Biblical Covenants and Normative Hermeneutics (1)

Introduction

In this installment of our series on what I have called “Biblical Covenantalism” I want to concentrate on the matter of interpretation as it relates to the Covenants of Scripture.  I have alluded to this in an earlier article, but I want to say more because I believe this matter to be so vital for a proper understanding of the Bible.

As is recognized by most Dispensationalists, many of those brethren who denigrate Dispensational theology for its “literalistic” hermeneutics do so because they insist upon the determining interpretive role of the various “genres” of Scripture.  Prophetic literature, for example, is to be understood according to the “genre” we call “apocalyptic”.

By utilizing the supposed insights of prophetic/apocalyptic genre, amazing transformations take place. Wild annals are changed into metaphors for our carnal passions (Isa. 11); detailed physical temple-plans are morphed into spiritual organisms (Ezek. 40ff); and seemingly inviolable promises are taken from the designees and altered so as to conform to what history after the cross is alleged to demand.

My concern in this article is to address this phenomenon of prophetic makeover.  How can God express Himself in the most forceful language of commitment to Israel and not mean what He is saying (Jer. 31-33)?  How can God make a solemn oath to accomplish stipulations which He and no one else has placed upon Himself and proceed to “expand” these stipulations beyond all recognition (Gen. 15)?   And what, if anything, gives Christians the right to re-interpret the language of God’s unilateral promises to the Patriarchs?  Where is the “wiggle room” in the covenant obligations which Jehovah placed Himself under?

Two Forms of Biblical Covenants

We have previously noted that a biblical covenant is a contract between two parties. The OT has two kinds of covenants. They are really two forms of the Suzerain-vassal treaties common in the 2^nd millennium B.C. (the time of Moses).  The Sinai Covenant (Exod. 19-24; 32-34) is a good example of this first version.  In this form of biblical covenant the emphasis falls on the obligation of the vassal (Israel) to perform the will of the Suzerain (Yahweh) which it has agreed to perform upon oath. Failure to pursue the obligations of the covenant would result in the nation (not just certain individuals) being laid open to the curses affixed to the contract. Of course, the Mosaic sacrificial system was instituted within the covenant, at least in part, to stave off judgment. On the other hand, compliance would guarantee the blessing mentioned in connection with rewards of obedience contained within the covenant.  Thus, blessing was experienced now and again in Israel, but the stipulations were too stringent for them to ever obtain the full blessing.

This is where the second type of biblical covenant comes in.

The Biblical Covenants and “Expansionist” Re-Readings

So far in our present studies in “Biblical Covenantalism” we have seen that what is known as Dispensationalism is not very well named.  Not that dispensations are foreign to Scripture, but the name does not describe the distinctive approach to the Bible and Theology that is quintessential to the system.  On the contrary, it brings to prominence things which are of far less importance than the matters we have been discussing with regard to the Covenants of Scripture.  It is the covenants, not the dispensations, which are crucial to this viewpoint.  One may argue back and forth about the dispensations; their number and features, without abandoning “Dispensationalism.”  But one cannot ignore the biblical covenants without destroying the whole system itself.

A Very Brief History of Covenant Theology (2)

Part One Here

Why Did Covenant Theology Take Hold?

We have already indicated that political expediency may have encouraged the covenant mindset, at least early on.  But theologically speaking, there is one overwhelming reason for its attraction.  The covenant concept, especially the Covenant Of Grace, brings the Old and New Testaments together into one unity (which Dispensationalists like myself would say is a artificial, forced unity).  The Covenant Of Grace provides the continuity that is essential if the Church is to be the one people of God in both Testaments that Reformed theology claims it to be.

Johannes Coccieus (d. 1669) issued in 1648 a book that presented an outline of the scriptural teaching on salvation.  In tracing salvation from the creation of Adam (who was originally under the Covenant of Works) down to the end of time (the elect under the Covenant of Grace), Coccieus had presented his Dutch constituency with a progressive historical outworking of God’s decree[1] (his system included the Millennium).  Herman Witsius’ (d. 1708) scheme differs from that of Coccieus in that it is more concerned with systematic theology and practical living (including Sabbath-keeping) than with a mere outlining of salvation history.  His book, The Economy of the Divine Covenants (1677), issued last in two volumes with a Forward by J. I. Packer, is a wonderfully devout work filled with the kind of robust theology which characterized the best of the Dutch Nadere Reformatie. It is hardly surprising that this work is seen as a premier account of CT. 

Answering the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism (10)

Apologies for not posting for the a while.  Among other things I was doing a conference in MI.  Anyway, here are some more responses to the Nicene Council.  I again wish to stress that we ought to be able to discuss our disagreements without branding each other as heretics or any such pejorative term.  I certainly don’t have all the answers!  Albeit, I think I have something to say in answer to these “Theses.”   We are on Thesis 37:

37. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim regarding “the unconditional character of the [Abrahamic] covenant” (J. Dwight Pentecost), which claim is essential for maintaining separate programs for Israel and the Church, the Bible in Deuteronomy 30 and other passages presents it as conditional; consequently not all of Abraham’s descendants possess the land and the covenantal blessings but only those who, by having the same faith as Abraham, become heirs through Christ.

Response: Of course there are conditional elements in the Abrahamic Covenant.  In Genesis 17, for example, there is circumcision.  The question is whether the conditional aspects of the covenants can be reconciled with the unconditional aspects.  Our objectors direct us to Deuteronomy 30, and we are happy to go there!  But we shall have to read it more carefully than the Nicene brethren appear to have done.

Deuteronomy 30 is of course the locus classicus for the Land or “Palestinian” Covenant.  The reader is urged to study the whole chapter carefully.  Notice God predicts an apostasy based upon the blessings and curses in the previous three chapters (vv.1,17-18), but He also predicts a regathering (vv.2-5) and regeneration (vv.6-8).

A Very Brief History of Covenant Theology (1)

As an outsider to Covenant Theology (CT), but one who has attended a Seminary that taught it and who appreciates the great men associated with it, I thought I would write a short history of Covenant Theology for those non-CT’s who might like to know a tad more about it.

[Don't worry, I'll return to the 95 Theses very shortly!]

My purpose in here is not to define what is known as Covenant Theology.  What I wish to do is to provide some of the salient historical backdrop to it and then ask why it has proven itself so durable.

I think a good way to do this is to present four questions which I will then attempt to answer.

Four Questions

1. How old is Covenant Theology (CT)?
2. When did it gain prominence?
3. Why did it take hold?
4. Summary: What is its status today?

It is not my wish to get technical and sophisticated.  This little presentation is just an overview.

What is a Biblical Covenant? – Part Two

A Biblical Covenant is a thing of tremendous importance for the student of Scripture.  For one thing, these covenants (made e.g., with Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses, David) were made by God Almighty Himself.  When God deigns to make a covenant with men one can be sure that He has some great strategic purpose in mind.  In which case it is crucial to pay close attention to what is stated, otherwise the intention of God forecasted in the covenant will be missed.

We saw in the last post that Covenant theologians impose extra-biblical covenants like the “Covenant of Grace” upon the covenants of Scripture.  This flattens out these covenants and allows the covenant theologian to pronounce them “one” while ignoring the details within.  We believe this to be a serious error.

Although helpful work has been done regarding the parallels between the OT covenants and ancient Near Eastern treaties, it should not be forgotten that, as Charles Scobie says, “Considerably more significant for the biblical understanding of covenant is the way the term is used in the OT itself.” – Charles H.H. Scobie, The Ways of Our God, 475.  The covenant made with Noah in Gen. 9:8-17 is obviously an unconditional covenant (it is made with the creation as well as with man).  God promises Noah, who found grace in His sight, that He would preserve the planet in perpetuity (see 8:22), thus ensuring there would be a history upon whose stage the events of the Old and New Testaments, together with their effects, would be played out.

What is a Biblical Covenant? – Part One

In previous assorted posts I have now and then called attention to the fact that as “plain-sense” readers of Scripture, we are concerned more with the covenants in the Bible than with the dispensations.  Hence I coined the term “Biblical Covenantalist” in preference to “dispensationalist” to describe myself.

But it is a fact that Christians do not always have the same thing in view when speaking about the covenants of Scripture.  For one thing, those calling themselves “Covenant Theologians” (CT’s) do not place much emphasis upon the literal covenants with Noah, Abraham, David, etc.  Instead they focus on theological covenants – those of Redemption, Works, and Grace. 

“Biblical Covenantalism”

I mentioned in a previous post that “Dispensationalism” is a poor soubriquet for our system of belief. My reasons included the patent fact that “Dispensational Theology” is really not about the dispensations, but about the biblical covenants. Thus, for my part, I prefer to be identified as a “Biblical Covenantalist.”

Now, I admit that “Biblical Covenantalism” is not the most attractive name. But it is far more accurate and more helpful than “Dispensationalism” – and that name hardly trips off the tongue with ease.

For me, then, Biblical Covenantalism fits more comfortably. It describes more what I am than what I am not. The covenants of Scripture map out God’s intentions for His world and our future. They position us within the revealed game-plan of God. They were made for our sake. We should, therefore, give more heed to them.

Now, whenever you believe the system now called Dispensationalism was first taught, it is important to note that prior to C.I. Scofield and his Reference Bible (1909, 1917) and quite often after it, dispensationalists did not apply that moniker to themselves. Therefore, we would not be committing the unpardonable sin if we chose to call ourselves by another, more appropriate name.