Covenant theology was, in many ways, a central aspect of Protestant theology and thinking from the time of the Reformation onwards. However, that’s all changed. For reasons too numerous to bother with here covenant theology has fallen into disuse in the modern church. It is not understood, valued, or utilised.
In the Australian context, you almost never hear covenant theology referenced or taught. It’s something that Evangelical and ostensibly ‘Reformed’ churches have simply put in the ‘weird draw’ in their theological kitchen. It’s there, but you’ll only see it if you’re rummaging through certain passages – especially in the Old Testament.
This attitude of disinterest sometimes manifests as disdain too. Many intelligent, young pastors in Australia (especially hyper-Christocentric ‘minimal facts’ Evangelicals) have rejected covenant theology purely because it seems like an unnecessary add-on espoused by crusty old white men. And unfortunately, proponents of covenant theology in the past have not always commended it to the wider church in a way that would foster its acceptance.
Last year I saw a sharp evangelical pastor offering his two-cents-worth on a Facebook post. He stated that he regarded covenant theology as an unhelpful theological paradigm because “there are so many versions of covenant theology”. And if you do your research, there are many different ways that covenant theology is understood and expressed. Often these differences have to do with the denominational distinctives of the exegete in question. For example, Wesleyan, Baptist and Federal Vision advocates differ on key aspects of covenant theology due to other doctrinal commitments exerting pressure on their formation of covenant theology. The reasoning goes that, if covenant theology yields a variety of perspectives on the number and nature of biblical covenants, it’s not a reliable lens for reading the Bible or guiding modern ministry.
At first I thought he had a good point. Let’s put it in a syllogistic format:
- Reading the Bible in a way that sees covenants as providing the underlying structure for the overarching biblical narrative themes (like kingdom, mission, and redemption) is only valid if there is broad consensus about the number and nature of those covenants.
- There is no substantial consensus about the number and nature of those covenants.
- Therefore, covenant theology cannot reliably function as a key hermeneutical lens through which other key biblical themes can be understood.
I’m not sure this syllogism fully captures the abovementioned pastor’s concerns, but it is pretty close. Basically, since there are many versions of covenant theology, it’s not a theme which possesses sufficient clarity to be useful when understanding the Bible’s deeper inner logic.
I disagree. Lots of people would. And those who claim to value their Reformation heritage should.
What unifies all the acts in the “greatest drama ever staged” is that they are expressed in the Bible through the concept of covenant.
– Daniel R. Hyde (Welcome to a Reformed Church: A Guide for Pilgrims, 2010)
The usefulness and beauty of covenant theology has been evident in the writings and teachings of theologians no less than Hyldrych Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, John Calvin, Zacharias Urinus, Casper Olevianus, Johannes Cocceius, Herman Witsius, John Owen, Samuel Rutherford, the Westminster Divines, Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Geehardus Vos, Herman Bavinck, Abraham Kuyper, Cornelius Van Til, Meredith G. Kline, John Murry, Francis Schaeffer, R. J. Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Keith Madison, Douglas Wilson, R. C. Sproul, R. Scott Clark, J. Ligon Duncan, and Michael Horton.
These great thinkers (and many others) have all held to the conviction that covenant theology provides the theological scaffolding to which the other biblical themes are attached.
The more I started thinking about the young pastor’s objection, the more I started to see how flawed it is. Does he really believe that there needs to be a substantial consensus on a doctrine for it to be a biblical teaching worthy of full acceptance?
What about the doctrine of Christ’s atonement – which explores the personal, historical and theological (and in some cases, sociopolitical) importance of Christ’s death on the cross? There are at least 10 distinct views about that. Possibly more. Should we not hold a view on this subject because there isn’t ‘consensus’? Should we scoff because lots of great thinkers have disagreed about the nature and primary purpose of Christ’s atonement?
Of course not. You don’t reject the validity or utility of a doctrine based on the fact that people disagree about it. If you did that, there wouldn’t be much left to believe!
The Bible is a complex book, but the overarching narrative supplies the believer with sufficient clarity to approximate beautiful doctrinal truths, like covenant theology. I don’t mind if people disagree with it. But the Bible clearly teaches the central importance of covenant theology – either directly, or by inferential necessity.
With a few small caveats, I hold to classic Westminsterian covenant theology. Here is chapter 7 of the Westminster Confession:
I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.
II. 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.
III. 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 offers 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.
IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.
V. 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.
VI. Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.
I have much more to say about covenant theology because I love it, and I’m still learning about it. Whatever you think, I want to suggest that modern attitudes expressed by evangelicals against it are mistaken – to the detriment of the church.
spes clara 