For those of you who have wished that yours truly would come into the 21st Century and list my answers to the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism in order…well, you have your wish!
Image and Function in Genesis 1:26-28
Another significant fact related by these verses is our creation in the image and likeness of God. We cannot here enter into all the debates about the imago Dei, but some few things should be said.
Firstly, God does not say ‘according to My likeness.’ He says ‘Our likeness’. The “Let us” statement is no plural of majesty, since it appears to be ideational, and is to be understood (I believe) as a statement of plurality in the Speaker. The question arises then, in what way is God a plurality? This question is not fully answered until the NT era. Or, on the other hand, and as much OT scholarship insists, is the plurality meant to convey some sort of heavenly council scene, such as one finds in ANE accounts of the assemblies of gods?
If the latter is the case then one will have to go outside of the Bible for added data to interpret the passage. This indeed is what many scholars in the evangelical community do. But if we pause for a moment and read the context we quickly see that such an interpretation must be wrong; for the Speaker goes on to say, ‘Let us make man in our own image, according to our own likeness.’ And, in line with the words/actions pattern which we have already noted, it says, ‘So God created man in his own image’, and underscores it right after with, ‘in the image of God he created him.’ That ought to clear up the interpretation.
“Man” (adam) here is plural: ‘male and female’. Both are made in God’s image. There is no hint of a conversation between God and the angels (which would not mirror an ANE council of divinities anyway). Angels are nowhere said to be made in God’s image and likeness. Plus, creation is a grand prerogative of God. Why would the Creator discuss His creative proposals with creatures? Angels have no part in the work of creation (See Isa. 48:11).
The passage also states that man was to be given dominion over ‘all the earth’ not just Eden. This must be kept in mind when we reach chapter 2. The dominion applies to the function of man and woman as God’s image-bearers.
In the third place, just what constitutes the image of God? Again, many today would claim that the image includes the function as well as the constitution of man. Unsurprisingly, resort to ANE records features largely in their arguments. But the text appears to make the function contingent upon the image. In other words, man and woman cannot fulfill their function until they are made in God’s image. This would restrict the image to at least our material and immaterial natures.
But then we must enquire whether the image assumes the material part of human beings along with our immaterial natures. Here I think we are on safer ground if we define the image and likeness classically along non-physical lines. If we make the image merely physical we run into the problem of what God looks like. Our difference from the rest of the created realm is not just physical. Fish and birds and cattle and creeping things differ physically one from another as much as we do from them, so it is doubtful that we image God merely physically.
On the other hand, can we dismiss the possibility that both the soulish and the physical aspects of man image God? Authors Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum point out that,
“the traditional view is inadequate… because it does not come to grips with the fact that “image” normally refers to a physical statue and cannot be exegetically validated as the author’s intended meaning or the first audience’s natural understanding of the text in terms of the ancient Near Eastern cultural and linguistic setting.”
But this begs a rather crucial question. Did Moses report the words God actually spoke in Genesis 1:26-27? Nobody else was around, and certainly God meant what He said in the rest of Genesis 1, as we have seen. That being so, the matter of whether people of the ANE living in or after Moses’ time (ca. the fifteenth century B.C.) thought “image” meant a physical statue is by the bye, and may even be anachronistic. The context will have to tell us. Gentry and Wellum opt for “rulership and sonship” as the image. But this leaves us with the problem of the spread of little rulers and sons of God upon the earth. If everyone is a ruler then surely nobody is. (and if “image” equates to sons, what about daughters? In OT times – if we’re insisting on “cultural setting” – daughters did not enjoy the same rights as sons). The biblical text leans toward thinking of the image primarily as non-physical and the body as the vehicle for the expression of the image in the extended world.
Anticipating the Human Form?
Reading the progression in Genesis 1, we follow a logical as well as a chronological order. Dry ground comes before plants and trees. The plant kingdom is readied before creatures are made to live off them. The apex of the creation week is the fashioning of man from the dust of the ground. Man is God’s image-bearer: a stupendous privilege and responsibility, and he is given dominion over what God has just created.
The Bible’s Opening Verse
As has often been observed, the opening verse of the Bible does not give an argument for the existence of God. In line with its claim to be the Word of God it assumes a position of Divine authority immediately. Scripture has the right to tell us! It does not pander to our fallen desire for proof. The proof is in the address. God will eventually reveal Himself as the “I Am” – the self-existent and self-contained One. He does not argue His creatures into admitting that designation. It is assumed at once. When we open the Bible we are straight away presented with a choice. The choice is between the claims of God as Creator or the claims of our own autonomy. This claim to higher authority never desists in the narrative, and in every place where autonomy is portrayed the consequences of getting our authorities mixed up is dire.
“God created.”(Gen. 1:1). This is a creation ex nihilo (from nothing), not a creation ex materia (from preexisting materials). The verb bara (“created”) always refers to God as Creator; never to other makers of things. He is “before all things.” There is no dualistic character to the universe: God and matter. Matter is the stuff of the material world, but it is itself brought into being by the living God, who alone is eternal. This is in distinct opposition to all other creation stories, ancient and modern.
Even the myth of stellar evolution and the Big Bang, which can only be fitted into the Creation story with violence, must itself give to dead matter what it needs to construct itself into stars and galaxies, planets and fauna. Seen this way the Word of God begins as a straight-ahead challenge to the word of man. Gerald Bray has observed,
almost all of the major church fathers wrote commentaries on the creation narrative in Genesis, because they understood that the Christian doctrine of creation was antithetical to what most ancient philosophers taught about the origin and nature of matter.” 
The “heavens and the earth” form an independent clause, which indicates the likelihood that the first verse is a summary statement of what comes next. There is more than a hint of a kind of inclusio with 2:1, “Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.” What was begun in 1:1 is “completed” in 2:1. But, as we shall shortly see, this completion was not consummation.
A popular teaching in some circles is to see a time gap intervening between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. Exegetically speaking there is no warrant for such a thing. We ought never to allow pressure from the world to force upon us any rash employment of our imaginations, all for the sake of interposing our accommodations to naturalistic science. The Word of God will often disagree with those who look at things independently. Any attempt to separate the first two verses by millions and billions of years is based on misunderstandings of a few passages in the Prophets and cannot be countenanced from Scripture. Moreover, as with any intrusion of unscriptural reason, these overtures to contemporary science end up creating problems down the road. The same must be said for “analogical” and framework interpretations. The Bible as it stands supports nothing but a recent creation of the universe.
Disorder but not Distortion
From the second verse onwards the perspective is that of an observer from planet earth, the place of the writer, although it is not the place of the true Author. Moses is writing here about things no human being witnessed. His Source is the Creator. (more…)
Creation and Communication
Without the creation of Adam and Eve the whole sequence of days which preceded them would be a rather futile exercise. If the sequence found in the Bible’s very first chapter is to signify anything as a sequence, it had to be an actual seven day sequence. Otherwise it is hard to see why ordinal numbers would be used to describe the process.
Also, without observers capable of recognizing and wondering after God’s wonders around them, God’s disclosure, and with it what we call Theology, would be a moot: and so would everything else beyond the Divine Eternity. God did not have to create to satisfy any longing within Himself. Although the ideas within the mind of the Creator which led up to Him becoming a Creator are not vouchsafed to us, we must realize that since love is communicative at its core, any creation by the God of love would be language-based. This is why the creative days lead up to man and God’s speaking to man. Man is communicative through language for the main purpose of talking back to God in love. A loving Creator will make a talking creature; someone to converse with and who will talk to Him. This is what human beings are. This is our status, our purpose in the world. Without mankind the world is just a great museum.
To create, the Lord of all things had to impose a purpose upon things. Something for them to do which, though it might reflect His glory in some way, would also make it other than His own majesty. Creation has an integrity all its own. Though it all depends on God moment by moment, yet it has its own God-given value, and is as real as its Maker.
Within this created reality God has placed human beings. Though not hailing from the same conservative viewpoint as myself, Wright and Fuller sum up the Bible’s opening account admirably.
The creation story of Genesis remains unique among the many myths, legends, and scientific explanations provided by the ancient and modern worlds. The opening phrase sets the tone for the whole presentation: ‘In the beginning God…’ God stands at the beginning of all things as their Creator. And this God is not a capricious deity or a blind force; he is not a mere ‘principle of order’; he is a person, who created a good and beautiful world which reveals his glory, his power, and his love. And in the center of this marvelous creation is man, the climax of God’s work, set here as a steward, responsible to his Creator for all he does with the world over which he is given dominion. – G. Ernest Wright & Reginald H. Fuller, The Book of the Acts of God, 49
We “know” God and we image God (Gen. 1:26-27). Thus, “Theology”, the knowledge of God and His works, is the first knowledge available to man. It is the source and context of all other knowledge open to his ken. It does not appear so now because there is something radically wrong with how man thinks. His source and context has shifted more onto himself than his Maker. Our plight is, therefore, in a deep sense, hermeneutical. Our interpretation of our environment was intended to be a Divine – human co-operative affair. All the masses of knowledge which we would acquire would be “wise knowledge” (chokmah), informed by our relationship with our benevolent Lord. To anticipate the end of the story, this is how it will be after Jesus returns, and in the eternal kingdom. So the Book of Proverbs reminds us that “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,” (Prov. 1:7), where “knowledge” is a synonym for wisdom (as seen in the companion verse, Prov. 9:10).
God the Creator stands behind all true knowledge (as opposed to ‘knowledge falsely so called’ – 1 Tim. 6:20). And as Adam and Eve came from the hand of God they appear as knowing, communicating beings, fully able to hear and learn from God. The devastation of the Fall, which warped our environment and our senses, instilled in us an independent path of interpretation. It also had the effect of lessening our cognitive powers. As magnificent as are the achievements of men and women (at least from our own point of view), they would pale in significance when compared to what a civilization of perfectly functioning humans could achieve together under God’s tutelage.
The first two chapters of the Bible transport us to a time before the entrance of sin. A time led up to by a meaningful progression of creative work. But as we have said, it was rendered meaningful because God made the man and the woman to understand Him.
Here are the other short videos on major interpretative topics:
I have been recording short video presentations on various themes. The aim is to cover subjects in Biblical and Systematic Theology, Apologetics and Worldview, and other matters briefly and clearly, yet without being too simplistic or too technical. The first mini-series we have done is on Themes in Biblical Interpretation. The series, as well as other materials, can be viewed at the TELOS YouTube channel.
Here are the first three:
In his Commentary on the Book of Genesis the Reformer John Calvin notices that a reason for God’s covenant promise to Noah was to encourage him in the hard task of obedience in the building of the Ark. By way of application he writes,
For then do we freely embrace the commands of God, when a promise is attached to them, which teaches us that we shall not spend our strength for nought…It is especially necessary that the faithful shall be confirmed by the word of God, lest they faint in the midst of their course; to the end that they may certainly be assured that they are not beating the air, as they say; but that, acquiescing in the promise given them, and being sure of success, they follow God who calls them. – John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of Genesis, Vol. I, 258
Calvin is right to fasten on the encouragements to faith of a divine covenant (though interestingly, Calvin interpreted Genesis 2:17, a common proof-text for the “covenant of works”, negatively as requiring meritorious works and not faith. (See Daniel P. Fuller, The Unity of the Bible, 181-182). But note that his application is on target only if God’s promise means what it says; otherwise faith can find no assurance in what God said. It is a moot point, or ought to be. But it is routinely overlooked in biblical and systematic theology. Covenants become malleable in the hands of many writers. It is our opinion that this contributes in a major way to the disagreements between scholars over just where the biblical covenants function in God’s program.
We might ask, ‘How many people take Genesis 9:11, which include the terms of the covenant with Noah, typologically or spiritually or allegorically?’ The answer would be, ‘nobody.’ And that simple answer is very significant, because it means that this first covenant is interpreted uniformly in what we call a “literal” way. The words of verse 11 mean what they say:
The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. “While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” – Genesis 8:21-22
If this is compared with what God said to Himself in 9:11 we see a close correspondence:
I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth. – Genesis 9:11
This again shows that there is agreement between God’s thoughts (“the LORD said to Himself”) and God’s words in the covenant oath. This brings a certain welcome rigidity to what God says in His covenant. There are over sixty ancient Near Eastern covenants or treaties which have been discovered, and the terms all mean what they say (not that we take our lead from extra-biblical sources). In point of fact, many of these treaties specify in the clearest terms the cruciality of the words in the covenant oath, explicitly saying that the words themselves are inviolate.
To give just two examples taken from a reliable and accessible resource (The following are from Readings From the Ancient Near East, eds. Bill T. Arnold & Bryan E. Beyer, 97-98): From the first part of the second millennium B.C. there is a covenant between two brothers, Abban and Yarimlim pertaining to lands which includes the line,
Abba-AN is under oath to Yarimlim, and also he cut the neck of a lamb. He swore: I shall never give back what I gave you.
The central core of the oath which Abban made to Yarimlim is plain and clear. It cannot suffer typological or symbolical transfiguration into some other thing. Although this covenant is conditioned upon Yarimlim’s fidelity to Abban, the oath binds his successors, and therefore cannot undergo any alteration of meaning without being made void.
In another example (14th century B.C.), Hittite king Suppilulima makes a treaty with Mattiwaza, king of Mitanni, witnessed by a host of gods on both sides. It includes the warning:
If he breaks it or causes anyone else to change the wording of the tablet…, If you, Mattiwaza, the prince, and you the sons of the Hurri country do not fulfill the words of this treaty, may the gods, the lords of the oath, blot you out…
What is noteworthy about this is that the wording, and so the meaning of the wording, is sacrosanct. It is not open to reinterpretation, and the pantheon of gods is called upon to ensure against such a thing. This is standard procedure for ANE covenants, in fact, for all covenants. The reason for it is because the oaths must be unambiguous and must mean what they say. I might go further and say that the choice of words as conveyors of accurate meaning is a sine qua non of covenants and treaties.
Going back to the Bible, the well known example in Joshua 9 where the Gibeonites fooled Joshua and the elders into making a covenant with them makes this point well. As Golding correctly says,
When the Israelites discovered how they had been deluded, they were furious, but could not go back on their oath, which had been solemnly sworn with God as witness (v.19). – Peter Golding, Covenant Theology, 70 (My emphasis)
In like manner, the covenant cut by Laban with Jacob in Genesis 31:44-54 makes the same point. The pile of stones (31:46) acted as “a witness” (31:48, 52) to the terms of the covenant (31:52):
This heap is a witness, and this pillar is a witness, that I will not pass beyond this heap to you, and you will not pass beyond this heap and this pillar to me, for harm. – Genesis 31:52
If after striking this agreement Laban would have rose up, strode past the heap and knocked Jacob to the ground, only one of two understandings of his actions would be possible. Either Laban would be knowingly violating the words he just agreed to keep, or, he would have dishonestly and disingenuously made an oath which he knew whose words he knew full well he would not keep. Either way he would have broken his bond. (more…)
The second argument, that there are covenantal elements in the Creation narratives, is somewhat dependent upon the first for its advocacy. Nobody denies that there is a repetition of parts of the Creation mandate in Genesis 9. But such a repetition was necessary seeing that God had just wiped out every living thing from the map. That necessity doesn’t extend however, to requiring a covenant given to Adam in the Garden. And we are not justified in drawing an inference that the earlier use of the words were thereby covenantal simply because their repetition to Noah was in a covenantal setting. One wonders how the Lord was to warn our Adam about taking from the forbidden tree without including some of the language which would later be used in covenants. Covenants often included prohibitions and warnings. They were necessarily made by or with human parties. In that sense, all prohibitions are formulaic and “covenantal”(speaking anachronistically), but that does not turn them into covenants. Again we sense a lack of control in the understanding of the function of a Divine covenant.
However, this belief in a pre-Noahic covenant just might be supplemented by Hosea 6, even though it must be admitted that the all-important substance of that particular “covenant” remains anyone’s guess. Attempts to designate Genesis 2:16-18 as the oath are exegetically specious. All one can properly bring out of the text is what is there: a prohibition and a dire warning. That is it. So one is left with a vacuous covenant with no identifiable solemn oath. Not much to go on for the exegete, but rich pickings for a pious theologically charged imagination that wants to find light in between Scripture’s gaps!
As for the third argument put forth by defenders of a pre-Noahic covenant; the mention of “Adam” in Hosea 6:7, we are unmoved. Although studies by Warfield and others lend some superficial credence to the notion, there remain too many problems and unanswered questions that plague it. The immediate context favors a location (Tell ed-Damiyeh?). Concerning the identification of it with the person Adam, McKenzie comments:
modern scholars are nearly unanimous in rejecting this understanding. For one thing, there is no mention anywhere else in the Bible, including Genesis 2-3, of a covenant between God and Adam… Furthermore, the word “there” in the second line of the verse suggests that Adam may be a place name, and this possibility is strengthened by the places mentioned in subsequent verses – Gilead (v.8) and Shechem (v.9).
Duane Garrett thinks there is a deliberate wordplay between the man Adam and the place of transgression, the town of Adam in area of Gilead. But we must repeat the fact that even if the exegetical case for the person Adam were in the future universally accepted, we would still be none the wiser as to what the covenant actually entailed. We would certainly not be constrained to embrace a “covenant of works”, a “covenant of grace”, a “Creation covenant” etc., an Adamic covenant’, etc., on such flimsy internal evidence.. Plus, we would not be one step further to knowing what the putative covenant said. Better then, not to assert anything.
While not everyone will agree with my conclusions, and while respect is owed to those whose opinions differ, I believe the arguments for a covenant prior to the Noahic covenant fall short of being convincing and rely upon inferences brought to the text. More important is the glaring fact that there is just not enough scriptural data to provide content for these pretender covenants.
Personally, I could wish that I could confidently detect a true covenant in Genesis 1, or Genesis 1-2, or Genesis 2–3. I am, after all, attempting to show that the biblical covenants contain both the telos and the eschatos of the Creation Project as set out in the pages of Scripture. But I fear that any attempt to ground my scheme upon a covenant without a defining oath would be to make it, in fact, groundless. And so I am content to connect the covenants with Noah, Abraham, David, etc., with the already noted correspondence between God’s speech and His actions and to treat Divine covenants as intensifications of this motif.
I conclude, then, that for all the assertions of a pre-Noahic covenant notwithstanding, there is little or nothing to show for it but the personal judgments of good men who pour their own meanings into an empty vessel. The biblical record remains unchanged. The first covenant in the Bible of which we can speak meaningfully is the covenant God made with Noah after “the world that then was perished.”
 Ibid, 164-165. He cites Craig Bartholomew’s note about marriage being an example of a covenant before the Fall. I shall return to this, but will just say here that marriage is not a Divine-human relationship. Furthermore, both Proverbs 2:17 and Malachi 2:14 refer to the encroachments of sin within marriages. It might be argued that the covenantal aspects of marriage became necessary only after the entrance of sin. We have argued that the essence of a covenant is to insure obedience of one or both of the parties involved. This would be unnecessary prior to Genesis 3.
 Even Gentry, when rightly speaking of “the covenant with Noah [creating] a firm stage of history where God can work out his plan for rescuing his fallen world” (Ibid, 175), tacitly agrees that this is indeed the principle purpose of the covenant; namely, no more flood guarantees the uniformity of nature and a linear flow of history. It does not then appear to be necessary to for God to bind himself to Creation this way before the Flood.
 See J. Glen Taylor, ‘Hosea’, ZIBBC, Vol. 5, 28
 Steven L. McKenzie, Covenant, 22-23. Earlier he notes that, “The Assyrians probably had a covenant affirming Israel’s vassalhood, against which they rebelled.” – Ibid, 8. He gives Hosea 12:1; 10:4, and 6:7 as possible references.
 Duane A. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, NAC 19A, 162-163
 Walter C. Kaiser rightly refers to these as “hypothetical” covenants. See his The Promise-Plan of God, 26.
More material from the “big book”.
There need not be much dissension from the view that Genesis 6:18 may refer to a previous understanding of covenant on Noah’s part. It could equally mean that the covenant was “in God’s mind” before the waters came and He chose out Noah. In either case the interpretation stresses the gracious (hen) movement of God towards Noah (6:8).
But could it, indeed, should it, be construed as a reference to a “Creation covenant,” instituted in Genesis 1? If the instructions given to Adam and Eve are repeated to Noah, doesn’t this show that, as Jeffrey Niehaus has it, “the Noahic or recreation covenant with the Adamic one” should be seen “as one legal package”? That is a big question. It assumes, in fact, that the “Adamic” or “Creation covenant” is unambiguously self-evident like the Noahic covenant. But that position requires a good deal of reinforcement if it is to withstand scrutiny.
So what evidence is there of an existing covenant in the first three chapters of Genesis? I have already alluded to the fact that the evidence is “spotty”. But it would be of some benefit to examine it a little more closely. Not uncommonly those who see covenants in the opening chapters of the Bible do not take much space proving it. But some arguments have been put forth deserve attention.
- the language of establishing not “cutting” the covenant.
- the repetition of parts of the Creation mandate.
- the reference in Hosea 6:7 to “Adam” breaking the covenant.
The first argument, and the best in my estimation, concerns the Hebrew expression used in regards to the Noahic covenant. Merrill concludes that “Genesis 1:26-28 is at least a truncated example of a royal grant document.” It may be, but where are its specific terms? Where is the oath which God supposedly made? It certainly had nothing to do with a global flood. Yet the flood is at the heart of the covenant oath God made with Noah as His witness. In other words, without the assurance that God would not again visit the earth with such a deluge, there would be no reason to even mention the covenant! To move from that position backwards to the first two chapters of the book in order to find a “Creation covenant” (or other), looks like moving far beyond the evidence readily discernible in the oath of the Noahic covenant.
Niehaus says that the elements of covenant (which he says stems from an “idea” in God), are present in the Creation chapters (Gen. 1 & 2). So, even though the oath is not found there, the presence of a covenant is assured. Very well, but without knowing what the oath is we have no way of knowing for sure what the covenant was about. Once more, Gamble, in his impressive book, thinks that “The reordering of the world after the Flood was a covenantal recapitulation.” But he gives no solid evidence for this assertion.
Perhaps the best defense of this position is found in the work of Gentry and Wellum called Kingdom through Covenant. Building on the work of Australian scholar William Dumbrell, whose basic ideas he defends, Gentry asserts, and I think proves, that the deliberate choice to use heqim berit (“to establish a covenant”), rather than what would become the normal expression, karat berit (“to cut a covenant”), indicates that God was already committed to this covenant prior to Genesis 6. This does not mean they support the idea that Genesis 6 and 9 refer to covenant renewal. Rather, the claim seems to be that God’s pre-existing commitment to His creation is now expressed in the initiation of a promised covenant.
In summary, based on the expression heqim berit, linguistic usage alone demonstrates that when God says he is confirming or establishing his covenant with Noah, he is saying that his commitment initiated previously at creation to care for and preserve, provide for and rule over all he has made, including the blessings and ordinances that he gave to Adam and Eve and their family, are now to be with Noah and his descendants. This can be substantiated and further supported by noting the parallels between Noah and Adam, and between the covenant terms given to Noah and the ordinances given to Adam and his family.
Gentry goes on to detail the parallels he has mentioned, but the existence of parallels, which it must be admitted, are hardly avoidable, do not require the presence of a covenant. (more…)
I have been asked to put my stuff on Biblical Covenantalism in one place. These are the main posts which, I think, define and expound the concept and indicate where I am going with it. I hope placing them together helps out.
The Main Articles, the ‘Book’, and the Videos:
Explaining why the Biblical Covenants provide a hermeneutics for the Bible.
Dispensationalism & Biblical Covenantalism: What’s in a Name? (link)
A comparison of the perspectives. This Synopsis was written for the same post.
My ideas about how standard Dispensational theology could be profitably redirected and strengthened by downplaying the importance of Divine economies and conferring primary authority to the Biblical Covenants. The article builds on an earlier one called What is a “Dispensationalist Theology?”
Even though this comes from a series (yet unfinished – I’m working on it) which covers more than the covenants, this one is concerned directly with the boundaries which the covenants set for proper interpretation.
CHRIST AT THE CENTER:
The Fulcrum of Biblical Covenantalism
This is not the “big book” I am working on, but it outlines the centrality of Jesus Christ to the system. I am trying to edit and revise it in my spare (ha!) time.
CHRIST AS THE CENTER OF SCRIPTURE:
These are six video presentations where I present a fairly detailed overview of Biblical Covenantalism as I conceive of it.
Other subjects dealt with along these lines:
About the covenant with Phinehas. I realize that some scholars see a covenant with Aaron which is unrelated to that which was made with Phinehas, but I see no reason to multiply covenants needlessly. They amount to the same thing.
This article seeks to define progressive revelation sensibly by taking seriously the meanings of “progressive” and “revelation”, and rescue the idea from the abuse it must suffer at the hands of prevaricating theological dogmas.
Has the Davidic Covenant Been Initially Realized in the Church? (link)
This piece is my attempt to deal with questions pertaining to Acts 2
Does Diatheke Mean “Last Will and Testament” in Hebrews 9:16-17? (link)
I argue that the Greek term often translated as “testament” in this place ought to be rendered “covenant” along with all other uses in Hebrews.
My TELOS Lectures on Biblical Theology, which I have nearly finished uploading under the title “Biblical Covenantalism” will be added to this list soon.
Okay, there it all is. Have fun!