Covenant or Reformed theology is a system of theology that stresses the continuity of the Bible as the “architectonic structure” or matrix providing the context for recognizing the unity of the Bible amid its diversity is the covenant.
1According to Robert Letham, the covenant received more detailed attention in the sixteenth century with the initial impetus arising because of the Anabaptist challenge to infant baptism.
2A defense of infant baptism was provided through the unity of the covenant with the practice of circumcision for Abraham’s offspring being analogous to baptism. In Reformed federal or covenant theology, three covenants are set forth which undergird this system. R. Scott Clark explains,
Those three covenants are (1) the pretemporal covenant of redemption (pactum salutis) between the Father and the Son, (2) a historical covenant of works between God and Adam as the federal head of humanity (foedus operum), and (3) a covenant of grace with the elect, in Christ, administered through a series of covenants from Adam to Christ.
31Michael Horton, Introducing Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 13.
2Robert Letham, The Work of Christ, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1993), 50. To be sure, early forms of covenant theology are present in the church fathers as they expressed their understanding of the transmission of sin, the inclusion of the Gentiles in the church, the discontinuity between the old and new covenants, and in their discussions of Christian ethics, see R.
Scott Clark, “Christ and Covenant: Federal Theology in Orthoxdoxy,” in A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Boston: Brill, 2013), 406. For a historical treatment of the doctrine of the covenant in the Westminster Assembly and through the patristic, medieval, early and post-Reformation periods, see Andrew A. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly, Reformed Historical-Theological Studies (Grand Rapids:
Reformation Heritage, 2012).
3Clark, “Christ and Covenant,” 407.
The inter-Trinitarian covenant of redemption or counsel of peace, whereby the Father elects a people in the Son who is the guarantor and mediator of their redemption with saving faith applied by the Spirit, will not receive attention since the other two overarching theological covenants specifically concern the issue of continuity and discontinuity, centering as they do on the covenants established in history.
4The covenant of works and the covenant of grace are the two main constructs for how covenant theologians understand the unity of the Bible and unfold the progress of revelation. I concentrate on these two covenantal constructs and later address how these concepts shape the covenantalist’s ecclesiology and understanding of Israel.
Before unpacking the covenants of works and grace, two points should be noted. First, there are a variety of forms of covenant theology—Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed, Seventh Day Adventist, Federal Vision, and the New Perspective of Paul.
54For helpful studies on the covenant redemption, see J. V. Fesko, The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption (Fearn, Scotland: Mentor, 2016); David VanDrunen and R. Scott Clark, “The Covenant before the Covenants,” in Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Theology: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California, ed. R. Scott Clark (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2007), 167-96; and Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theolgy, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 265-71. For a more popular level description, see Michael G. Brown and Zach Keele, Sacred Bond: Covenant Theology Explored
(Grandville, MI: Reformed Fellowship, 2012), 23-39. For a treatment by a key historical Dutch Reformer, confer Herman Witsius, Economy of Covenants between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity, trans. William Crookshank (London: R. Baynes, 1822; repr., Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2010), 1:165-202. Interestingly, some Reformed theologians challenge the inter-trinitarian covenant of redemption, see O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1980), 54.
5For example, a Seventh Day Adventist form of covenant theology is offered by Hans K.
LaRondelle, Our Creator Redeemer: An Introduction to Biblical Covenant Theology (Berrien Springs, MI:
Andrews University, 2005). Federal Vision advocates include Douglas Wilson, Peter Leithart, and Richard Lusk. Their understanding of the covenant is presented in such works as Douglas Wilson, “Reformed” Is Not Enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant (Moscow, ID: Canon, 2002); and E. Calvin Beisner, ed., The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision (Fort Lauderdale, FL: Knox Theological Seminary, 2004). Proponents of the New Perspective on Paul are E. P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N. T. Wright. For example, see E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1977); and N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). For discussion of the Federal Vision and New Perspective on Paul from a mainstream covenantalist, see Michael S. Horton, “Which Covenant Theology?” in Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Theology, 197-227. Note also the overview and critique of the Federal Vision in A. T. B. McGowan, Adam, Christ and Covenant: Exploring Headship Theology (London:
Inter-Varsity, 2016), 79-107.
Reformed Baptist covenant theology or 1689 Federalism also posits a covenant of works and covenant of grace, but their understanding of covenant theology diverges at significant areas from paedobaptist covenant theology.
6Since baptists are in general agreement on the topic of baptism and the church as a regenerate community, the Reformed Baptist covenant theology will not receive attention in this study. Rather, the focus is particularly centered upon traditional paedobaptist covenant theology of a Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed heritage and how their form of covenant theology shapes their understanding of Israel typology as well as their ecclesiological conclusions regarding Israel and the church.
Second, there are competing views as to the nature and definition of covenant.
The role and presence of oaths and the question as to whether covenants normalize existing relationships or create new relationships are just some of the issues that have arisen in recent scholarship.
7Furthermore, classifying covenants as conditional or
6Pascal Denault, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology: A Comparison between Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist and Paedobaptist Federalism (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian, 2013); Jeffrey D. Johnson, The Kingdom of God: A Baptist Expression of Covenant and Biblical Theology (Conway, AR: Free Grace, 2014); Earl M. Blackburn, ed., Covenant Theology: A Baptist Distinctive (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian, 2013). 1689 Federalism differs from some modern Reformed Baptists who maintain the many administrations of the one covenant of grace while advocates of the former equate the covenant of grace solely with the new covenant. For a basic overview of the covenants from a Reformed Baptist perspective, see J. R. Williamson, From the Garden of Eden to the Glory of Heaven: God’s Unfolding Plan and How it Relates to Christians Today (Amityville, NY: Calvary, 2008).
7Advocates for understanding covenants to include the presence of a self-maledictory or solemn oath include Paul R. Williamson, Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose, NSBT 23, ed. D. A. Carson (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007), 38-43; and John H. Stek, “‘Covenant’
Overload in Reformed Theology,” CTJ 29 (1994): 25-26, 39. However, others have demonstrated that while the oath is important, it is ancillary to the covenant itself: William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 1997), 17, 19-20; C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2006), 113. For debate regarding whether covenants confirm existing relationships see Jeffrey J. Niehaus, “An Argument against Theologically Constructed Covenants,” JETS 50 (2007): 259-73; Craig G. Bartholomew,
“Covenant and Creation: Covenant Overload or Covenantal Reconstruction,” CTJ 30 (1995): 25; and Gordon P. Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Developed from Malachi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 175. A mediating position between Dumbrell’s and Niehaus’ description is best: covenants may formalize existing relationships, but in some contexts the covenant constitutes the relationship or gives rise to a new level of the relationship.
bilateral (sometimes referred to as suzerain-vassal) and unconditional or unilateral (sometimes referred to as royal grant) surfaces frequently in the discussions where covenants are defined.
8Defining God-human covenants is also disputed depending on how narrow or broad one casts the biblical data. Williamson and Stek suggest a narrow definition of covenant such that formal oaths were indispensable to the covenant that formalized existing relationships but did not establish them (thus they reject any notion of a covenant with Adam or creation). On the other hand, traditional covenantalists have described covenants in broader terms. For example, Williams finds that insisting on a single definition for covenant is inappropriate. He explains, “A covenant is a relationship between persons, begun by the sovereign determination of the greater party, in which the greater commits himself to the lesser in the context of mutual loyalty, and in which mutual obligations serve as illustrations of that loyalty.”
9Likewise, Brown and Keele argue that
8Scott W. Hahn, Kingship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises (London: Yale University, 2009), 28-31; Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 133-35, 608-11; Bruce K. Waltke, “The Phenomenon of Conditionality within Unconditional Covenants,” in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration, ed. Avraham Gileadi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 123- 39. For other pertinent work on defining the covenant in light of ancient Near Eastern treaties, see M.
Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970):
184-203; M. Weinfeld, “תי ִר ְבּ berîth,” in TDOT, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz- Josef Fabry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 2:253-79; David Noel Freedman, “Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: The Covenant Theme,” Int 18 (1964): 419-31; and David Noel Freedman and David Miano, “People of the New Covenant,” in Covenant in the Second Temple Period, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jacqueline C.R. de Roo, JSJSup 71 (Boston: Brill, 2003), 7-26.
9Michael D. Williams, Far as the Curse Is Found: The Covenant Story of Redemption (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2005), 45-46. Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, 4-15, also appeals to a broad description of covenant pointing to the concept of “bond” or “relationship” with “a pledge to life and death” in order to defend his definition of covenant as “a bond in blood sovereignly administered.” Similarly, Collins, Genesis 1-4, 113, infers a general description for the notion of covenant: It “formally binds the parties together in a relationship; they are to be true to the covenant by keeping their promises of loyalty and commitment. There will be consequences for keeping or not keeping the covenant.” Thomas Edward McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise: A Theology of the Old Testaments Covenants (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1985), 63, argues that the “basic idea underlying the concept of bĕrît is that of a relationship involving obligation.” Similarly, Meredith G. Kline, By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and Baptism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 16. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation, 20, determines from the secular biblical examples that “covenants presupposed a set of existing relationships to which by formal ceremony they gave binding expression. They operated between two parties, though the status of the parties varied considerably.” For covenant theologians defining covenants