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]