shape in the Brethren movement in early nineteenth-century England. Originally, it was associated in England with such names as John Darby (1800\u20131882), Benjamin Newton (1807\u20131899), and George M\u00fcller (1805\u20131898), and in North America with such names as D. L. Moody (1837\u20131899), J. R. Graves (1820\u20131893), and C. I. Scofield (1843\u20131921) and with the Scofield Reference Bible, which provided copious notes for its readers on how to interpret Scripture and put together the whole canon through the lens of dispensational theology. Probably the most extensive systematic theology written from a dispensational viewpoint was Lewis Sperry Chafer\u2019s (1871\u20131952) eight-volume Systematic Theology.
\nOver the years, dispensational theology has gone through a number of revisions even though it remains united by a common core, which we will discuss below. As Craig Blaising observes about the movement, \u201cThere has been no standard creed freezing its theological development at some arbitrary point in history,\u201d even though it continues to maintain specific doctrinal distinctives. This has made it difficult to classify all the differences among dispensationalists, yet as Blaising notes, we can classify \u201cthree broad forms of dispensational thought,\u201d which are important to distinguish in order to grasp the theological development of the view: \u201cclassic\u201d (e.g., John Darby, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Scofield Reference Bible), \u201crevised\u201d or \u201ctraditional\u201d (e.g., John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, J. Dwight Pentecost, revised Scofield Bible), and \u201cprogressive\u201d (e.g., Craig Blaising, Darrell Bock, John Feinberg, Robert Saucy, Bruce Ware).
\nThe term dispensationalism, similar to covenant theology, can argue for biblical support. \u201cDispensation\u201d is derived from the Greek word oikonomia (see Eph. 1:10; 3:2, 9; Col. 1:25), which means \u201cto manage, regulate, administer, and plan the affairs of a household.\u201d Behind this word is the idea of God\u2019s plan or administration being accomplished in this world and how God arranges and orders his relationship to human beings. \u201cDispensation,\u201d as Glenn Kreider explains, refers to a \u201cdistinguishable period of time during which God administers His plan of redemption differently from other eras or periods. This change happens in history; God brings one economy or administration to an end, and then inaugurates a new one.\u201d Unlike covenant theology, however, and our view of progressive covenantalism, most dispensationalists reject the idea that covenants, and especially the progression of the covenants, serve as the backbone of the Bible\u2019s story. Instead, dispensationalists view the covenants more in terms of a major biblical theme but not as the central way God\u2019s plan unfolds across time. As Kreider states, \u201cThis does not mean that dispensationalists deny the importance of covenants in the biblical story but that they believe that covenants are subsidiary to another structural construction.\u201d
\nDispensationalism is probably best known for its dividing the epochs of redemptive history into a number of distinct \u201cdispensations\u201d and for its claim that during each of these periods of time, God works out a specific phase of his overall plan. However, as Vern Poythress rightly notes, there is a sense in which the word dispensation is not completely helpful for distinguishing dispensationalism from other theological systems, since<\/p>\n
virtually all ages of the church and all branches of the church have believed that there are distinctive dispensations in God\u2019s government of the world, though sometimes the consciousness of such distinctions has grown dim. The recognition of distinctions between different epochs is by no means unique to D[ispensational]-theologians.<\/p>\n
Most current dispensationalists acknowledge this point. For example, John Feinberg agrees that one\u2019s defense of the uniqueness of dispensationalism is not tied to the word dispensation, or even to the idea behind the word. If this were the case, then all Christians would be \u201cdispensationalists\u201d in this broad sense, since everyone recognizes that God\u2019s salvific plan across time involves various \u201cdispensations\u201d and that, as God\u2019s plan reaches its fulfillment in Christ, there are various changes that result. Feinberg correctly notes,<\/p>\n
Since both dispensationalists and nondispensationalists use the term and concept of a dispensation, that alone is not distinctive to dispensationalism. It is no more distinctive to dispensationalism than talk of covenants is distinctive to covenant theology. Dispensationalists talk about covenants all the time.<\/p>\n
This observation raises an important question: What, then, is unique to dispensational theology, especially given its diversity over the years? What is its distinctive feature, or its sine qua non? Regarding this question, much debate has occurred, and people propose various \u201cessentials\u201d of dispensational theology. Yet the best answer is that the sine qua non of dispensationalism is the Israel-church distinction, which is largely tied to its understanding of the biblical covenants and their (inter) relationships. For all varieties of dispensationalism, Israel refers to an ethnic, national people, and the church is never the transformed, restored eschatological Israel in God\u2019s plan or the people who fulfills Israel\u2019s role. For dispensationalists, the salvation of Gentiles is not part of the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel as a nation now realized in the church. Instead, God has promised national Israel, first in the Abrahamic covenant and reaffirmed by the prophets, the possession of the Promised Land under the rule of Christ as the Davidic king, which still requires a future fulfillment in the millennium and consummation. Since the Old Testament promises to national Israel have not yet been realized, in the future, Israel, as a nation, will be restored, and only then will she exercise her mediatorial role to the nations in the Promised Land\u2014although some progressive dispensationalists downplay Israel\u2019s future mediatorial role.
\nThe church, then, is never viewed as the restored, eschatological Israel, who receives all God\u2019s promises in Christ, including Old Testament promises to Israel. The church is distinctively new in God\u2019s redemptive purposes, that is, \u201contologically\u201d different from Israel. Although in our present \u201cdispensation\u201d the church (comprising believing Jews and Gentiles) finds its origin in Christ and receives the spiritual blessings of the Spirit that were promised to Old Testament Israel, this fact does not entail that the church fulfills the role of Israel. Instead, these blessings are only an inaugurated spiritual application to the church; they are not \u201ca replacement of the specific hopes of Israel. Instead, they are argued as compatible or complimentary to the hopes of Israel.\u201d In the future, Christ will rule over redeemed nations, not the church as another \u201cpeople group.\u201d Believing Jews and Gentiles, who now compose the church, will join the redeemed of national Israel and the Gentile nations to live under Christ\u2019s rule \u201caccording to their different nationalities,\u201d and specifically, Israel, as a nation, will finally receive all God\u2019s outstanding promises made to her. In this present dispensation, then, the church serves as an illustration of what the redeemed nations will be like in the future as they experience the transforming work of the Spirit. Yet it is not the church, as a covenant people and theological reality (and thus the end-time, forever people of God), that receives all God\u2019s promises equally and fully in Christ. Rather, in the future, the redeemed nations will receive God\u2019s promises according to their specific national identities. In this way, a clear distinction is maintained between Israel as a nation and the church as a people, who at present, in an inaugurated form, illustrate what is still to come.
\nIn addition, dispensationalism also affirms that the church, as a people, began at Pentecost with the gift of the Holy Spirit. For this reason, most argue that the salvation experience of the person in the church is qualitatively different from the salvation experience of the Israelite under the old covenant. Furthermore, given the Israel-church distinction, dispensationalists see more discontinuity from the old to the new covenant vis-\u00e0-vis the nature and structure of the covenant communities, contra covenant theology. Not surprisingly, given the Israel-church distinction and its outworking in dispensational theology, the major theological differences between dispensational and covenant theology often emerge in ecclesiology and eschatology.
\nWith regard to ecclesiology, since the church is distinctively new in the divine dispensations due to the coming of Christ and the newness of the Spirit\u2019s permanent indwelling in the believer, dispensationalists view the nature of the church, along with its structure and ordinances, as distinct from Israel under the old covenant. For example, regarding the nature of the church, in contrast to covenant theology, dispensational ecclesiology views the church as constituted by a regenerate people, born of and permanently indwelt by the Spirit, and not as a \u201cmixed\u201d community of believers and unbelievers. Furthermore, dispensational ecclesiology also affirms credobaptism, contra paedobaptism, since one cannot equate the sign of the old covenant with the sign of the new, given the fundamental Israel-church distinction and what the sign of baptism signifies for the church. In contrast, covenant theology rejects the Israel-church distinction of dispensational theology and argues for more of a continuity between them, not only in terms of the nature of the covenant community (and thus the similarity of salvation experience) but also in regard to the similarity in meaning of the covenant signs of circumcision and baptism. In these ways, dispensational ecclesiology differs from covenant theology\u2019s ecclesiology.
\nWith regard to eschatology, given the Israel-church distinction and God\u2019s unchanging promise to Israel of living in the Promised Land ruled by the Davidic king (who we now know is our Lord Jesus), dispensationalism affirms a distinct future for national Israel, tied to her national identity, in a future millennial age and continuing in the consummation. Much of the rationale for their dispensational form of premillennialism is the fact that specific promises to Israel remain unfulfilled from the Old Testament, which God will keep in the future. For progressive dispensationalists, the kingdom is viewed as a multinational order of \u201credeemed peoples on a renewed earth.\u201d Israel, as a redeemed nation, is guaranteed her \u201cnational and territorial identity\u201d by God\u2019s promise, and redeemed Gentile nations will also live according to their national identities on a new earth.
\nAt the popular level, dispensationalism is often identified with a distinctive eschatology that has been promulgated through books, movies, and other forms of media. By contrast, covenant theology rejects a \u201cdispensational premillennial\u201d eschatology for a variety of reasons but mainly because it views all God\u2019s promises reaching their fulfillment in Christ and the dawning of the new creation, which the church, as the restored eschatological Israel, inherits and receives. It is important to note that the differences between dispensational and covenant theology on these points are directly related to their different understanding of the Israel-church relationship, which is tied to the larger issue of the nature of the biblical covenants and their (inter) relationships in redemptive history.
\nLet us now briefly discuss some of the varieties within dispensational theology as described by the terms classic, revised\/traditional, and progressive, and note how each one attempts to understand the relationships between the biblical covenants, especially in light of the Israel-church distinction.<\/p>\n
CLASSIC DISPENSATIONALISM<\/p>\n
Central to classic dispensational theology is a dualistic conception of redemption linked to God\u2019s pursuit of two different purposes, one related to heaven and the other to earth, and tied to two different groups of people, a heavenly and an earthly humanity. In terms of God\u2019s earthly purpose in redemption, it is God\u2019s plan to redeem the creation from its curse and to grant immortality to an earthly humanity that will exist on the earth forever. This immortal earthly humanity first appears in the millennial age. It consists of those who are living on the earth when the Lord returns and reaches its completion in the new creation. They will not experience a final resurrection since they will not experience death but will continue to live on the earth forever. Alongside God\u2019s earthly purpose is his heavenly purpose, which is centered on a heavenly humanity. This heavenly people consists of all the redeemed from all dispensations (a transdispensational people) who have died prior to Christ\u2019s millennial return. They still await the final resurrection, and when they are resurrected they will experience a \u201cheavenly\u201d inheritance.
\nClassic dispensationalists, in the early decades of formulating their theology, were also famous for dividing redemptive history into seven dispensations: innocence (Eden), conscience (fall to flood), human government (Noah to Babel), promise (Abraham to Egypt), law (Moses to John the Baptist), grace (church age), and kingdom (millennium). They viewed these dispensations as different arrangements under which humanity is tested. As Blaising notes in regard to these different dispensations, \u201cGod arranged the relationship of humankind to Himself to test their obedience to him.\u201d In the early dispensations, God gave promises regarding earthly life, but we failed, due to our sin, to obtain these promises. The present dispensation of the church is the first dispensation that clearly presents God\u2019s \u201cheavenly\u201d purpose, and as a result, the church, unlike people in previous dispensations, is to know that it is a heavenly people destined for an eternal inheritance in heaven. Given this view of the church, classic dispensationalists argued that the church was a parenthesis in the history of God\u2019s earthly purpose of redemption\u2014an earthly purpose that was revealed in the previous dispensations and covenants. The primary purpose of the church as a heavenly people was to pursue spiritual and not earthly matters and concerns.
\nHow did classic dispensationalists correlate the biblical covenants? Similar to all forms of dispensationalism, they argued that the foundational covenant of Scripture is the Abrahamic and not the Adamic (or covenant with creation), since most did not recognize such a covenant. In the Abrahamic covenant, God\u2019s earthly purpose was primarily revealed as involving physical descendants who would become a great nation in a specific land, and Israel, as a nation and as the offspring of Abraham, was given the important role of mediating God\u2019s blessing to the Gentile nations. Classic dispensationalists did not deny that one could interpret the Abrahamic covenant spiritually (which they argued the New Testament does to reveal God\u2019s heavenly purpose), but they strongly asserted that in relation to Israel, the Abrahamic covenant was to be interpreted \u201cliterally,\u201d thus showing God\u2019s earthly purpose for an earthly people. The same point was asserted in relation to the other biblical covenants, which were all interpreted as \u201cearthly\u201d covenants (e.g., the Palestinian, or the land promise to Israel; the Mosaic; and the Davidic covenants). Interestingly, their \u201cliteral\u201d hermeneutic, when applied to the \u201cnew covenant\u201d of Jeremiah 31, led them to affirm that it applied only to Israel and not to the church. As their argument went, Jeremiah 31:31 clearly states that the new covenant is made \u201cwith the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,\u201d and since Israel, as an earthly people, is not the church, it cannot apply to the church. What about when the New Testament applies the new covenant to the church (e.g., Hebrews 8\u201310)? They argued that it must refer to an entirely different covenant, which, as critics rightly noted, is a difficult view to sustain given the New Testament teaching on this point. Ultimately, for classic dispensationalists, all the biblical covenants, including the new covenant, find their fulfillment in an earthly people\u2014first in the millennium and then in the final state\u2014but they do not apply to the church. The new covenant, then, must not be applied to the church other than in a spiritual or allegorical sense. In this way, the biblical covenants are tied to God\u2019s earthly purpose for his earthly people and not to God\u2019s heavenly purpose or people.
\nThis understanding of the biblical covenants was also linked to the dispensationalist view of the kingdom. Classic dispensationalism famously made a distinction between the \u201ckingdom of heaven\u201d (i.e., the fulfillment of the covenant made to David, in which God promised to establish the kingdom of his Son) and the \u201ckingdom of God\u201d (i.e., the moral rule of God in the hearts of his subjects). The kingdom of \u201cheaven\u201d begins to appear with Christ, but since Israel rejected it initially, the parenthesis age of the church was established. Ultimately, the kingdom of \u201cheaven\u201d will culminate in the millennium and the final state, where it will merge with the kingdom of \u201cGod\u201d in the hearts of his earthly people. Interestingly, this understanding of \u201ckingdom\u201d was the first thing modified by the next generation of dispensationalists.<\/p>\n
TRADITIONAL\/REVISED DISPENSATIONALISM<\/p>\n
Probably the greatest change that occurred within dispensationalism began in the 1950s with the abandonment of the distinction between the \u201cearthly\u201d and \u201cheavenly\u201d peoples of God. As Blaising notes, revised dispensationalists \u201cdid not believe that there would be an eternal distinction between one humanity in heaven and another on the new earth.\u201d In its place, they argued for two peoples of God along more dispensational lines, namely, \u201cIsrael\u201d as an ethnic, national people tied to the covenants of the Old Testament and the \u201cchurch\u201d as a distinct international community. In this way, people belonged to either one or the other but not to both at the same time, and each group was \u201cstructured differently, with different dispensational prerogatives and responsibilities.\u201d Traditional dispensationalists were also quick to point out that the salvation each group ultimately received was the same (thus avoiding the charge of two plans of salvation), namely, eternal life in a glorified resurrection state, yet they maintained an eternal distinction between the two groups, since \u201cthe church is always church, Israel is always Israel.\u201d
\nIn addition, traditional dispensationalists simplified their understanding of the number of dispensations across time. Even though most retained the classic understanding of seven dispensations, they primarily distinguished between God\u2019s purposes in the dispensations prior to grace (i.e., prior to the church), the dispensation of grace (i.e., the church age), and the kingdom viewed as the millennial reign of Christ on earth. In the era prior to grace, God worked through the nation of Israel to the Gentile nations. Through Israel, God achieved political, national, and spiritual purposes, but now in the church age, God\u2019s purpose in and through the church is primarily spiritual. Although Israel and the church\u2019s spiritual experiences are similar, they are not the same; the church experiences the qualitatively new reality of the baptism, sealing, and permanent indwelling of the Spirit\u2014something not experienced by Israel under the old dispensation. But it is not only in salvation that we see differences between Israel and the church; it is also in terms of the nature of the church as a regenerate community in contrast to the mixed composition (i.e., believers and unbelievers) of the people of Israel. In these ways, traditional dispensationalists spoke of the differences between Israel and the church and thus the discontinuity in God\u2019s plan of salvation.
\nRegarding the biblical covenants, there was also another crucial revision that took place, especially in respect to the dispensationalists\u2019 understanding of the new covenant and its relationship to the church. In classic dispensational thought, either the new covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31 (and in Isaiah and Ezekiel) was only for Israel as a national, ethnic people and thus not for the church, or there were two new covenants: one for Israel (e.g., Jeremiah 31) and one for the church (Hebrews 8\u201310). The problem with this view is that it was impossible to sustain biblically. How does one make sense of our Lord\u2019s understanding of his death as a ratification of the new covenant (e.g., Luke 22:20 par.), or the book of Hebrews, which applies Jeremiah 31 to the church? Traditional dispensationalists rejected the idea that the \u201cnew covenant\u201d of Jeremiah was not for the church. No doubt, they continued to maintain, along with their classic colleagues, that the Abrahamic covenant was the foundational covenant and that tied to it were the Mosaic, Palestinian (e.g., land promise), and Davidic covenants, along with the new covenant, as earthly, political, and national covenants. However, they now admitted that the church was to be viewed minimally as the \u201cspiritual\u201d seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:26\u201329) and that the Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled spiritually in the church because the church is related to Jesus the Messiah. Yet they strenuously argued that the national, political terms of the Old Testament covenants, particularly associated with the national and territorial identity of Israel, were not fulfilled in Christ\u2019s first coming but awaited future fulfillment. Only at Christ\u2019s return when he establishes his millennial reign will the covenants be fulfilled in a \u201cliteral\u201d way\u2014namely, Israel as a nation living in her land under Christ\u2019s rule, the Davidic king, in the future millennial age and beyond.
\nFor traditional dispensationalism, then, Old Testament promises and blessings are spiritually extended to the church, \u201cbut the covenants are not fulfilled in the Church Dispensation.\u201d This is uniquely true of the Davidic covenant. Traditional dispensationalism argues that the Davidic covenant is not partially fulfilled in Christ\u2019s first coming. Instead, its fulfillment awaits Christ\u2019s return when he establishes his millennial kingdom on earth and Israel as a nation is in her land. No doubt, Christ is enthroned in heaven now on God\u2019s throne, but he is not on David\u2019s throne, and such texts as Psalm 110 apply now only to Christ\u2019s priestly role, not to his rule as David\u2019s greater Son.
\nThe Old Testament covenants, then, remain unfulfilled until Christ returns and establishes his millennial kingdom, and even the new covenant is only spiritually extended to the church. Yet given that all the covenants are unconditional and that God himself, in his Messiah, will bring them to pass, it is certain that God will keep all his covenant promises. Yet even though Christ Jesus has come and the church exists and receives spiritual blessings now, God must still keep his promises to national Israel in the future. As Elliott Johnson reminds us,<\/p>\n
God does not replace Israel in accomplishing her share when Israel rejects Him.\u2026 Nor does God reinterpret Israel\u2019s share.\u2026 Nor does God expand those who share in fulfillment of Israel\u2019s role temporarily when Israel rejects Him.\u2026 Rather, God sets aside the nation temporarily and incorporates believing Gentiles along with a believing Jewish remnant to continue the ministry of the Servant until He returns as the Son of David and the Son of Abraham for judgment and rule. That ministry is based on the provisions of the new covenant received by faith in the provision of Christ.\u2026 This setting aside of the nation-servant creates the discontinuity in the fulfillment of covenant agreements with Israel.<\/p>\n
Blaising captures the traditional view when he states that its proponents viewed the Old Testament covenants as still needing to be fulfilled in the future but that aspects of the new covenant \u201cwere being fulfilled spiritually in the church today.\u201d However, this did not preclude that \u201cIsrael would experience the national and political aspects (the earthly features) of the covenant in the future.\u201d
\nThis traditional way of thinking about Israel and the church was a significant change that eventually led to progressive dispensationalism, which argued that the church stood \u201cin the line of a historical fulfilment of the new covenant promise to Israel\u201d and not merely as a parenthesis in the plan of God. Interestingly, in this change, dispensationalism was moving slightly closer to covenant theology\u2019s understanding of the Israel-church relationship, except that dispensationalists maintained that Israel, as a nation, would still experience God\u2019s specific land promises to her, which had not yet been realized in their fullness, and thus would experience God\u2019s promises in ways different from redeemed Gentile nations. In this revised trajectory leading to progressive dispensationalism, dispensationalists were now able to speak of the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel in a \u201cliteral\u201d way, while simultaneously applying the Abrahamic and new covenants to the church in a \u201cspiritual\u201d way or fulfillment.
\nAt this point, we see one of the sharpest disagreements between dispensational and covenant theology. For dispensationalism, God\u2019s promise to Israel as a nation involves outstanding promises that have not yet been fulfilled, specifically the territorial land promise that awaits its fulfillment in the millennial age and consummation. For covenant theology, there is a continuity between Israel and the church\u2014namely, that Israel is the church and the church is the transformed, restored eschatological Israel\u2014and thus, promises to Israel, including the land, are fulfilled in Christ and his church. Within covenant theology, these promises are fulfilled either spiritually in terms of our eternal inheritance, or, more commonly today, in Christ and the dawning of the new creation, which is now \u201calready\u201d here but which still awaits the \u201cnot yet.\u201d
\nFinally, it is important to mention how traditional dispensationalists modified their understanding of the \u201ckingdom\u201d with respect to the classic view. The classic view had made a sharp distinction between the \u201ckingdom of heaven\u201d (i.e., the earthly kingdom) and the \u201ckingdom of God\u201d (i.e., the spiritual, moral rule in God\u2019s people). However, due to the influence of George Ladd, the classic distinction was dropped. Although a number of alternative kingdom views were proposed, most began to talk in terms of the \u201cuniversal\u201d kingdom (i.e., God\u2019s sovereignty over all things) and the \u201cmediatorial\u201d kingdom (i.e., God\u2019s rule over the earth through a God-chosen mediator, such as the Davidic kings and ultimately Christ). In terms of the latter kingdom, most argued, as noted above, that since Christ was not currently on earth, the mediatorial kingdom would appear again only when Christ returned, and after the millennial reign we would see the universal and mediatorial kingdoms become one. However, Charles Ryrie and John Walvoord began to speak of a spiritual kingdom in this present dispensation, namely, the rule of Christ over believers today in the church, even though the political, national, and earthly fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom would not be realized until Christ returned. As Blaising notes, this was an important revision, since this allowed dispensationalists to now begin to define \u201cChrist\u2019s relation to the church as a kingdom,\u201d something not done by previous dispensationalists. It is this last revision that has paved the way for a further revision within the movement, a view to which we now turn.<\/p>\n
PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM<\/p>\n
In contrast to the dualism of classic dispensational thought and the sharp separation of the church from Israel of revised\/traditional thought, progressive dispensational theology argues that the church is more organically related to God\u2019s one plan of redemption. The appearance of the church, due to the coming of Christ, does not signal a secondary redemption plan, to be fulfilled either in heaven apart from the new earth or in a class of Jews and Gentiles that is forever distinguished from the rest of redeemed humanity. Instead, the church today is a revelation or illustration of spiritual blessings that all God\u2019s people throughout the ages will share while preserving their distinctive ethnic, national differences and roles.
\nThe term progressive is used in the sense of progressive revelation; that is, it underscores the unfolding nature of God\u2019s kingdom plan and the successive (not different) arrangements of the various dispensations as they lead to Christ and then the consummation. In this way, progressive dispensationalists stress the continuity of God\u2019s kingdom plan across redemptive history, and in this regard, they are much closer to how covenant theology understands the unfolding nature of God\u2019s plan yet with important differences. Blaising describes it this way:<\/p>\n
The plan of redemption has different aspects to it. One dispensation may emphasize one aspect more than another, for example the emphasis on divinely directed political affairs in the past dispensation and the emphasis on multiethnic spiritual identity in Christ in the present dispensation. But all these dispensations point to a future culmination in which God will both politically administer Israel and the Gentile nations and indwell all of them equally (without ethnic distinctions) by the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the dispensations progress by revealing different aspects of the final unified redemption.<\/p>\n
However, progressives are quick to point out, in contrast to much of covenant theology, that as one moves across redemptive history, there is a \u201cqualitative progression in the manifestation of grace,\u201d which underscores a fundamental discontinuity in God\u2019s redemptive plan. That is why the dispensations are \u201cnot simply different historical expressions of the same experience of redemption (as in some forms of covenantalism), although they do lead to and culminate in one redemption plan.\u201d This is also why progressives continue to view the church as a new entity in God\u2019s unfolding plan and hence different from Israel but not new as previous dispensationalists thought. Blaising comments,<\/p>\n
Earlier dispensationalists viewed the church as a completely different kind of redemption from that which had been revealed before or would be revealed in the future. The church then had its own future separate from the redemption promised to Jews and Gentiles in the past and future dispensations. Progressive dispensationalists, however, while seeing the church as a new manifestation of grace, believe that this grace is precisely in keeping with the promises of the Old Testament, particularly the promises of the new covenant in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. The fact that these blessings have been inaugurated in the church distinguishes the church from Jews and Gentiles of the past dispensation. But, only some of those blessings have been inaugurated. Consequently, the church should be distinguished from the next dispensation in which all of the blessings will not just be inaugurated, but completely fulfilled (which fulfillment will be granted to the saints of all dispensations through the resurrection of the dead).<\/p>\n
For progressives, then, the church should be viewed in light of its place in redemptive history. It is not the same as Israel prior to Christ; it is something new. It is tied to our present dispensation, namely, the coming of Christ, and it comprises redeemed Jews and Gentiles. Yet although in this \u201cnew man\u201d (Eph. 2:15)\u2014the church\u2014there is only one people of God and no distinction in the salvation blessings they receive, God\u2019s specific territorial promises to national Israel are not nullified. The prophetic promises given to Israel and the Gentiles will be realized according to their national identities, which will differ slightly from each other. So, for example, a Jewish Christian today, who is a member of the church alongside Gentile believers, does not lose his relationship to Israel\u2019s future promises. Both Jews and Gentiles, now and in the future, share the same salvation blessings, but \u201cthe same redeemed Jews and Gentiles will be directed and governed by Jesus Christ according to their different nationalities,\u201d tied to God\u2019s promises to each nationality. In this way, progressives preserve the New Testament emphasis on the one people of God over time and the one plan of redemption in Christ yet also affirm distinct roles for national Israel in the future alongside different roles for redeemed Gentile nations.
\nInterestingly, progressives, to warrant these differences from previous dispensational views, began to argue that typology is more than merely a \u201cspiritual\u201d interpretation. Similar to covenant theology, typology was viewed as that which \u201crefers to patterns of resemblance between persons and events in earlier history to persons and events in latter history.\u201d Thus, for example, the Davidic kingdom can serve as a type of the future, eschatological kingdom, or the nation of Israel as a \u201ctype\u201d of\u2014or better, \u201canalogous\u201d to\u2014the church. By moving in this direction, progressives were able to avoid such a sharp distinction between dispensations and see much more of the progressive, successive, unified unfolding of God\u2019s redemptive plan.
\nHow do progressives think of the biblical covenants? They take seriously the unfolding, organic nature of the biblical covenants that lead to Christ, but similar to earlier dispensationalists, they argue that the Abrahamic covenant, in all its diverse dimensions, national and spiritual, is foundational to all the biblical covenants. Yet importantly, most progressives, as in all forms of dispensationalism, either reject a creation covenant or do not view it as theologically significant. Creation serves as the environment for or backdrop to God\u2019s work in the world, but Adam (or a creation covenant) is not viewed as foundational for all future covenants; instead, the Abrahamic covenant serves that role in Scripture. It is through the Abrahamic promise that we learn of God\u2019s promise to bless all life on earth, including the nations. Following a fairly standard way of thinking about covenants today, based on ancient Near Eastern covenant patterns, Blaising views the Abrahamic covenant as a royal grant, or unconditional\/unilateral covenant, in contrast to a bilateral\/conditional covenant. On the one hand, Abraham is required to obey God, his obedience functions \u201cas the means by which he experiences God\u2019s blessing,\u201d and the commands to Abraham \u201ccondition the how and the when of the blessing.\u201d On the other hand, God\u2019s promise is guaranteed (\u201cunconditional\u201d) in the sense that God has promised to take the initiative unilaterally to bless the nations by resolving the problem of human sin.
\nAdditionally, given the foundational role of the Abrahamic covenant, all biblical covenants must be viewed in relation to it, instead of in relation to Adam and a creation covenant. God\u2019s blessing and the mediation of that blessing are passed to Abraham\u2019s descendants as they are chosen by God to inherit the covenant. In the old covenant, which Blaising views as a \u201cbilateral\/conditional\u201d covenant, a new dispensation for blessing is established. The descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob are constituted as a nation, a nation that is to function as the means by which God\u2019s blessing is mediated to the nations. However, given the bilateral nature of the covenant, it is possible for Israel to break the covenant by her disobedience and come under the covenant\u2019s curse, which, unfortunately, is what occurred in history, resulting in the exile. Yet Israel\u2019s disobedience did not overturn God\u2019s unilateral promise to Abraham to bless the whole world through his seed. As Blaising notes, \u201cThe Mosaic covenant is dependent upon it [the Abrahamic covenant]. This means that even though a certain generation (or generations) fails the terms of the Mosaic covenant and experiences the curse instead of the blessing, the opportunity still exists for a renewed offer of blessing to that generation or later descendants of Abraham,\u201d which is precisely what occurs in the later biblical covenants, especially the new covenant.
\nUnder the Davidic covenant, which Blaising views, similarly to the Abrahamic, as a royal-grant covenant,<\/p>\n
the role of mediating blessing was politically restructured as a function of the Davidic king. A covenant was made with David to bless him and his son(s) with rulership over Israel and the rest of the nations, an intimate and blessed relationship with God, and the mediation (even priestly mediation) of blessing to Israel and to all peoples and nations.<\/p>\n
But given the failure of the Davidic kings, the prophets looked forward to the coming of a new dispensation in which a new covenant would replace the Mosaic and would bring the Abrahamic blessing to its ultimate consummation.
\nIn this new covenant, then, God will bring about the full forgiveness of sin, the giving of the Spirit, and a transformation of the people of God, culminating in resurrection life. It is this new covenant that Jesus has inaugurated in his cross work for us. However, not all the promises and blessings of the new covenant are realized in Christ\u2019s first coming; its fulfillment involves an \u201calready\u2014not yet\u201d tension. As Blaising notes, \u201cThere are features promised in that covenant whose fulfillment has been delayed until the return of Christ (such as the national and territorial promises in Jer. 31:31, 36 and Ezek. 36:28 and 37:14).\u201d But since these latter features, specifically Israel\u2019s land promise, go back to the Abrahamic covenant, they still await their fulfillment when Christ returns. In this sense, the new covenant should be viewed as \u201cthe form in which the Abrahamic covenant has been inaugurated in this dispensation, and will be fulfilled in full in the future.\u201d But the present form of the new covenant does not exhaust the Abrahamic promises, which still await their fulfillment in the future, when the specific national promises to Israel are finally realized.
\nRegarding how progressives understand the kingdom and its relation to the covenants, they share much similarity with covenant theology, as we will note below. For one thing, neither distinguishes between the terms \u201ckingdom of heaven\u201d and \u201ckingdom of God.\u201d Further, as Blaising notes, \u201cInstead of dividing up the different features of redemption into self-contained \u2018kingdoms,\u2019 \u201d as earlier forms of dispensationalism did, \u201cprogressive dispensationalists see one promised eschatological kingdom which has both spiritual and political dimensions.\u201d For progressives the stress is on the eternal kingdom for understanding all previous forms of it, including the millennial kingdom. Yet unlike most proponents of covenant theology, progressive dispensationalists view the future consummation of the kingdom, namely, the \u201cnot yet\u201d aspect of the kingdom, as bringing about the specific promises to Israel as a nation in regard to her inheritance of the land, first in the millennium and then continuing in the eternal state. It is only when this takes place that the Abrahamic covenant is truly and fully realized and achieved.
\nWhat is the church in progressive dispensationalism? As noted above, as in all forms of dispensationalism, the church is not the restored, eschatological Israel, which receives all God\u2019s promises in Christ. Instead, the church is a people made up of Jewish and Gentile believers, who in this dispensation \u201cshare a relational reality in Jesus\u201d and \u201can inaugurated form of the salvific and pneumatological blessings that will, in their fullness, characterize the kingdom.\u201d The church, then, is an \u201cinaugural form of the kingdom,\u201d which precedes its full establishment of redeemed nations at Christ\u2019s return, an illustration of the \u201cspiritual union of all redeemed peoples with Christ and with one another.\u201d But once Christ returns, the church as a covenant people and theological reality\u2014as God\u2019s new creation people\u2014gives way to the multinational worldwide kingdom composed of redeemed nations, who enjoy the same blessings of salvation but who receive God\u2019s promises according to their distinct national identities. In this way, progressives continue to distinguish between Israel as a nation, and the church as a people, thus maintaining the crucial Israel-church distinction unique to dispensationalism.<\/p>\n
SUMMARY OF DISPENSATIONALISM AND ITS VARIETIES<\/p>\n
Over the years dispensational theology has undergone much development\u2014in our view, for the better. Any theological position that is willing to correct itself by Scripture should receive our appreciation. But with that said, to clarify what is at the heart of all varieties of dispensational theology, we return to where we began, namely, the Israel-church distinction. Hopefully, this is evident not only from our description of the varieties of dispensationalism but also from how dispensationalists themselves summarize what they believe are the distinctive features of their view. Although a number of distinctives are listed, dispensationalists eventually return to the crucial Israel-church distinction, which is foundational to their entire framing of the Bible\u2019s storyline.
\nFor example, Craig Blaising lists eight distinctive features of dispensational theology, and John Feinberg and Michael Vlach each list six. However, when these essential features are probed deeper, either they are shown not to be distinctive to dispensational theology alone (e.g., the authority of Scripture, dispensations in redemptive history, the newness of the church, or even premillennialism), or they reduce to the Israel-church distinction. Given this fact, we are safe in asserting that the sine qua non of dispensationalism (in all its varieties) is the Israel-church distinction. Furthermore and related to this distinction, there is the dual conviction that (1) Israel, as a national, ethnic people, still awaits outstanding promises that have not yet been fulfilled in Christ and the church, especially national and territorial promises\u2014all of which has theological implications for eschatology; and (2) \u201cGod\u2019s relationship to the church differs in some significant ways from the dispensation with Israel,\u201d which has theological implications for soteriology and ecclesiology.
\nAt this juncture it is important to ask how dispensationalists hermeneutically ground this crucial Israel-church distinction, which is so central to their view. This question is especially vital in light of how covenant theologians will attempt to argue their view. But before we address some of these crucial hermeneutical-theological differences between the two systems, we will finish the current discussion by describing the alternative biblical-theological view of covenant theology. We do so not only to set it over against dispensational theology but also, more importantly, to set the larger context by which we will argue for a third alternative, namely, kingdom through covenant, or progressive covenantalism.<\/p>\n
COVENANT THEOLOGY AND ITS VARIETIES<\/p>\n
Covenant theology, as a biblical-theological system, has its roots in the Reformation (e.g., Ulrich Zwingli [1484\u20131531], Heinrich Bullinger [1504\u20131575], John Calvin [1509\u20131564], Zachary Ursinus [1534\u20131583]), and in the post-Reformation era, it was systematized by Herman Witsius (1636\u20131708) and Johannes Cocceius (1603\u20131669). It has been taught by the English Puritans (e.g., John Owen [1616\u20131683]), Francis Turretin (1623\u20131687), Dutch Calvinists (e.g., Herman Bavinck [1854\u20131921], Geerhardus Vos [1862\u20131949], Louis Berkhof [1873\u20131957]), and American Presbyterian theologians as represented by old Princeton (e.g., Charles Hodge [1797\u20131878], B. B. Warfield [1851\u20131921]) and the Westminster Theological Seminaries (e.g., John Murray [1898\u20131975], Meredith Kline [1922\u20132007]). It is ably represented in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1643\u20131649), as well as in earlier Reformed confessions, such as the Belgic Confession (1561) and the Heidelberg Catechism (1563). In Baptist theology, the basics of covenant theology are reflected in the Second London Baptist Confession (1689).
\nAs the name suggests, covenant theology not only organizes redemptive history in terms of covenants but also contends that covenant unites Scripture\u2019s diverse themes. Michael Horton, in answering the question \u201cWhat brings all of the themes of Scripture together?\u201d says it this way:<\/p>\n
What unites them is not itself a central dogma but an architectonic structure of biblical faith and practice. That particular architectural structure that we believe the Scriptures themselves to yield is the covenant. It is not simply the concept of the covenant, but the concrete existence of God\u2019s covenantal dealings in our history that provides the context within which we recognize the unity of Scripture amid its remarkable variety.<\/p>\n
Continuing to speak of the significance of covenants to theology, Horton writes,<\/p>\n
The covenant is the framework, but it is far from a central dogma. The various covenants are visible and significant, in some \u201crooms\u201d (i.e., topics) more than others. The covenant of redemption is prominent in discussion of the Trinity, Christ as mediator, and election, while the covenant of creation is more obvious when we talk about God\u2019s relationship to the world (especially humanity), and the covenant of grace is most visible when we take up the topics of salvation and the church. However, whenever Reformed theologians attempt to explore and explain the riches of Scripture, they are always thinking covenantally about every topic they take up.<\/p>\n
Historically, covenant theology has maintained that three covenants are central: the pretemporal \u201ccovenant of redemption\u201d (pactum salutis) between the triune persons of the Godhead; the \u201ccovenant of works,\u201d or \u201ccovenant of nature\u201d (foederus naturae), made with Adam before the fall on behalf of the entire human race; and the \u201ccovenant of grace\u201d (foederus gratiae) made through Christ with all who are to believe (namely, the elect) and administered in history through a series of covenants from Adam to Christ. Although covenant theology readily acknowledges biblical covenants, it tends to subsume the plurality of covenants from Adam to Christ under the overarching theological category of the covenant of grace. Thus, it views the relationships between the biblical covenants in terms of an overall unity or continuity, given their conviction that the biblical covenants are an expression of the one covenant of grace. Covenant theology acknowledges that throughout redemptive history, the covenant of grace is administered differently, but overall, each biblical covenant is substantially or essentially the same. Yet as we will note below, the precise nature of continuity within the covenant of grace varies among covenant theologians, and as Vern Poythress rightly admits, \u201cCovenant theology has always allowed for a diversity of administration of the one covenant of grace. This diversity accounted in large part for the diversity of epochs in biblical history. But the emphasis was undeniably on the unity of one covenant of grace.\u201d
\nIt is for this reason, contra dispensationalism, that covenant theology has seen more continuity in God\u2019s plan across time, especially in regard to the Israel-church relationship. In fact, it is at this precise point that we see a major difference between these two theological systems that leads to corresponding differences in how each views aspects of ecclesiology and eschatology. For example, covenant theology insists that God has one redemptive plan and one people and that the similarities between Israel and the church as covenant communities are significant. Unlike dispensational theology, covenant theology argues that \u201cIsrael\u201d and the \u201cchurch\u201d are by nature the same. That is why covenant theology has argued that there is continuity between Israel and the church in at least the following ways: the nature of the two communities as comprising believers and unbelievers (i.e., a mixed people within the covenant community); the meaning of covenant signs (i.e., circumcision signifies the same gospel realities as baptism); and the salvation experience of old and new covenant believers, with some modifications made for the perfect and finished nature of Christ\u2019s cross work. Within covenant theology, then, Israel and the church are so linked that the only real differences between the two communities are that the New Testament \u201cchurch\u201d is more racially mixed than predominantly Jewish and that the \u201cchurch\u201d is a more knowledgeable version of \u201cIsrael.\u201d But the experience of salvation and the indwelling work of the Spirit is basically the same across the covenants.
\nWith this general introduction in place, let us describe in more detail the basic contours of covenant theology, especially in regard to its understanding of the nature and relationships of the biblical covenants. Given the variety of forms of covenant theology\u2014Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed (and differences within each of these groups, such as Federal Vision), Seventh-day Adventist, and even Reformed Baptist\u2014our main focus is on the view of paedobaptist covenant theology. We will focus on how this position treats three areas: the nature and relationships of the biblical covenants, the nature of the church in relationship to Israel, and the nature of the covenant signs in the old and new covenants. By focusing on these three areas, we will then be in a better position to compare and contrast the differences between dispensational and paedobaptist covenant theology.<\/p>\n
COVENANT THEOLOGY AND THE BIBLICAL COVENANTS<\/p>\n
For covenant theology, the theme of covenant is central to how Scripture fits together, but what exactly is a covenant? Covenant has been variously defined, and it is not necessary to work with one definition, so we will use Michael Horton\u2019s definition as a place to start: \u201ca covenant is a relationship of \u2018oaths and bonds\u2019 and involves mutual, though not necessarily equal, commitments.\u201d For Horton, the emphasis on \u201cnot necessarily equal\u201d commitments is important since he rightly contends that in redemptive history there is a \u201csubstantial variety of covenants in Scripture\u201d and that not all the biblical covenants are exactly the same. How, then, should we think of the relationship between the diverse biblical covenants? As noted above, the answer to that question is that covenant theology views the historical covenants under two larger theological headings\u2014the covenant of works and the covenant of grace\u2014both of which are grounded in the eternal covenant of redemption. Let us look at each of these covenants in turn.<\/p>\n
The Covenant of Redemption<\/p>\n
All Christian theology affirms that our triune God has an eternal plan, which he enacts by creation, providence, and redemption, though theologians debate how God plans, how God\u2019s choices relate to human choices, and so on. When it comes to God\u2019s eternal plan of redemption, covenant theology has spoken of it in \u201ccovenant\u201d categories, specifically, as the \u201ccovenant of redemption\u201d (pactum salutis). J. V. Fesko gives us a helpful definition of this covenant:<\/p>\n
The covenant of redemption is the pre-temporal, intra-trinitarian agreement among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to plan and execute the redemption of the elect. The covenant entails the appointment of the Son as surety of the covenant of grace who accomplishes the redemption of the elect through His incarnation, perfect obedience, suffering, resurrection, and ascension. The covenant of redemption is also the root of the Spirit\u2019s role to anoint and equip the Son for His mission as surety and apply His finished work to the elect.<\/p>\n
Some have questioned the use of the term covenant to refer to the eternal pact between the triune persons since Scripture is silent about such a covenant (although Scripture speaks of God\u2019s eternal plan) and since certain definitions of covenant would not apply to intra-Trinitarian relations. However, Horton responds, echoing many advocates of a pactum salutis, \u201cIf we hold simultaneously to the doctrine of the Trinity and unconditional election, it is unclear what objection could be raised in principle to describing this divine decree in terms of the concept of an eternal covenant between the persons of the Godhead.\u201d
\nHistorically, this is precisely what covenant theology has argued, and as such, most within covenant theology accept the biblical and theological legitimacy of speaking of God\u2019s eternal redemptive plan as the covenant of redemption. As covenant theology has contended, one cannot deny that Scripture teaches that our triune God has an eternal plan (e.g., Ps. 139:16; Isa. 46:9\u201313; Eph. 1:4\u201314; 1 Pet. 1:20)\u2014a plan conceived before the foundation of the world, made known on the stage of human history, and involving the work of all three persons of the Godhead. Scripture speaks of this plan in terms of the Father giving a people to the Son (e.g., John 6:39; 10:29; 17:2, 6\u201310; Eph. 1:4\u201312), the Son accomplishing that plan by his obedient life and death (John 6:37\u201340; 10:14\u201318; Heb. 10:5\u201318), and the Spirit working to bring those people chosen by the Father to faith union in Christ (Rom. 8:29\u201330; Eph. 1:11\u201313; 1 Pet. 1:5). In addition, in that plan, the divine Son, in relation to the Father and Spirit, is appointed as the mediator of his people. And the Son gladly and voluntarily accepts this appointment with its covenant stipulations and promises, which are then worked out in his incarnation, life, death, and resurrection. This eternal plan establishes Christ as mediator, defines the nature of his mediation, and assigns specific roles to each person of the Godhead, and this plan is accomplished in history through the covenants of works and grace.
\nFor covenant theology, the covenant of redemption serves as the foundation to the outworking of God\u2019s plan, as an \u201carchetype for the historical covenants.\u201d It also provides the grounding for our covenantal union with Christ as our mediator and representative substitute in the covenant of grace. Given that Scripture teaches such a divine plan, roles, and promises, it is legitimate, covenant theology insists, to think of God\u2019s eternal plan in covenantal terms.<\/p>\n
The Covenant of Works<\/p>\n
For covenant theology, the first historical covenant, grounded in the pactum salutis, is the covenant of works,\u2014sometimes called the covenant of nature or the covenant of life\u2014made with Adam, as the head and representative of the human race, prior to the fall. To Adam and his entire posterity, eternal life was promised on the condition of perfect obedience to the law of God. However, due to his disobedience, Adam, along with the entire human race, was plunged into a state of sin, death, and condemnation. But God, due to his own free and sovereign grace, was pleased to make another covenant\u2014the covenant of grace\u2014with human beings (specifically, the elect) wherein God freely offered to sinners life and salvation through the last Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ. Although the covenant of works is an important staple of covenant theology, it has been disputed. Let us first describe some of its essential features and the important role it plays within the larger theological framework of covenant theology before we outline some of the internal debate regarding this covenant.
\nIn thinking about the covenant of works and its importance, four points are significant. First, it is a covenant between God and Adam\u2014Adam acting \u201cnot in his individual capacity but as the head and representative of his whole race.\u201d In fact, Louis Berkhof argues that Adam is related to God in two ways: first, as a dependent creature, who owes God perfect obedience but in this natural relationship \u201ccould not have merited anything,\u201d namely, the reward of eternal life; and second, as an appointed covenant head. It is important to note that it is only in this second relationship, which is subsequent to creation and not due to creation itself, that the covenant is established. By God\u2019s positive command to Adam in Genesis 2, a covenant is now enacted wherein Adam is not merely God\u2019s creature but is now constituted as the legal, representative head of the human race, temporarily put on probation to determine whether he will obey God\u2019s law and given the promise of eternal life, as represented by the tree of life, if he obeys perfectly. By this covenant, then, Adam is enabled \u201cto obtain eternal life for himself and for his descendants in the way of obedience.\u201d
\nSecond, the promise of the covenant, namely, the receiving of eternal life, is conditional and thus dependent upon Adam\u2019s perfect obedience to God\u2019s command. Although Scripture gives no explicit promise of eternal life to Adam, most argue that the threatened penalty of death \u201cclearly implies such a promise.\u201d Although Adam was created in a \u201cstate of integrity with the ability to render God complete obedience,\u201d Adam\u2019s covenant status at creation was not \u201cthe highest degree of holiness, nor did he enjoy life in all its fullness.\u201d Instead, it was \u201cprovisional and temporary and could not remain as it was. It either had to pass on to higher glory or to sin and death.\u201d Sadly, Adam, who had the ability to sin, broke God\u2019s law and plunged himself and the human race into a state of death and condemnation.
\nThird, although Adam broke the covenant, in many respects it is still in effect. All humanity is born \u201cin Adam\u201d and is thus under sin and condemnation. Because we are creatures, God continues to demand of us perfect obedience, but we disobey. In theory, the conditional promise of \u201cdo this and live\u201d (cf. Lev. 18:5; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12) is still in force, but there is no human who perfectly obeys and meets God\u2019s demand. Yet as a covenant, it is no longer in force; the probationary period is over, and the result of Adam\u2019s sin is that the entire human race is now under sin and death.
\nFourth, the covenant of works sets the stage for the covenant of grace. Since Adam, as the representative head of the human race, broke the covenant of works, he was driven from Eden, and all humanity is now guilty and corrupt \u201cin him.\u201d Thankfully, the triune God has graciously established a second covenant\u2014namely, the covenant of grace\u2014to redeem from fallen humanity his elect. In the covenant of grace, and grounded in the pactum salutis, the divine Son is appointed as our mediator, and in his incarnation, life, and cross work, he renders to the Father perfect obedience for us, thus meeting our legal demand before God and paying for the debt of our sin. The covenant of works, then, provides the warrant for our corporate solidarity either in Adam or in Christ, the biblical-theological grounding for Christ\u2019s active obedience and his representative-substitutionary work for us, and the law-gospel contrast that runs throughout Scripture and is essential to grasping the nature of Christ\u2019s work.
\nAs central as the covenant of works is for covenant theology, proponents disagree about at least three points concerning the precise nature of this covenant. First, some have challenged whether there is a covenant with Adam since \u201ccovenant\u201d terminology does not begin until Genesis 6:18 and since \u201cthe word covenant in Scripture is always used in a context of redemption.\u201d However, this is a minority view within covenant theology, and most would agree with John Frame that minimally a covenant between God and humans is implicit and that biblically and theologically a strong case can be made for a covenant with Adam.
\nSecond, some have sought to avoid the idea of works to underscore the fact that grace is fundamental to any divine-human relationship, including the relationship with Adam in the original situation. John Frame argues that the terminology of works suggests \u201cthat eternal life is a kind of commodity, and that if Adam pays the price, \u2018perfect obedience,\u2019 \u2018works,\u2019 or \u2018merit,\u2019 God will turn that commodity over to Adam and his posterity,\u201d which also gives the impression that the works are all Adam\u2019s works and that grace is not operative prior to the fall. Frame does not necessarily object to the idea of a covenant of works but is only concerned that it might wrongly convey the idea that Adam \u201cpossessed an autonomy that no other creature has ever possessed.\u201d Instead, Frame wants to view the covenant with Adam as \u201ca sovereign blessing of God, calling Adam and Eve to respond in obedient faith.\u201d O. Palmer Robertson is also concerned that the works language is inadequate since it has \u201ctended to concentrate attention on one single element of the creational bond between God and man.\u2026 Rather than seeing the broader implications of man\u2019s responsibility to his Creator, attention has been directed exclusively toward Adam\u2019s probation-test.\u201d Instead of a \u201ccovenant of works,\u201d Robertson suggests that we call the covenant with Adam a \u201ccovenant of creation,\u201d in order to avoid potential misunderstandings surrounding works language.
\nHowever, despite this objection, the dominant view within covenant theology is to retain a \u201ccovenant of works\u201d with Adam. This understanding of Adam\u2019s role is not only foundational for Reformed orthodoxy\u2019s understanding of the active obedience of Christ, who, as the last Adam, obeys God\u2019s commands (the law) and thus wins righteousness for us, but is also foundational in establishing the law-gospel pattern of Scripture. Law refers to the covenant of works, and gospel refers to the covenant of grace. Instead of speaking of God\u2019s grace in the original situation (prior to sin), Horton, following the Westminster Confession, prefers to characterize God\u2019s relationship to Adam by \u201cvoluntary condescension.\u201d It is after the fall that God acts in sovereign grace and mercy toward fallen humanity.
\nThird, within covenant theology there is also a debate regarding the relationship of the covenant of works with the Mosaic covenant. Some view the Mosaic covenant as a republication of the covenant of works, thus casting the Sinai covenant as a mixture of the covenants of works and of grace. In fact, Horton, following Meredith Kline, divides the biblical covenants by means of law and gospel, associating law with Adam and Sinai and gospel with Abraham, David, and the new covenant in Christ. In this view, the Mosaic covenant is a legal, conditional covenant that shares in the substance of the covenant of grace yet features a works principle tied to the covenant of works. Those who argue this position contend that we must not pit law and gospel against each other, even in the original situation. Often the law-gospel contrast is understood in terms of a negative-positive relation. But as Horton explains, this is incorrect: \u201cIn creation (and in the institution of the theocracy at Sinai), law as the basis for the divine-human relationship is wholly positive. In fact, this republication of the law is itself gracious, even if the principle of the two covenants (works and grace) fundamentally differs.\u201d As this is applied to the Sinai covenant, even though it begins with God\u2019s act of liberation of Israel from bondage\u2014a gracious and powerful act indeed\u2014Sinai must still be viewed as primarily a law-covenant, following the suzerain-vassal pattern of blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. God\u2019s way of salvation was always tied to his promises, by grace through faith, but Israel\u2019s national status in God\u2019s land depended on their obedience to the covenant; apart from that obedience, they came under the curses of the covenant.
\nMost within covenant theology, however, reject the republication thesis. The Mosaic covenant is viewed as a gracious covenant and not the renewal of the covenant of works; the law, then, is subservient to the covenant of grace. Since the covenant of grace is one, it is incorrect to posit that the Mosaic covenant is a mixture of law\/works and gospel. Cornelis Venema states the objection this way: \u201cIf what belongs to the substance of the covenant of works does not belong to the substance of the covenant of grace in any of its administrations, it is semantically and theologically problematic to denominate the Mosaic administration as in any sense a covenant of works.\u201d Also, as Frame points out, the Mosaic covenant begins with God\u2019s grace, and similar to all biblical covenants, obedience is demanded but is no more conditional than the Abrahamic covenant was. Furthermore, it is difficult to substantiate that under the Mosaic covenant people were saved by grace<\/p>\n
but that their temporal blessings within the land of Canaan had to be earned by works.\u2026 The biblical text, further, never says that the spiritual and temporal blessings of Israel come from different sources. The relation between God\u2019s grace and human obedience in the Mosaic covenant is the same as that in the other covenants.<\/p>\n
Despite these ongoing, internal debates, for the most part covenant theology contends for a covenant of works or a creation covenant prior to the fall. Yet, sadly, Adam, as our covenant head, disobeyed God, and his sin and guilt are now ours. After the fall, apart from God\u2019s initiative to redeem, we cannot achieve divine forgiveness by keeping God\u2019s commands. Our triune God must act in sovereign grace to redeem us from our sin, which is precisely what he has done in the covenant of grace.<\/p>\n
The Covenant of Grace<\/p>\n
In history, the covenant of grace (i.e., gospel, promise) began immediately after the fall with the promise of grace in Genesis 3:15, although it, like the covenant of works, is grounded in God\u2019s eternal plan. This promise was then progressively revealed and fulfilled in history through variously administered covenants with Noah, Abraham, Israel, and David. Ultimately, it was brought to fulfillment in the new covenant, which our Lord inaugurated in his victorious cross work on our behalf.
\nHowever, it is important to stress that even though Scripture describes a plurality of covenants, there is only one overarching covenant of grace. That is why, despite the covenantal differences, one must view the relationships between the covenants in terms of an overall unity and continuity. Randy Booth underscores this point in his comments on the \u201cnewness\u201d of the new covenant: \u201cThe new covenant is but a new\u2014though more glorious\u2014administration of the same covenant of grace.\u201d Thus, under the old covenant, the covenant of grace was administered through various promises, prophecies, sacrifices, rites, and ordinances (e.g., circumcision) that ultimately typified and foreshadowed the coming of Christ. Now, in light of our Lord\u2019s coming and work, the covenant of grace is administered through the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. But in God\u2019s plan there are not two covenants of grace, one in the Old Testament and the other in the New Testament, but one covenant differing in administration yet essentially the same across the ages.
\nTo understand better how the covenant of grace is conceived within covenant theology, three points are important to grasp: the substance\/essence and administrations distinction, the conditionality or unconditionality of the covenant of grace, and the parties of the covenant of grace.<\/p>\n
THE SUBSTANCE\/ESSENCE AND ADMINISTRATIONS DISTINCTION. First, the distinction between the substance\/essence and the administrations of the covenant of grace is the way covenant theology explains how the biblical covenants are unified despite their diversity. To speak of the substance of the covenant is to account for its unity\/continuity, and to speak of its administrations or accidental properties is to explain how the same covenant of grace is different over time. No doubt, in Christ the covenant of grace is more fully revealed, but the substance of each prior covenant is the same. Bavinck captures this distinction well when he writes about the covenant of grace throughout history:<\/p>\n
All the grace that is extended to the creation after the fall comes to it from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit. The Son appeared immediately after the fall, as Mediator, as the second and final Adam who occupies the place of the first, restores what the latter corrupted, and accomplishes what he failed to do. And the Holy Spirit immediately acted as the Paraclete, the one applying the salvation acquired by Christ. All the change that occurs, all the development and progress in insight and knowledge, accordingly, occurs on the side of the creature.\u2026 The Father is the eternal Father, the Son the eternal Mediator, the Holy Spirit the eternal Paraclete. For that reason the Old Testament is also to be viewed as one in essence and substance with the New Testament.\u2026 Although Christ completed his work on earth only in the midst of history and although the Holy Spirit was not poured out till the day of Pentecost, God nevertheless was able, already in the days of the Old Testament, to fully distribute the benefits to be acquired by the Son and Spirit. Old Testament believers were saved in no other way than we. There is one faith, one Mediator, one way of salvation, and one covenant of grace.<\/p>\n
Given this distinction, how does covenant theology determine the \u201caccidental properties\u201d of each covenant, or what exactly has and has not changed over time? Covenant theology follows this hermeneutical principle: given the underlying unity of the covenant of grace, unless God has specifically abrogated something from the Old Testament, then it is still in force in the New Testament era. Interestingly, as we will note in chapter 3, this hermeneutic is similar to dispensational theology except that each system employs it in different areas. For example, in dispensational theology, Israel\u2019s land promise, first given in the Abrahamic covenant, has not been abrogated in the coming of Christ and is still in force, hence the need for its future fulfillment in the millennium and consummation. Covenant theology does not argue for the land promise in this way, yet it does argue for the circumcision-baptism relationship in a similar way, linked to the genealogical principle\u2014\u201cto you and your children.\u201d Circumcision, as a covenant sign, was given in the Abrahamic covenant, and it carries over, now in baptism, as the new covenant sign, but the essence of both signs remains the same. Baptism, as the sign of the new covenant, reflects one of the several administrative changes that have resulted, yet it still signifies the same spiritual meaning as circumcision did previously, given the unity of the covenant and that the genealogical principle has not been abrogated in the New Testament. Booth emphasizes this point when he writes, \u201cUnder the old administrations of the covenant of grace, circumcision was the sign and seal of covenant admission. Under the final administration of the covenant of grace (the new covenant), water baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign of covenant admission.\u201d Although the form of the covenant sign has changed due to different administrations, the substance has not, thus the meaning and application of the signs remain the same in all eras.
\nFor covenant theology, given the substance\/administrations distinction, what, then, is new about the new covenant? What are the differences, if any, between the older and newer administrations of the covenant of grace? The answer to this question is not monolithic. Yet despite various nuances, covenant theology agrees that the main difference is that of \u201cpromise fulfilment,\u201d that is, what the older administration promised through types, ceremonies, and sacrifices has now come to fulfillment in Christ. Most covenant theologians view the newness of the new covenant in terms of a renewal rather than a replacement or fulfillment that entails discontinuity with the previous covenants, except for those who think of the Mosaic covenant as a republication of the covenant of works. That is why most argue that the new covenant administration simply expands the previous era by broadening its extent and application and bringing with it greater blessing yet leaving intact the substance of the covenant of grace. Specifically, but not exhaustively, covenant theology views the newness of the new covenant in the following ways:<\/p>\n
1. On the basis of Christ\u2019s cross and through the application of it by the Spirit, a greater power to obey is possible in the new covenant, along with a greater consciousness and enjoyment of salvation blessings.
\n2. The knowledge of God is extended to all nations (the particular to the universal). Under the new covenant more people will know more about the Lord, which fulfills the Abrahamic promise of blessings to the nations.
\n3. The promise of redemption is now accomplished in Christ with the full payment of sin. The old Levitical administration, along with the ceremonial law, has now been fulfilled. The types and shadows of the old (natural and temporal forms) have reached their fulfillment in what they pointed to (spiritual and eternal realities).
\n4. The new covenant is the final manifestation of God\u2019s redemptive plan. There are no more covenant administrations to be revealed.<\/p>\n
Interesting and crucial for highlighting theological differences, especially in the area of ecclesiology, is any discussion of newness in the new covenant in terms of the changes that have occurred in the nature and structure of the church as the new covenant community. For those who argue that the church is substantially different from Israel, as do many dispensationalists and those in the believers-church tradition (including Baptists and Reformed Baptists), a crucial feature of the new covenant is that all those within it are people who, by definition, have now experienced circumcision of the heart by the Spirit and the full forgiveness of sin tied to God\u2019s present declaration of justification and thus who savingly know God. Jeremiah 31:29\u201334 certainly seems to point in this direction, and it is here that various understandings of the nature of the church begin to part company. Obviously, this latter view of newness implies a discontinuity between the old and new covenant communities, a view that paedobaptist covenant theology rejects given its understanding of the unity of the covenant of grace. That is why covenant theology continues to view the church as it views Israel of old, namely, as a mixed community that includes within it simultaneously the elect (covenant keepers) and the nonelect (covenant breakers). How one sees the nature and structure of the new covenant vis-\u00e0-vis the previous covenants is a crucial matter that requires resolution to make headway in various ecclesiological debates.<\/p>\n
UNCONDITIONAL OR CONDITIONAL? Second, to grasp better how covenant theology relates the biblical covenants to the covenant of grace, we must think through whether the covenant of grace is unconditional or conditional or in some ways both. The majority view is that the covenant of grace is unconditional. God acts sovereignly and unilaterally to make the covenant and to keep it. Even as God demands from us to repent, believe, and obey, he grants us the power to do so by sovereign grace in Christ and the Spirit. As Cornelis Venema nicely summarizes,<\/p>\n
Not only are the covenant\u2019s obligations preceded by God\u2019s gracious promise, but these obligations are fulfilled for and in believers by the triune God\u2014Father, Son, and Holy Spirit\u2014in their respective operations. God\u2019s demands are born of grace and fulfilled in us by grace. In these respects, the covenant of grace is unconditional, excluding every possible form of merit, whereby the faith and obedience of God\u2019s people would be the basis for their obtaining life and salvation.<\/p>\n
However, within covenant theology, and related to the discussion on the relationship between the covenants of works and of grace, some have distinguished the biblical covenants further in terms of the unconditional\/conditional distinction. For example, as noted above, Michael Horton, following Meredith Kline, argues that the Mosaic covenant is predominately a conditional law-covenant (a republication of the covenant of works), while the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are unconditional in nature. He argues that the Adamic and Mosaic covenants follow the ancient Near East\u2019s suzerain-vassal pattern, while the other covenants are grounded in God\u2019s unconditional promise to act unilaterally for his people. For this reason, now that the new covenant has come in Christ, the Sinai covenant is abrogated, while the other covenants remain, given their unconditional nature. It is also for this reason that Horton argues, contra dispensational thought, that the land promise is tied to the Mosaic covenant and is conditional. Israel, then, in disobeying the covenant, forfeited the land, and as such, \u201cits theocratic status was revoked.\u201d As noted above, not everyone in covenant theology argues this point, yet all argue that the substance of the covenant of grace is unconditional.
\nYet covenant theology has also argued that the covenant of grace (including the new covenant) is conditional in at least two ways. First, the blessings of the covenant of grace depend completely on Christ, the last Adam, fulfilling the conditions of obedience first set down in the covenant of works as the representative and substitute of his people. Second, the terms of the covenant obligations are conditionally placed on us in order to benefit from the covenant, namely, the requirements of repentance, faith, and obedience. These covenant obligations are not viewed as meritorious grounds for our justification; rather, they are \u201cnecessary responses to the covenant\u2019s promises\u201d and thus are \u201cinstrumental to the enjoyment of the covenant\u2019s blessings.\u201d Even Horton, who strongly argues for the unconditionality of the new covenant, contra the bilateral covenant of Sinai, accepts both of these kinds of conditionality within the new covenant.
\nAt this place in the discussion, most covenant theologians contend that the covenant of grace involves a \u201cconditional promise,\u201d \u201cwith blessings for those who obey the conditions of the covenant and curses for those who disobey its conditions.\u201d In principle, then, the covenant of grace, which includes the new covenant, is conditional in the second sense described above and is thus breakable. At this point, most covenant theologians argue for a \u201cmixed\u201d people within the covenant of grace\u2014that is, the covenant people comprises covenant keepers and breakers. That is why the circle of the covenant community, whether in the old (Israel) or new (church) era, is wider and larger than the circle of election. For example, Horton insists on this precise point: the covenant of grace, including the new covenant, \u201cin its administration involves conditions,\u201d since \u201cit is a covenant made with believers and their children.\u201d As Horton and all covenant theologians acknowledge, not everyone in the covenant of grace is elect. Thus, as in Israel, so in the church, people may be in the covenant \u201cthough not of the covenant.\u201d Appealing to the often-cited parable of the weeds (Matt. 13:24\u201330, 36\u201343), Horton, along with other covenant theologians, argues that \u201cnot everyone who belongs to the covenant community will persevere to the end. Some are weeds sown among the wheat, seeds that fell on rocky soil or that is [sic] choked by the weeds.\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
KINGDOM through COVENANT A BIBLICAL-THEOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE COVENANTS SECOND EDITION PETER J. GENTRY STEPHEN J. WELLUM WHEATON, ILLINOIS Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Second Edition) Copyright \u00a9 2012, 2018 by Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum Published by Crossway 1300 Crescent Street Wheaton, Illinois 60187 First edition 2012. Second … <\/p>\n