A Concise Commentary on Covenant Theology

As we did in our survey of DT, we will divide our survey of CT into three sections: definitions, distinctions, and dissection.

SOME DEFINITIONS OF COVENANT THEOLOGY
Let’s begin by giving three brief definitions of CT. The first one will be taken from Ligon Duncan, pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Jackson, Mississippi. He defines covenant theology this way: “Covenant theology is…an approach to understanding Scripture- an approach that attempts to Biblically explain the unity of Biblical revelation”. This is a good definition because it includes the motive of the covenant theologian. His motive-as defined by Duncan- essentially involves a determination to reveal the cohesiveness of God’s overall message in Divine revelation. Thus, this system, in contradistinction to dispensationalism, promotes continuity rather than discontinuity of God’s revelation.

Herman Witsius (a prominent Dutch Reformed theologian of a bygone era) says the following about the importance of the covenants found in Scripture: “In studying divine covenants in general, one is treading through understanding God’s redemptive plan throughout history. This is a matter of eternal salvation. It answers the question: how may a sinful man approach God (Exodus 3:5)”. Witsius’ definition is valuable because he shows that covenant theology is concerned not only about how divine revelation fits together (per Duncan’s definition), but with a primary emphasis on understanding the unity of the Gospel in particular in Divine revelation. Thus, CT is also Gospel centered in its approach. ( I would say that DT is more “Israel” centered than Gospel centered. So here is the first clear distinction between the two systems- CT promotes continuity of the Scriptures with an emphasis on the Gospel. On the other hand, DT promotes the discontinuity of the Scriptures (i.e. dispensations) and is “Israel” centered.)

Therefore, if one combines the two definitions above he sees that covenant theology is a system of thought, which desires to be Biblically based in an effort to provide greater clarity of the Gospel as proclaimed in both the Old and New Testaments by insisting that understanding the concept of ‘covenant’ provides this clarity. In addition, CT was made popular as a result of the Protestant Reformation. Essentially all of the early Baptists held to CT.

SOME DISTINCTIONS OF COVENANT THEOLOGY
As stated above, covenant theology aggressively affirms that understanding the Biblical concept of ‘covenant’ is the key which unlocks the proper interpretation of Scripture. The theme of God’s grace reaching out to fallen sinners in Scripture is revealed to us in the covenant schema. In order to understand the Biblical use of ‘covenant’ one must discard contemporary uses. In our day and age, marriage is a type of covenant. For a marriage to take place two parties who have fallen in love mutually determine that they desire to become a spousal unit as recognized by the church (usually) and the state. In the same vein, a business contract is a form of covenant. Two or more parties mutually determine, and agree to certain business terms that will fulfill the desires of each party involved. However, in Scripture, God’s covenant with man is presented as being unilaterally imposed, not mutually agreed upon. In other words, in its initial establishment, the covenant is one-sided. God alone presents the conditions and promises of the covenant to man. Man does not initiate the contact first. Of course, this is not to say that it is not mutual in any sense of the term, for after its initial establishment by God it can certainly become mutual.
Wayne Grudem defines a Biblical covenant this way, “A covenant is an unchangeable, divinely imposed legal agreement between God and man that stipulates the conditions of their relationship” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 515). At its root, a covenant contains several essential elements. These include parties, conditions, and promises.

Although CT affirms the existence of various covenants in Scripture, they primarily emphasis three over-arching covenants: 1) the covenant of redemption, 2) the Adamic covenant, and 3) the covenant of grace. Though none of these terms actually exist in Scripture, CT proponents insist that the evidence for such covenants do exist in the Bible. Let us examine each covenant, in their turn, from the perspective of the covenant theologian.

Covenant of Redemption
According to adherents of CT, this covenant was made between the three persons of the Trinity in eternity past. The basis of their argument is rooted in Ephesians 3:11, which speaks of God’s one eternal purpose from the beginning. Ephesians 3:11, it is argued, points back to Ephesians 1:3 ff. In this opening chapter of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians we find a description of the way in which God’s one eternal purpose of redemption (the salvation of sinners) was planned before the creation of man. Verse four explicitly states that this was planned “before the foundation of the world”. Other verses that are used to argue for this planned redemption of sinners in eternity past include 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 1:9; and James 2:5.

It is argued by CT adherents that this one eternal purpose of God to redeem fallen, sinful man is covenantal in nature. The nature of this covenant is revealed in the various roles that Scripture assigns to each member of the Trinity. It must be stated that these various roles are unified in their one purpose- to redeem man. In other words, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are unified in their plan of redemption. On the other hand, the carrying out of this unified plan takes place through the harmonious, yet distinct functions of each person of the Godhead. At this point it should be said that all of the arguments set forth by CT stays firmly within the bounds of orthodoxy in their understanding of the Trinity. They affirm, whether than deny, all the early church councils on the person of Christ, and the nature of the Trinity. No conservative, Bible believing evangelical who understands Scripture would deny the distinct, yet harmonious roles of the Trinity in the carrying out of redemption. But CT argues that these distinct roles reveals a covenant among the members of the Godhead. That’s the point that I want you to see.

Let me try and explain where they come from on this point. They would argue, for example, that God the Father is the originator of the covenant of redemption, for God the Father agreed to give the Son a people for His own possession that the Son would redeem through the cross (John 17:2,6). And the Father sent the Son to redeem this people (John 3:16; Romans 5:18-19). On the other hand, God the Son is seen as the executor of this covenant of redemption, for the Son agreed to serve as the representative of elect sinners (Romans 5:18-19). This meant He would fully obey God, even to the point of death as a sacrifice for the sins of the elect (Philippians 2:6-8). In other words, the Son executed the plan. And furthermore, just as the Father sent the Son, the Son, in turn, would send the Spirit as part of fulfilling His role in this covenant (John 15:26). God the Holy Spirit is then seen as the applier of this covenant of redemption, for it was the Holy Spirit who empowered Christ to fulfill His role (Matthew 3:16). In addition, He empowers God’s people after Christ’s ascension (first to the Apostles, Acts 1:8; then to all the elect, Acts 2:17-18).

Evidence for such a covenant among the Godhead is not proven by going to Scripture and looking for the word covenant when the Trinity is spoken about. Instead, passages such as John 6:37-38; Romans 5:12-21; I Corinthians 15:22; Luke 22:29; and Psalm 2:7-9 are used in order to show that the Trinity is covenantal in nature due to the distinct part that each person of the Trinity played in accomplishing their agreed upon plan of redemption.

That concludes our discussion of the first main covenant that CT emphasizes- the covenant of redemption. The next post will feature the second major covenant emphasized- the Adamic covenant. However, let me finalize this post by making an important clarification. As I stated above, no Christian who truly understands Scripture will disagree with what the CT is arguing in principle. In other words, the concept of distinct, yet unified roles being performed by the members of the Trinity as part of their overall plan to redeem man cannot be denied by any honest student of Scripture. God can do whatever He wants, and this is how He chose to redeem sinful man. The Trinity is complex and mysterious, yet there is much about it that we can understand. This argument is straight forward. It is not difficult to grasp. There are other mysteries about the Trinity that we do not know. This is not one of them. In fact, I would argue that grasping this is paramount to truly understanding the Gospel. In addition, I would like to commend a book to you that I have found extremely helpful in this discussion. The title of it is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance. The book’s author is a former professor of mine at Southern Seminary (Bruce Ware). Interestingly, Dr. Ware does not hold to CT. He holds to the newer version of DT, often called Progressive Dispensationalism. Yet, his book sets forth the Biblical understanding of the various roles each member of the Trinity played in the accomplishment of redemption. For your information, Dr. Ware is an extremely humble and godly man. He was one of my favorite professors at Southern. I tried to take as many classes with him as I could. Here is yet another example of a dispensationalist having a strong influence on me. Yet, I would not agree with him on every issue.

Grateful for God's Glorious Plan of Redemption,

Pastor Andy