Imperishable Inheritance

Nathan Pitch­ford has done the Chris­t­ian com­mu­nity a great ser­vice by clearly out­lin­ing the tra­di­tional three-fold covenant struc­ture in clas­si­cal covenant the­ol­ogy. The expo­si­tion isn’t so much of the pre­cepts of covenant the­ol­ogy which I would hold to such as Jesus “becom­ing” Israel and fufill­ing all of God’s promises, the con­cept of a “spir­i­tual Israel,” and the empha­sis on the covenants as God’s main mode of rev­e­la­tion. If I were to sum­ma­rize what covenant the­ol­ogy is, I would say that covenant the­ol­ogy focuses on Jesus as the high­est point of all God’s rev­e­la­tion, and that makes Jesus the main pur­pose of God the Father in his­tory and by exten­sion His elect. This would dif­fer from a Dis­pen­sa­tional empha­sis which would say that God’s main pur­pose in his­tory is eth­nic Israel.

Nathan starts off with the nomen­cla­ture found in most his­toric creeds that hold to covenant the­ol­ogy (West­min­ster, Lon­don Bap­tist, etc). The main points of this essay’s exam­i­na­tion will be a def­i­n­i­tion of a covenant, an appraisal of the three the­o­log­i­cal covenants in clas­si­cal covenant the­ol­ogy, and thoughts on how we should under­stand the Bib­li­cal narrative.

What Is A Covenant?

A covenant, clearly put, is an agree­ment between a higher and lower vas­sal with stip­u­la­tions for obe­di­ence and it also out­lines the rewards if ful­filled and the pun­ish­ment if bro­ken. From this rough def­i­n­i­tion I would say that there are in fact six covenants: Adamic, Noahic, Abra­hamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New.

This is more than sim­ply a seman­tic issue. I have no oppo­si­tion to the­o­log­i­cal terms such as “trin­ity” or “hypo­sta­tic union,” but those terms don’t vio­late the Bib­li­cal use of the concept/term. The idea of a change in covenant shows pro­gres­sion of God’s plan, but it is also used as a sign of dis­con­ti­nu­ity most notably in the case of the Old/New Covenants (2 Cor 3; Heb 8). First, I would like to men­tion what I appre­ci­ate from clas­si­cal covenant theology.

I appre­ci­ate the focus clas­si­cal covenant the­ol­ogy has on the times of works inher­i­tance and grace. Their dichotomy between the “covenant of works” and the “covenant of grace” helps in estab­lish­ing the fact that Adam was not in need of redemp­tive grace, but post-lapse all of human kind is in need of redemp­tion through grace. They also give good empha­sis on the con­ti­nu­ity of God’s sote­ri­o­log­i­cal plan for all nations. They teach proudly that there is one bride of Christ that Jesus came to save. The true recip­i­ents of God’s grace are those who are “in Christ” and heirs to the Abra­hamic promise (Gal 3:29).

Eval­u­at­ing the Nomenclature

The Covenant of Redemption

The first the­o­log­i­cal covenant in this sys­tem is the “covenant of redemp­tion.” This is appar­ently a covenant between the God­head con­cern­ing their indi­vid­ual pur­poses in sav­ing a peo­ple for Their glory. I agree whole-heartedly that there was a decree that affected elec­tion and the pre­des­ti­na­tion of future events (espe­cially with the lan­guage found in John 17), but I find it ten­able that there was a covenant between the mem­bers of the God­head. A covenant implies that there are pun­ish­ments for dis­obe­di­ence. What is the pun­ish­ment of dis­obe­di­ence for each mem­ber of the God­head in this the­o­log­i­cal covenant? Did Jesus face neg­a­tive covenant con­se­quences? I don’t think so, and I can’t see in the Scrip­tures sup­port for it. I have no quar­rel with the idea of an “eco­nomic trin­ity” per se, but I do with the idea that there are covenantal-like oblig­a­tions on each mem­ber of the Godhead.

The Covenant of Works

If there would be one of these the­o­log­i­cal covenants I would have less of a quib­ble with it would be this one. I believe that the covenant was made with Adam, and the covenant was indeed “works-based.” The only change I would have is that I don’t see Adam as poten­tially gain­ing any­thing but only los­ing something–namely a rela­tion­ship with the pres­ence of God. This goal is reit­er­ated in beau­ti­ful in Rev­e­la­tion 22 as a bet­ter, more glo­ri­ous Eden.

The Covenant of Grace

This the­o­log­i­cal covenant I take the most issue with, but not with the idea behind it just the ter­mi­nol­ogy. But I do feel the ter­mi­nol­ogy is impor­tant enough to dif­fer over. This time span from the fall to con­sum­ma­tion is the time of God’s work in redemp­tion, but I have a hard time think­ing of the Mosaic Covenant/Economy as an “admin­is­tra­tion of the covenant of grace.” I see this as most prob­lem­atic when con­fronted with the Old/New dichotomy in the New Tes­ta­ment. Also prob­lem­atic is the teach­ing that Jesus is the “medi­a­tor of the covenant of grace” when He was, in fact, the medi­a­tor of the New Covenant only (Heb 9:15).¹

I also think there is a dan­ger of min­i­miz­ing the impor­tance of the New Covenant. They tend to think in terms of this the­o­log­i­cal covenant and in the process min­i­mize (I think) the supremacy of the New Covenant as the ful­fill­ment of all the pre­vi­ous promises of God (2 Cor 1:20). The New Covenant has glory much higher than the Old (2 Cor 3:5–11), and it is the apex of God’s covenan­tal deal­ings with man. I see this espe­cially true in regards to the Law/Gospel par­a­digm which many clas­si­cal covenant the­ol­ogy adher­ents min­i­mize.²

Does Romans 5 Neces­si­tate This Nomenclature?

I believe strongly that Romans 5:12–17 teaches that there are two types of peo­ple: those “in Adam” and those “in Christ.” They are both fed­eral heads, but the impli­ca­tion of this pas­sage does not neces­si­tate the cre­ation of the the­o­log­i­cal covenants. I can hap­pily agree with the the­o­log­i­cal con­tent of reformed fed­er­al­ism, but I don’t see it nec­es­sary to com­pletely ascribe works to Adam and grace to Jesus. To say that the Adamic Covenant did not per­me­ate of grace is prob­lem­atic, and the New Tes­ta­ment clearly teaches that works are essen­tial to our sanc­ti­fi­ca­tion as proof of our jus­ti­fi­ca­tion (Jam 2:26).³

Con­clu­sion

While I respect and admon­ish much of the pre­cepts of clas­si­cal covenant the­ol­ogy I do believe that the ver­biage choice war­rants a note to delin­eate myself from that sys­tem. In the end, nomen­cla­ture aside, I am proud to say that I am a covenant the­olo­gians that teaches Jesus as the apex of God’s rev­e­la­tion and that, “in Him,” we will enjoyed restored fel­low­ship as child of Abra­ham (Gal 3:28–29).

1. I do under­stand that they are stress­ing that Jesus is the only medi­a­tor between God and man (1 Tim 2:5), but I feel it prob­lem­atic to ascribe Jesus as the medi­a­tor of a the­o­log­i­cal con­struct. [Back]
2. I know Nathan does not hold to the tra­di­tional reformed read­ing here, and there are other clas­si­cal covenant the­olo­gians such as Mark Karl­berg and Mered­ith Kline who rightly see the dis­con­ti­nu­ity. [Back]
3. Again, I know that most clas­si­cal covenant the­olo­gians would agree with this, but they con­tinue to use prob­lem­atic lan­guage. [Back]