AN EXAMINATION OF THE ORIGINS OF COVENANT THEOLOGY AND CRITIQUE OF ITS BASIC TENETS

Kenneth M. Stiles Box #182 TH899 Covenant Theology May 3, 2011

CONTENTS Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Defining Covenant Theology ...................................................................................... 1 The Origins of Covenant Theology ................................................................................ 7 Hermeneutics .............................................................................................................. 7 Polemical Theology .................................................................................................. 14 Critique of Covenant Theology .................................................................................... 18 Typological Hermeneutics ........................................................................................ 18 Logic vs. Revelation ................................................................................................. 21 Faulty Understanding Mankinds Relationship to Adams Sin ................................ 24 Faulty Understanding of Righteousness of Christ Imputed to Believers .................. 26 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 28 Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 30

Introduction Preoccupation with the biblical teaching on the covenants has long been a distinguishing trait of Reformed theology.1 This paper examines the origins and results of that preoccupation. Covenant Theology (CT) also goes by the names, The Federal Theology, or just Federalism.2 The terms are interchangeable and are used variously throughout the paper. CT is by no means a monolithic system of theology: as there are many variations (even competing versions) of CT among its proponents. This paper focuses primarily upon tracing the origin of the two covenant manifestation of CT since it is ostensibly the currently most popular formulation of CT. I also offer a critique of the presuppositions that appear to have lead to its development. Surveying all of the internecine battles (and there are many) within CT, and charting all the various developments within CT that have taken place over the years, is beyond the scope of this paper. However, mention of some of these is made when appropriate. Defining Covenant Theology CT is essentially a framework into which all of divine revelation is placed, and that framework also functions as the interpretive grid by which divine revelation is understood. While at first this short definition may seem to the critical reader to be a caricature of CT, it is not. The proponents of CT simply claim that the framework is itself derived from Scripture and therefore legitimate for organizing and understanding all of divine revelation. Therefore, for proponents of

Mark W. Karlberg, Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective: Collected Essays and Book Reviews in Historical, Biblical, and Systematic Theology (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000), 11. Some would disagree. Cf., the treatment in, D. A. Weir, The Origins of The Federal Theology in Sixteenth-Century Reformation Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990). However, it is better to view CT as simply having many divergent formulations than to claim CT and Federalism are two different theologies.
2

2 CT, Kline is typical in his sentiments that, Following the lead of the Scriptures themselves, Reformed theology has long prized the covenant as a structural concept for integrating all that God has so diversely spoken unto men of old time and in these last days.3 Kline further relates that, Before the end of the sixteenth century a growing biblical insight within the movement of Covenant Theology had embraced all special revelation, pre-redemptive as well as redemptive, in the unity of a covenant framework.4 My contention is that CT is ultimately an artificial, manmade framework that, while it incorporates many truly biblical ideas, is illegitimate for organizing and understanding all of divine revelation. Robertson explains the biblical catalyst for Reformed theologys preoccupation with the covenant concept, Ample biblical evidence establishes the vital role the divine covenants have played in Gods dealings with man from Noah to Jesus Christ. No period in the history of redemption from Noah to Christ stands outside the realm of Gods covenantal dealings with his peopleThe promise of the New Covenantfinds its fulfillment in the days of Jesus Christ and extends to the consummation of all things.5 To be sure, covenants that God has made with men loom large in Scripture. This causes proponents of CT to inquire further concerning the covenant concept. Robertson reasons that, The only question that remains concerning the extent of the divine covenants has to do with Gods relation to man prior to Noah. May the concept of the covenant be extended legitimately to the period preceding the establishment of Gods covenant with Noah? Is the earliest portion of

Meredith G. Kline, By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and Baptism (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), 13.
4

Ibid., 14.

O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980), 17.

3 biblical history also to be understood from the perspective of a covenantal framework?6 CT answers this question in the affirmative. When the concept of covenant found in Scripture is extrapolated backwards from Noah as far as logically possible one ends up applying a covenant schema to the internal relationships of the Godhead before creation. This is precisely what one finds in the three covenant formulation of CT. Since the reformation, distinctions have been made between a pre-creation covenantal bond among the persons of the Trinity and a historical covenant between God and men.7 The various names that this supposed covenant has been given are the covenant of redemption, the eternal covenant, the counsel of peace, or the counsel of redemption.8 Robertson notes that, This particular covenant finds no specific development in the classic creeds of the Reformers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. But it has been recognized broadly among covenant theologians since that time.9 He does not affirm that there is such covenant because, A sense of artificiality flavors the effort to structure in covenantal terms the mysteries of Gods eternal counsels. To speak concretely of an intertrinitarian covenant with terms and conditions between Father and Son mutually endorsed before the foundation of the world is to exceed the bounds of scriptural evidence beyond propriety.10 In moving out of eternity past and into the history of the created order, if one were to maintain the logic of CT one is confronted with the necessarily covenantal nature of Gods
6

Ibid. Ibid., 53. Ibid., 54. Ibid. Ibid.

10

4 relationship with his creation. The covenant governing this period of time is variously called the covenant of works, the covenant of nature, or the covenant of creation.11 Turretin claims that, The covenant of nature is that which God the Creator made with man as his creature, concerning the giving of eternal happiness and life under the condition of perfect and personal obedience.12 In fact, according to CT, Had Adam before the Fall remained faithful to the covenant with his God, he would have merited eternal life for himself and all his posterity.13 Or, in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.14 According to CT, under the dictates of the covenant of works Adam was appointed to stand probation for himself and his race. Life was promised if he obeyed and cursing if he disobeyed. Hodge contends that because of the federal and natural union between Adam and his posterity, his sin, although not their act, is so imputed to them that it is the judicial ground of the penalty threatened against him coming upon them also.15 The natural union that exists between Adam and his posterity is that of a father and child; the character and conduct of the one, of necessity to a greater or less degree affect the other.16 The federal union between Adam and his
11

Karlberg, Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective, 11.

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, trans. by George Musgrave Giger, ed. by James T. Dennison Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1992), 575.
13

12

Karlberg, Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective, 273. WCF, VII/ii.

14

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1940), 2:19293.
16

15

Ibid., 2:197.

5 posterity is simply that God constituted [Adam] the federal head and representative of his race, and placed him on probation not only for himself, but also for all his posterity.17 Since Adam sinned, he and his race stand condemned according to the stipulations of the covenant of works. This is because the union, federal and natural, between Adam and his posterity is the ground of the imputation of Adams sin. The imputation of Adams sin is the ground of their punishment. In what way is Adams sin imputed? The guilt of Adams sin is charged to the account of Adams posterity. It is important to understand that by guilt is meant not criminality or moral ill-desert, or demerit, much less moral pollution, but the judicial obligation to satisfy justice.18 Gods justice demands that sin be punished retributively; Adam as federal head of the human race under the covenant of works sinned; the human race is counted as owing satisfaction to Gods vindicatory justice. Therefore, the whole human race is punished by God retributively according to the demands of the covenant of works. The punishment was the loss of original righteousness, the corruption of human nature (total depravity), and death. The above situation leads to the next covenant in CT: the covenant of Grace. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.19

17

Ibid., 2:196. Ibid., 2:194 WCF, VII/iii.

18

19

6 Murray claims that, It was with the Covenant of Grace that the covenant theologians of the 16th century were concerned almost exclusively.20 The covenant of grace is, simply stated, That arrangement between the Triune God and his people whereby God promises friendship, hence full and free salvation, to his people, upon the basis of the vicarious atonement of Christ, the Mediator of the covenant, and they, out of gratitude, promise to live for him.21 According to the WCF, This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.22 Some claim that the covenant of grace was founded on the covenant of redemption while those who reject the covenant of redemption obviously do not.23 Regardless of its grounding, it is plain by what is said above that the covenant of grace is conceived to be a covenant that establishes the culmination of redemptive history. This covenant is then the subject of all of Scripture discussed and viewed from various historical contexts and perspectives. A great difference here exists in that some see the covenant of grace as ultimately satisfying the demands of the covenant of works; while others, who reject the covenant of works, see it as simply a covenant that God chose to implement out of pure grace in his relationship with man. Under this
John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, 4 vols (Edinburgh, PA: The Banner of TruthTrust, 1982), 4:223.
21 20

William Hendrickson, The Covenant of Grace (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1932), 18. WCF, VII/v.

22

One area of confusion that can crop up here is that sometimes those who reject the notion of an intertrinitarian covenant of redemption are wont to call the covenant of grace by the name, covenant of redemption.

23

7 scheme it still serves to alleviate the damage of sin and effect redemption, but the connection with the prelapsarian economy is more general and undefined rather than explicit. The Origins of Covenant Theology Though CT did not fully bloom until the late 16th century, the lines of thought that lead to its formation can be traced back to the early church. In this sense, CT is a construct of various streams of thought that came together in the milieu of 16th century Europe. The two broadest categories that one could group these various streams of thought into are hermeneutics and polemical theology. The following discussion will explore these two categories and show how they led to the creation of CT. Remarkably, when it comes to tracing the rise and development of covenant (or federal) theology24 McGowan could say as late as 1997, There is, in fact, no complete study of this nature. Most of our information must meanwhile be drawn from the standard historical work and from unpublished theses.25 Hermeneutics It would be difficult to overstate the importance of the part that hermeneutics plays in understanding Scripture. A hermeneutic is most simply defined is a set of principles one employs to interpret a particular writing. For Christians, hermeneutics is the branch of philosophy that involves formulating principles to properly interpret Scripture. I say it is a branch of philosophy rather than a branch of theology because ones theology (whichever branch) should flow from Scripture rightly interpreted, not the other way around (though there will obviously be interplay
24

ATB McGowan, The Federal Theology of Thomas Boston (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Publishing, 1997),

1. Ibid., 16. N.B. endnote 1. The only circumstance that has changed as of the writing of this paper is that some of the theses have been published.
25

8 between them). I may be accused of, so to speak, slicing the pie fairly thin in this caution, but if ones hermeneutic is simply a construct of ones theology then one will simply find in Scripture whatever one is looking for. It is also important to understand the affect that the cultural milieu that an individual or group is situated in has on the hermeneutic they espouse. The various cultural forces of a given age may exert a powerful influence upon how Christians of that age interpret Scripture. The affect of ones cultural milieu upon the principles of interpretation that one formulates may never be entirely eliminated: as absolute objectivity is an impossibility for man. However, if one is aware of that affect, the influence upon ones hermeneutic may be circumscribed to a certain degree. The crux of CTs hermeneutic is typology. However, typological hermeneutics are much older than CT. Modern interpreters are not the inventors of typology; indeed, the fact that it is part of the warp and woof of Scripture is what gives this whole method its significance.26 It was Christian interpreters of the Bible shortly after the close of the apostolic era that pioneered typological interpretation. One of [post-apostolic Christians] most pressing tasks was to demonstrate the underlying agreement and continuity between the Old Testament, properly understood, and Christianity and its claims27 Gundry argues that typology became popular in order to give validity to Christianitys claims via establishing continuity with the OT. However, he argues, But there was a danger inherent within this approach, and it is easily discoverable to anyone who will read early Christian writings. That danger is that whenever typology is used to show the Christocentric unity of the Bible, it is all too easy to impose an artificial unity (even
Stanley N. Gundry, Typology as a Means of Interpretation: Past and Present, JETS 12, No. 4 (Fall 1969): 234.
27 26

Ibid.

9 assuming that there is a valid use of the basic method).28 The imposition of artificial unity happens when, types come to be created rather than discovered, and the drift into allegorism comes all too easily. In fact, it is often difficult to distinguish typology from allegory.29 However, it may be noted that typology is an effort to understand the unity of the Bible from the standpoint of history rather than allegory.30 In reality, the history of typological/allegorical interpretation pushes farther back than this, and it might be legitimate to say that the hermeneutical method that post-apostolic Christians picked up on in order to show the Christological unity of the Old and New Testaments was simply in the air. A likely source of this method of interpretation in Christian circles was Philo. Philo of Alexandria (b. about 20 B.C.; d. about 42 A.D.) stands as the leading exponent of the Jewish-Alexandrine religious philosophy, and in its influence upon the literature of the Christian Church its foremost representative.31 The influences upon Philos employment of typology/allegory can be traced back even further. He knew all the important Greek philosophers, from whom he cited freely; but first for him was Plato, from whom he derived his philosophical content, while in his method of extravagant allegorizing he imitated the Stoics.32 It was primarily the Stoics who allegorized the Greek myths in the effort to philosophize the multiple forms of popular religion and reduce them to simple fundamental principles; so did

28

Ibid., 235. Ibid. Ibid., 234.

29

30

Samuel Macauley Jackson, ed., Philo of Alexandria, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 15 vols (repr; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), 9:38.
32

31

Ibid., 9:39.

10 Philo in dealing with the Biblical and legal forms and cultic prescriptions of the Jews, in the interest, however, of monotheism.33 It is noted that, The allegorizing of Philo is said to have gathered up into a mighty basin all the streams of Alexandrian hermeneutics from the past and discharged them again into multiple streams and rivulets of the later exegesis of Judaism and Christianity.34 In Alexandria was one of the great libraries of the ancient world. In the Museum was the equivalent of a university, famous throughout the Grco-Roman world. Before the end of the second century Christianity was represented by vigorous but divided communities.35 There was founded in Alexandria a catechetical school the primary purpose of which was the intstruction of candidates for Church membership in the principles of the Christian faith.36 One of the heads of this school who exerted tremendous influence on succeeding generations of Bible interpreters was Origen. Origen believed that the Scriptures were the word of God and that nothing in them was to be believed that was unworthy of God.37 For Origen, the way around anything he deemed unworthy of God was found through discerning three levels of meaning in the text: first, the common or historical sense which is on the surface for even the simple-minded; second, the soul of the Scriptures which edifies those who perceive it; and third, for the perfect, a meaning hidden under what superficially is repugnant to the conscience or the intellect but

33

Ibid. Ibid.

34

Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity, 2 vols (1953; repr, Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 1997), 1:14647.
36

35

Ibid., 147. Ibid., 14950.

37

11 which, discerned, can be expressed by allegory.38 The influence of Origen on later interpreters should not be underestimated. Most of the Greek fathers of the third and fourth centuries stood more or less under the influence of the spirit and works of Origen, without adopting all his speculative views.39 There were of course rival schools of thought in the early church; of which, the Antiochian school is one example. The Antiochian School was not a regular institution with a continuous succession of teachers, like the Catechetical School of Alexandria, but a theological tendency, more particularly a peculiar type of hermeneutics and exegesis which had its centre in Antioch.40 Concerning this peculiar type of hermeneutics and exegesis, according to Schaff, The characteristic features are attention to the revision of the text, a close adherence to the plain, natural meaning according to the use of language and the condition of the writer, and justice to the human factor.41 However, despite this the Antiochian school was not entirely free from allegorizing when it was expedient: as can be easily seen in a perusal of the writings of the prince of commentators among the church fathers, John Chrysostom. In fact, Though there was diversity of opinion between the Alexandrian and Antiochene exegetes as to the importance of literal exegesis, they were united on the importance of the witness of all scripture to Christ, and typological exegesis of scripture was one means of seeing that unity and witness.42 Further,

38

Ibid., 150.

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8 vols (1910; repr, Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985), 2:797.
40

39

Ibid, 2:816. Ibid. Gundry, Typology as a Means of Interpretation, 234.

41

42

12 Those exegetes influenced by the Antiochene school placed more emphasis on the historical and literal, though they were not immune to the allegorizing tendency themselves. Jerome, who was profoundly influenced by the Antiochene viewpoint, had sound exegetical principles, but in practice he was an allegorist, even to the point of allegorizing the New Testament.43 Typological exegesis continuously found fresh impetus for its use because of its convenience in polemical settings. It was found to be useful by Irenaeus in his contest with Marcion, who posited a radical discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. Typology was also the tack taken by Justin in his dialogues with Trypho as he attempted to show how the Old Testament found fulfillment in Christ. Typological/allegorical hermeneutics were also a weapon often used against chiliasts, whose conceptions of the millennium were considered too carnal by their opponents.44 With the work of Augustine, allegorism became the most dominant interpretative method in the West. He had been driven to it in his reaction to the letterism of the Manichaens.45 This continued through the Middle Ages and became an integral part of the scholastics hermeneutics. Typological/allegorical hermeneutics continued to be used down to the time of the Reformation. With Luther, Calvin, and others there was a conscientious turning away from allegory toward historical-grammatical hermeneutics. This however was not a complete jettisoning of typological or even allegorical interpretation. Gundry explains, Calvin and Luther brought about a new epoch in the typological interpretation of scripture with their return to the literal sense and methodical exegesis of scripture. With
43

Ibid., 235.

For an excellent treatment of the millennial controversy in the early church see, Martin Erdman, The Millennial Controversy in the Early Church (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005).
45

44

Gundry, Typology as a Means of Interpretation, 23536.

13 this renewed concern for the grammatico-historical sense came a new appreciation of typology. A typology grounded in an appreciation of the historical verities precipitated a distinction once more between the typological and allegorical, though neither Calvin nor Luther worked out a system of typology of his own. But through them typology had gained a new lease on life.46 There came at the time of the reformation a separating out of typology and allegory. Typology is not necessarily antithetical to a historical-grammatical hermeneutic since typology is largely concerned with discovering the unity of the Bible from a historical standpoint. In fact, the literal interpretation of a passage becomes quite important since the antitype would be rendered meaningless if the type had never actually existed. The long history of typological hermeneutics has great importance for the formation of CT because what early federalists did was essentially develop a unique framework of history along covenantal lines by which they could make typological applications between the Old and New Testaments. Karlberg explains, The sixteenth-century federalists were responsible for establishing the redemptivehistorical structure of biblical revelation, and the covenant structure was the distinguishing mark of Reformed theological interpretation. Beginning as a term descriptive of the era of redemption the covenant concept was broadened, in the interests of further systematic and historical reflection, to include the preredemptive period of biblical history. The entire development of the covenant idea was controlled and elicited by the Reformers understanding of justification by faith, in the forensic sense, and the coordinate law-gospel distinction.47 As the reformers sought to find intertestamental unity centered on the person of Christ, the undoubtedly biblical concept of covenant came to the fore as a convenient framework by which to categorize and understand all of divine revelation. The covenant concept that was easily developed from the covenants explicitly revealed in Scripture, which centered upon Christ and
46

Ibid., 236. Karlberg, Covenant Theology, 20.

47

14 his kingdom, was, so to speak, extracted from its native soil and transplanted as an overarching framework. This framework facilitated the drawing of typological lines between the testaments and blurred the intricacies and nuance of the biblical covenants in favor of a flattened out single covenant (the covenant of grace) that had as its parties God and men and as its substance justification by faith alone in Christ alone. The concept of a prelapsarian covenant (the covenant of works) came to capture the imagination of later reformers in the midst of the fires of the theological controversies of the latter part of the 16th century, to which we now turn. Polemical Theology If typological hermeneutics served to develop a unifying framework for divine revelation along covenantal lines, the theological battles of the Reformation and post-Reformation eras tended to harden that framework. The transition from a loose covenantal framework in the early period of the Reformation, that focused almost exclusively on the idea of a covenant of grace, to a more hardened system comprised of a prelapsarian covenant of works and postlapsarian covenant of grace that is administered under various dispensations is difficult to trace. What is known is that, Whereas John Calvin (150964), in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, spoke of an Old Covenant which extended after the fall to Christ and then a New Covenant which extended from Christ to the Day of Judgment, the Westminster Confession of Faith, written eighty years later, spoke of a covenant of works and a covenant of grace.48 Weir notes that, Calvin makes no mention in any of his works of a prelapsarian covenant with Adam. However, there is evidence that, at least to a certain degree, Calvin considered the Edenic relationship

D. A. Weir, The Origins of the Federal Theology in Sixteenth-Century Reformation Thought (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1990), 1.

48

15 between God and Adam to be covenantal in nature.49 Concerning the caveat, Weir includes it because of what Calvin says of what he calls natural sacraments. Calvin says that one example of a natural sacrament is when [God] gave Adam and Eve the tree of life as a guarantee of immortality, that they might assure themselves of it as long as they should eat of its fruit.50 The reason this is significant is that, For Calvin, a sacrament is a sign of a covenant between God and man.51 So, ostensibly, Calvin viewed the Edenic relationship in covenantal terms: as there was a sacrament (a natural one) involved in the relationship. However, Calvins view of Hosea 6:7 should be taken into consideration. Hosea 6:7 has been a popular verse for those who hold to a prelapsarian covenant of works. Hosea wrote, But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant52 Calvin says of this verse, Others explain the words thus, They have transgressed as Adam the covenant. But the word, Adam, we know, is taken indefinitely for men. This exposition is frigid and diluted, They have transgressed as Adam the covenant; that is, they have followed or imitated the example of their father Adam, who had immediately at the beginning transgressed Gods commandment. I do not stop to refute this comment; for we see that it is in itself vapid. Let us now proceed53 In light of comments like this it is unlikely that Calvin put much stock in a covenant of works as developed as that of the WCF. However, it is clear from the comment on Hosea 6:7 that there were men at the time who apparently taught as much. Clark contends that Zwingli (1484

49

Ibid., 10.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, in 2 vols, Library of Christian Classics vol. XXI, trans. by Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977), 2:1294.
51

50

Weir, Origins of the Federal Theology, 10. Hosea 6:7a, NASB.

52

John Calvin, Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, Calvins Commentaries, 22 vols, trans. by John Owen, repr. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2003), 13:235.

53

16 1531) taught a covenant of works before the fall and a covenant of grace after the fall.54 However, Weir notes that Schrenk55 traces the history of the idea of the covenant from Zwingli up to Ursinus and Olevianus, but he realizes that the true federal theology consists of a prelapsarian covenant with Adam and then a postlapsarian covenant of grace...Schrenk correctly identifies Ursinus as the first person to utilize this idea in any systematic manner.56 Weir surmises that one motivation for forming the concept of a prelapsarian covenant of works was that, The federal theology potentially provided an adequate base for the reconstruction of northern European society and culture. With the loss of the traditional institutions of the Church and its sacraments, and the demise of canon law, European society was searching for an adequate base for its social ethic.57 The question would have been, How could men be forced to live a Christian life-style when you were not sure they were under the covenant of grace and that their hearts were turned unto the Lord?58 A prelapsarian covenant of works provided just such a base. For, in federalist thinking, The covenant of works reflects the fact that the most fundamental obligation of man the creature to his God his Creator always has been, is now, and always will be obedience to the will of the Creator.59 This means that man is always ultimately related to God on a legal (covenantal) basis. Accordingly, while the covenant
R. Scott Clark, A Brief History of Covenant Theology, Westminster Seminary California, http://clark.wscal.edu/briefhistorycovtheol.php (accessed April 10, 2011). Cf., Gottlob Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund im lteren Protestantismus, vornehmlich bei Johannes Cocceius (BFCh Th.M 5; Gtersloh, 1923). Due to my ignorance of German I am unable to verify Weirs findings.
56 55 54

Weir, Origins of the Federal Theology, 24. 7. 78.

57

58

Robert L. Raymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd ed. rev. and updated (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1998), 439.

59

17 of works is no longer in force as a probationary framework for mankind, it is still normative60 As such, the prelapsarian framework could be used to force all men to live a Christian life-style whether they identified with Christ or not because the stipulations of the covenant of works were in force upon all men of all times. After the Fall men were simply not in a probationary status under the covenant whereby they could merit eternal life for themselves by their works. The primary controversy agitating the Reformed world that Weir sees as serving as the backdrop for the development of a prelapsarian covenant with Adam was the problem of reconciling Gods providential sovereignty and the Fall of Adam.61 Weir explains, The doctrine of a foedus with Adam developed in response to this problem as a milder orthodox elaboration and explanation of the seemingly harsh decretal doctrines of Theodore Beza.62 Weir traces this development to the feet of Ursinus who Weir claims is the theologian who first utilized the idea of a prelapsarin covenant to any great extent in the sixteenth century.63 Weir goes on to claim, It seems that the prelapsarian covenant emerged in Ursinuss thought as a means of articulating the problem of theodicy.64 Though Weir does not describe exactly how a prelapsarin covenant would resolve the problem of theodicy in Eden, it would apparently remove the Fall from being simply a necessity by decree. Instead, it could be claimed that Adam was placed in a covenantal situation where there was the real possibility for him to succeed in

60

Ibid. Weir, Origins of the Federal Theology, 63. Ibid. Ibid., 101. Ibid., 107.

61

62

63

64

18 fulfilling the terms of that covenant. It was by an act of Adams free will that brought the Fall and ended any possibility of man thereafter to fulfill the terms of the covenant on his own. Karlberg argues that Weir has erroneously made a distinction between CT and federalism,65 but Weir seems to have in mind labeling stages of development, not stark division. Karlberg, however, does point out that it was not just the doctrine of predestination that served as a catalyst for the creation of a prelapsarian covenant, but also there was the question of the relationship between the two testaments a subject urged upon the Reformers by the AnabaptistsThe issues of infant baptism and civil magistracy sparked debates among these early disputants.66 Karlberg is certainly correct, but his comment only serves to show the nature of the development of CT. It was not a calmly constructed theology based on sound exegesis of Scripture. It was a theology forged in the fires of the controversies of the Reformation. To be sure, the ideas which lay behind CT are not unbiblical per se, but the framework that was developed seems to have been hastily put together by extrapolating various biblical concepts in a direction that proved expedient in the midst of the various controversies. As such, it is unlikely that anyone will ever be able to find the father of CT in the annals of church history. Critique of Covenant Theology Typological Hermeneutics Kline claims that there is old and new orders revealed in the Old and New Testaments and that, According to the divine design the old is provisional and preparatory for the new, and

65

Karlberg, Covenant Theology, 11213. Ibid., 113.

66

19 by divine predisclosure the new is prophetically anticipated in the old.67 He then explains how this was done, External event and institution in the old order were divinely fashioned to form a systematic representation of the realities of the coming new order, so producing a type-antitype correlativity between the two covenants in which their unity is instructively articulated.68 LaRondelles hermeneutical method (which is also decidedly typological), though he is a Seventh Day Adventist, has received a warm welcome in CT circles.69 LaRondelle takes matters a step further than Kline. He makes the bold claim that, Valid hermeneutical rules of Scripture must be inspired principles which are legitimately and systematically derived from the Scriptures themselves.70 This is an astounding claim, and actually rather self-serving. How does one get at the inspired principles in the first place? What hermeneutic based on uninspired principles must be employed to draw out of the text the inspired principles to then build ones (presumably) inspired hermeneutic? This is a vicious circle. One will find the inspired principles one is looking for and then be in possession of nothing more than ones presuppositions dressed as inspired principles. Regardless of how the validity of the typological hermeneutic is argued for the net yield for the proponent of it is usually the narrative that, The nation [of Israel] was the people of God in the old covenant. Now in the new covenant the believing church is the people of GodWe
Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), 98.
68 67

Ibid.

This is even more surprising since LaRondelle ascribes to the Calvin vs the Calvinists theory that was popularized by Rolston. See, Hans K. LaRondelle, Our Creator Redeemer: An Introduction to Biblical Covenant Theology (Berrien Springs, MO: Andrews University Press, 2005), xi. Hans K. LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1983), 7.
70

69

20 Christians are the Israel of God, Abrahams seed, and heirs of the promises, only because by faith we are united to him who is alone the true Israel, Abrahams one seed.71 By use of a typological hermeneutic nothing in the Old Testament is what it seems. The type-antitype relationship between the testaments that has been supposedly divinely revealed turns out to mean that the Old Testament is ultimately not just interpreted by the New Testament writers, but often reinterpreted to mean something other than what it ostensibly meant in its original context. The obvious objection to such an approach is that, NT antitypes neither explicitly nor implicitly cancel the meaning of OT types. Thinking they do so misunderstands typology.72 There is also the ever present danger mentioned earlier that, Types come to be created rather than discovered, and the drift into allegorism comes all too easily. In fact, it is often difficult to distinguish typology from allegory.73 Another objection may be lodged against CTs hermeneutic. The presupposition that the New Testament authoritatively interprets the Old Testament with a typological hermeneutic, such that it results in the historical-grammatical hermeneutic being invalid for the Old Testament passage in question, is highly suspect. If the only authoritative interpretation of Scripture that exists (i.e., the New interpreting the Old) employs a non-historical-grammatical hermeneutic, then what justification does the Bible interpreter have for employing a historical-grammatical hermeneutic when interpreting the New Testament to begin with? Is it a valid way of proceeding to argue that the interpretation of one portion of Scripture, using the historical-grammatical
Robert B. Strimple, Amillennialism, in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 89 John S. Feinberg, Systems of Discontinuity, in Continuity Discontinuity: Perspectives on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 79.
73 72 71

Gundry, Typology as a Means of Interpretation, 235.

21 hermeneutic, invalidates the use of that same hermeneutic in another portion of Scripture? The net result would ostensibly be the invalidation of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic for all of Scripture, since the application of it in one portion of Scripture would destroy its credentials for applying it to the other. Given the above presupposition, the analogy of Scripture becomes nothing more than a principle that undermines the credibility of the very hermeneutic that gives rise to it in the first place. I would suggest that a better presupposition is that the New Testament interprets the Old Testament using the same historical-grammatical hermeneutic that should be employed when interpreting the New Testament. The net result here would be the same for any portion of Scripture; there is one correct interpretation and many possible applications. If the historicalgrammatical hermeneutic is valid for any portion of Scripture, then understanding how the New Testament uses the Old Testament is simply a matter of using that hermeneutic on the New Testament passage in question to discover the application of the Old Testament passage that the New Testament writer is making of the one correct interpretation of that Old Testament passage; which is discovered by using the same hermeneutic on the Old Testament passage. Interestingly enough, all attempts to object to such a presupposition would have to be made while employing a similar presupposition in another sphere; otherwise, how would anyone be able to understand the objection being lodged against it? Logic vs. Revelation CT teaches that there was a covenant between God and Adam before the Fall whereby he was appointed the representative head of mankind under the stipulations of that covenant. Also, according to the dictates of this covenant he was to stand for an undefined period of time in a probationary status, rendering perfect obedience to God (presumably obeying the law written on

22 his heart). According to the dictates of this covenant Adams federal headship and probation created a situation such that, if he succeeded he would merit by his own works, for himself and all his posterity (and God would owe him, and all his posterity, according to strict justice) freedom to eat from the tree of life which would secure for him, and his progeny, eternal life and inability to sin thereafter; but, if he failed he would, according to the demands of the covenant of works, be punished by losing his original righteousness, becoming spiritually dead, and becoming liable to physical and eternal death. Because of Adams appointment as covenant head, all his progeny, upon his sinning, would be counted guilty of his sin according to the stipulations of the covenant of works, and would be punished accordingly by losing their original righteousness, becoming spiritually dead, and becoming liable to physical and eternal death. CT then goes on to teach that since there was no provision in the covenant of works to restore fallen man there was nothing man could do regain his right standing with God. Also, all men born would now be bound by the stipulations of the covenant of works, but not in a probationary state as Adam was. However, according to CT, God, out of pure grace, instituted another covenant: the covenant of grace. According to the stipulations of this covenant, another, Jesus, was appointed as covenant head of all those that God chose to redeem out of the mass of humanity that was condemned under the requirements of the covenant of works. This status of federal head of the covenant of grace enabled Jesus to stand before God once again in a probationary status. God worked out his plan through several varied administrations of the covenant of grace for thousands of years. These various administrations of the covenant of grace took the shape of the covenants that are actually spoken of in the Bible. When the fullness of time came the Son of God incarnated and stood on earth as the promised, and long awaited, federal head of the covenant of grace. He rendered perfect obedience to God by obeying the stipulations of the

23 covenant of works during his life. He satisfied Gods wrath justly due to the elect by his death, thus satisfying the punishment demanded by the covenant of works. Thus, he merited for himself and all that were chosen to partake of the covenant of grace in eternity past the inheritance originally promised to Adam if he would have succeeded during his undefined probationary period under the covenant of works. The above synopsis is representative of CTs general framework. As mentioned earlier, proponents of CT are not all in agreement and there are competing narratives when it comes to formulating the general framework by which all of divine revelation is to be categorized and understood. The greatest problem with the above framework and its various competitors within CT is that none of them are actually taught in Scripture. CTs covenantal framework is the foundation for theologizing and interpreting Scripture, yet it is itself artificially constructed from the idle speculations of men. The Bible nowhere teaches that God made a covenant with Adam under the stipulations of which he would stand as a covenant head of mankind for and undefined probationary period. There is not a trace in Scripture of the idea that under the stipulations of this supposed covenant Adam was to walk in perfect obedience for this undefined probationary period and that if he was successful he would have merited by pure self-righteousness everlasting life along with all his future progeny. The whole framework that CT posits is nothing more than speculations about what Scripture is silent on that are loosely connected to selective biblical data. These speculations are then extrapolated backwards to fill in the blanks of divine revelation. What is filled into the blanks is then allowed to control how what has been revealed by God is to be categorized and interpreted. In light of this procedure there are several questions that must be put to the proponents of CT. What gives them leave to speak for God where God has chosen to be silent? What credentials do they possess that enables them to fill in the white spaces of

24 Scripture with their own logical inferences and then build a theology upon those inferences as if those inferences are themselves divine revelation? Which version of the framework constructed by CT is divinely revealed; the three covenant, two covenant, or one covenant version; the one where Adam was to earn eternal life purely by his own merit or the one where grace was to be given, or was at least necessary for success? It would not be so unfortunate if CT merely contented itself with speculations about which Scripture says nothing, but because it then goes on to build its theology from the framework derived from these speculations CT ends up with faulty understandings of several key doctrines. The only two that are touched upon below are CTs faulty understandings of mankinds relationship to Adams sin and the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers. Faulty Understanding Mankinds Relationship to Adams Sin As mentioned earlier, CT teaches that the first sin of Adam was imputed (according to the stipulations of the covenant of works) to all of his progeny. When it comes to the discussion of the imputation of Adams sin there are two views, immediate and mediate imputation. Immediate imputation may also be called the federal theory. This view holds that Adam is both the natural and the federal head of the human race. The federal or representative headship is the specific ground of the imputation of Adams sin. When Adam sinned.God imputed the guilt of the first sin to.the entire human race.74 Mediate imputation holds that a corrupt nature is inherited through natural generation from Adam and that this is what then becomes the ground

Henry Clarence Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, revised by Vernon D. Doerksen (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 188 89.

74

25 for God imputing the guilt of Adam to his posterity. The imputation is mediated through inherited corruption which is the consequence, not punishment, of Adams sin.75 Whichever view is taken of imputation the idea expressed is that the guilt of Adams sin is justly put upon all who are descendants of him in the ordinary way (Jesus was a descendant in an extraordinary way and so is excepted). The only real reason usually given for the ground of this imputation of guilt is the stipulations of some supposed covenant God made with Adam. There is of course discussion about natural and federal headship, but these are but aspects of the covenant of works. Every reason given devolves to some requirement of the covenant of works.76 Even when the covenant of works is nominally denied what ends up being expressed looks an awful lot like arguing that the guilt of Adams sin is imputed to his progeny according to covenantal stipulations.77

75

Ibid., 18788. Cf. Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 61329.

76

Ralph Allan Smith, Interpreting the Covenant of Works, Berith.org, http://www.berith.org/essays/cov_works/ (accessed February 15, 2011). N.B., pp. 56. Smith includes a discussion of what this looks like in John Murrays and other s thinking, John Murray, one of the most distinguished proponents of Reformed doctrine in the 20th century and a recognized defender of the Reformed view of justification by faith, quite clearly denied the Covenant of Works. He was not alone. Not only among those influenced by Murray, but also among the Dutch Reformed in Europe, there are more than a few theologians and pastors who no longer hold to the Covenant of Works.In Murrays view, it is essential to the argument of the apostle Paul that Adam and Christ be conceived of as two representative heads of two different humanities. The old human race in Adam is condemned in their head. The new human race in Christ is justified and accepted because of His righteousness. Jesus obeyed the covenant and fulfilled its terms perfectly. His righteousness is imputed to those who believe in Him. In this simple exposition, all of the essential elements of the Reformed view are included, but it is stated in terms that avoid the notion of a Covenant of Works. However, it seems that what Murray does, in fact, is to verbally deny a covenant relationship with Adam since for Murray the word covenant implies redemptive arrangement and then important all the elements of a covenant into his Adamic Administration. Although Murray would, like most Reformed writers, emphasize the graciousness of the original arrangement, in substance he affirms a Covenant of Works or something very close to one.

77

26 CTs artificial framework is where the notion comes from that the guilt of Adams sin is imputed to his progeny. Realism is more properly the error of Augustine. Proof-texts like Romans 5:1221 are brought in to prop this thesis up. However, even proponents of CT will admit of Romans 5:1221, To be sure, Paul does not here use the word imputeWhat he tells us here is that all human beings are under condemnation because of Adams sin, but he does not say exactly how this condemnation is transmitted to us.78 Hoekema claims that, even so, it is still legitimate to, if we wish, interpret these verses as teaching direct imputation of guilt and condemnation from Adam to us.79 He then adds, But we must remember that when we do so, the concept of imputation is an inference from the Scriptural data.80 Murray confesses, When we speak of the sin of Adam as imputed to posterity, it is admitted that nowhere in Scripture is our relation to the trespass of Adam expressly defined in terms of imputation.81 The theory of the imputation (mediate or immediate) of the guilt of Adams sin to his posterity is an error of CT and it is inconsistent, or at least unnecessary, for those who reject CT to ascribe to it. Faulty Understanding of Righteousness of Christ Imputed to Believers Flowing from CTs faulty understanding of mankinds relationship to Adams sin is its faulty understanding of the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers. CTs understanding of salvation is based on the covenant of grace. In the same way that Adam stood as the covenant head of the covenant of works, so Christ stands as the covenant head of the covenant of grace. As
Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in Gods Image (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), 16465.
79 78

Ibid., 65. Ibid. John Murray, The Imputation of Adams Sin (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1959), 71.

80

81

27 was discussed above, CT views the demands of the covenant of works as binding upon all men of all times. As such, it was not enough for Christ to simply die in the place of sinners as a substitute and bear the wrath of God on their behalf. If that were all that happened then man would be no better than being placed back into a probationary state similar to Adams before the Fall. Men would still need to merit their own righteousness by works in order to be rewarded with eternal life. In this scheme salvation by grace alone has a strange twist to it. Sprouls sentiments are typical of proponents of CT, Ultimately the only way one can be justified is by works. We are indeed justified by works, but the works that justify us are the works of the second Adam. To be justified by faith means to be justified by faith in the works of Christ. Our faith is not the ground of our justification. Faith serves as the instrument by which we receive the benefits of the works of Christ, the sole ground of our justification.82 Salvation is only by grace in that it is by grace that believers take part in a works based salvation. Salvation here is by the works of the law (the law contained in the covenant of works). The caveat is simply that it is not the individuals works of the law, but Christs, which merit this works based salvation. There is an obvious objection based on what Paul teaches in Scripture. Paul repeatedly makes the categorical statement that justification comes apart from () Law-works. Since he does not qualify this statement by specifying whose works are excluded, he seems to be saying that justification per se is not based on worksnot only works done by man, but works qua works.83 Or, put another way, Where Paul seems to be saying that justification is by definition not earn-able by works, covenant theology adds the important qualifier,

R. C. Sproule, Getting the Gospel Right: The Tie that Binds Evangelicals Together (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, a division of Baker Book House Company, 1999), 160. Andrew V. Snider, Justification and the Active Obedience of Christ: Toward a Biblical Understanding of Imputed Righteousness (ThM thesis, Masters Seminary, 2002), 85.
83

82

28 performed by mankind. Since it seems to stray from Pauls own description of justification, the vicarious active obedience teaching must be viewed as suspect.84 There is perhaps no clearer example of this than comparing Sprouls comments with Galatians 3:21 in which Paul says, If a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. Apparently Paul was unaware of the logic of CT; for, according to CT, there was a law given that was able to impart life: the law of the covenant of works fulfilled by Christ. Righteousness, for CT, is indeed based on the law: the law of the covenant of works fulfilled by Christ. Conclusion The preceding discussion has surveyed the two broadest categories that one could group the various streams of thought which led to the development of CT: hermeneutics and polemical theology. A critique of CT has also been offered along these lines with the addition of two specific areas of theology where CT, because of its basic assumptions, proposes errant beliefs. It has been shown that CT is an artificial framework that was constructed from biblical concepts that were extrapolated in order to fill in the white spaces of Scripture. This framework then served as a means for categorizing and interpreting all of Scripture by creating a basis of Christological unity between the testaments along the lines of a type-antitype relationship. This framework was a theological contrivance driven by suspect hermeneutics and polemical theology hastily constructed amidst the fires of controversy during the Reformation. Though much has been said in this paper that is critical of CT, it should be noted that I do not consider CT to be damnable heresy. What seems to rescue CT from itself is that the
84

Ibid., 101.

29 artificial framework for interpreting Scripture is extrapolated from Scripture. In an odd sort of way this enables to CT to have a biblical conception of all that is essential to Christianity, while at the same time flattens out divine revelation according to the artificial framework. Because of this CT cannot bear close examination. The real Christological unity85 of the testaments is lost to CTs artificial unity. That being said, CT does not propose a false gospel. This being the case, proponents of CT should be considered brothers in Christ and interacted with accordingly. It is hoped that further study will serve to disabuse some of CTs artificial overarching framework.

Much better than CTs proposal is, Walt C. Kaiser, The Promise Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008). I am in basic agreement with Kaisers approach, though I do not affirm all the particulars. Regardless, his approach to biblical theology (contra CTs) is, I am convi nced, the proper way forward for understanding the Christological unity between the testaments.

85

Bibliography Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets. Calvins Commentaries, 22 vols. Trans. by John Owen. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2003. . Institutes of the Christian Religion. In 2 vols, Library of Christian Classics vol. XXI. Trans. by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977. Clark, R. Scott. A Brief History of Covenant Theology. Westminster Seminary California. http://clark.wscal.edu/briefhistorycovtheol.php. Erdman, Martin. The Millennial Controversy in the Early Church. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005. Feinberg, John S. Systems of Discontinuity. In, Continuity Discontinuity: Perspectives on the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988. 6386. Gundry, Stanley N. Typology as a Means of Interpretation: Past and Present, JETS 12, No. 4 (Fall 1969): 23340. Hendrickson, William. The Covenant of Grace. Revised ed. 2nd printing. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982. Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 3 Volumes. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1940. Hoekema, Anthony A. Created in Gods Image. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986. Jackson, Samuel Macauley. Ed. Philo of Alexandria. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 15 vols. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977. Kaiser, Walt C. The Promise Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008. Karlberg, Mark W. Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective: Collected Essays and Book Reviews in Historical, Biblical, and Systematic Theology. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000. Kline, Meredith G. By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and Baptism. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968. . The Structure of Biblical Authority. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972.

30

31 LaRondelle, Hans K. Our Creator Redeemer: An Introduction to Biblical Covenant Theology. Berrien Springs, MO: Andrews University Press, 2005 . The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1983. Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity. 2 vols. 1953; Reprint. Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 1997. Lillback, Peter A. The Binding of God: Calvins Role in the Development of Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Book House Company, 2001. McGowan, ATB. The Federal Theology of Thomas Boston. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Publishing, 1997. Murray, John. Collected Writings of John Murray. 4 vols. Edinburgh, PA: The Banner of TruthTrust, 1982. . The Imputation of Adams Sin. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1959. Raymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. 2nd ed. Revised and Updated. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1998. Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsberg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980. Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. 8 vols. 1910; Reprint. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985. Smith, Ralph Allan. Interpreting the Covenant of Works. Berith.org. http://www.berith.org/essays/cov_works/. Snider, Andrew V. Justification and the Active Obedience of Christ: Toward a Biblical Understanding of Imputed Righteousness. ThM thesis, Masters Seminary, 2002. Sproul, R. C. Getting the Gospel Right: The Tie that Binds Evangelicals Together. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, a division of Baker Book House Company, 1999. Strimple, Robert B. Amillennialism. In, Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999. 83129. Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Lectures in Systematic Theology. Revised by Vernon D. Doerksen. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979. Weir, D. A. The Origins of The Federal Theology in Sixteenth-Century Reformation Thought. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.