God's Kingdom through God's Covenants

A Concise Biblical Theology

Peter J. Gentry, Stephen J. Wellum

• Publisher: Crossway
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781433541940
• Topic: Théologie et religion
• Subtopic: Théologie chrétienne

The Bible records a number of covenants that God made with his people. However, rather than merely abstract ideas for theologians and scholars to study, the covenants in Scripture hold the key to understanding the Bible's overarching story and message. In God's Kingdom through God's Covenants, two world-class scholars offer readers an engaging snapshot of how God has chosen to lovingly relate to his people in history, tracing the significance of the concept of "covenant" through both the Old and New Testaments. Explaining the differences between covenant theology and dispensationalism while offering a thoughtful alternative to both, this book ultimately highlights the covenantal framework through which God has promised to remain faithful to his people.

PART ONE

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1

THE IMPORTANCE OF COVENANTS IN GRASPING THE BIBLE’S STORY

The idea of covenant is fundamental to the Bible’s story. At its most basic, covenant presents God’s desire to enter into relationship with men and women created in his image. This is reflected in the repeated covenant refrain, “I will be your God and you will be my people” (Exodus 6:6–8; Leviticus 26:12 etc.). Covenant is all about relationship between the Creator and his creation. The idea may seem simple; however, the implications of covenant and covenant relationship between God and humankind are vast . . .¹

The purpose of this book is to demonstrate how central and foundational “covenants” are to the entire narrative plot structure of the Bible. One cannot fully understand Scripture and correctly draw theological conclusions from it without grasping how all of the biblical covenants unfold across time and find their telos, terminus, and fulfillment in Christ. We do not assert that the covenants are the central theme of Scripture. Instead, we assert that the covenants form the backbone of the Bible’s metanarrative and thus it is essential to “put them together” correctly in order to discern accurately the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). Michael Horton nicely captures this point when he writes that the biblical covenants are “the architectural structure that we believe the Scriptures themselves to yield. . . . It is not simply the concept of the covenant, but the concrete existence of God’s covenantal dealings in our history that provides the context within which we recognize the unity of Scripture amid its remarkable variety.”² If this is so, which we contend it is, then apart from properly understanding the nature of the biblical covenants and how they relate to each other, we will not correctly discern the message of the Bible and hence God’s self-disclosure which centers on and culminates in Christ.

This is not a new insight, especially for those in the Reformed tradition who have written extensively about the importance of covenants and have structured their entire theology around the concept of covenant. Yet it is not only Reformed theology that acknowledges this point; almost every variety of Christian theology admits that the biblical covenants establish a central framework that holds the Bible’s story together. Since the coming of Christ, Christians have wrestled with the relationships between the covenants, especially the old and new covenants. In fact, it is almost impossible to understand many of the early church’s struggles apart from covenantal debates. For example, think of the many issues concerning the Jew-Gentile relationship in the New Testament (Matt. 22:1–14, par.; Acts 10–11; Romans 9–11; Eph. 2:11–22; 3:1–13); the claim of the Judaizers, which centers on covenantal debates (Galatians 2–3); the reason that the Jerusalem Council assembled (Acts 15); the divisions between strong and weak in the church (Romans 14–15); and the question of how to live in relation to the old covenant now that Christ has come (Matthew 5–7; 15:1–20, par.; Acts 7; Romans 4; Hebrews 7–10). All of these issues are simply the church wrestling with covenantal shifts—from old covenant to new—and the nature of covenant fulfillment in Christ.

Christians have differed in their understanding of the relationship between the covenants. This is one of the primary reasons that we have different theological systems, which is best exemplified today by the theologies of dispensationalism and by covenant theology. Even though these two views agree on the main issues central to the gospel, at the heart of these two systems there is disagreement on what the biblical covenants are and how they relate one to another. Thus, beyond our basic agreement that the story of Scripture moves from Adam to Abraham to Sinai, ultimately issuing in a promise of a new covenant whose advent is tied with Jesus’ cross work (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:23–26), there is disagreement on how the covenants are related. This disagreement inevitably spills over to other issues, especially the question of what applies to us today as new covenant believers. It is at this point, on such matters as the Sabbath, the application of the Old Testament law to our lives, the relationship between Israel and the church, and many more issues, that we discover significant differences among Christians.

For this reason, correctly “putting together” the biblical covenants is central to grasping the Bible’s story, drawing correct theological conclusions, and rightly applying Scripture to our daily lives. If we are going to make progress in resolving disagreements within the church, then how we put together the biblical covenants must be faced head-on and not simply assumed. We are convinced that the current ways of putting together the covenants, especially as represented by covenant or dispensational theology, are not quite right, even though it is important not to overplay the differences among us. All Christians seek to do justice to the overall unity of God’s plan, and to acknowledge some kind of “progressive revelation,” redemptive epochs (or “dispensations”), fulfillment in Christ, change in God’s plan across time, and so on. Yet there is disagreement in regard to the specifics of God’s plan, the kind of changes that result, and the relationship between Israel and the church, which still requires resolution. What follows is an alternative reading of the covenants, which seeks to build on the insights of both of these theological systems while offering a slightly different way of understanding the unfolding of the covenants and their fulfillment in Christ.

“Kingdom through covenant” or “progressive covenantalism” is our proposal for what is central to the Bible’s storyline. Progressive underscores the unfolding of God’s plan from old to new, while covenantalism stresses that God’s unified plan unfolds through the covenants, ultimately terminating and culminating in Jesus and the new covenant. Our triune God has only one plan of redemption, yet we discover what that plan is as we trace his salvation work through the biblical covenants. Each and every biblical covenant contributes to that one plan, but in order to grasp the full depth and breadth of that plan, we must understand each covenant in its own redemptive-historical context by locating that covenant in relation to what precedes it and what follows it. When we do this, not only do we unpack God’s glorious plan; we also discover how that plan is fulfilled in our majestic Redeemer (see Heb. 1:1–3; 7:1–10:18; cf. Eph. 1:9–10). In addition, given that Christians live in light of the achievement of Christ’s glorious work, we can apply Scripture rightly to our lives only if we think through how all of the previous covenants find their fulfillment in Christ and the new covenant he inaugurates.

Before we unpack “kingdom through covenant,” in the remainder of this chapter and in preparation for chapters 2–10 we will focus on two issues. First, we will briefly discuss how we conceive of the nature of biblical theology and its relation to systematic theology, since this book is an exercise in both disciplines and, sadly, there is no unanimous agreement in regard to these disciplines. Second, we will outline our hermeneutical approach in this study and thus describe something of our theological method. Let us now briefly turn to each of these areas.

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY AND ITS RELATION TO SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

Any attempt to understand the progressive nature of the biblical covenants is an exercise in “biblical theology.” It is also the first step in drawing legitimate theological conclusions from Scripture and thus applying the “whole counsel of God” to our lives, which is the task of “systematic theology.” Since people mean different things by “biblical” and “systematic” theology, let us explain how we are using these terms and how we understand the relationship between them.

At the popular level, for most Christians, when the term “biblical theology” is used it is understood as expressing the desire to be “true to the Bible” in our teaching and theology. Obviously, to be “biblical” in this sense is what all Christians ought to desire and strive for, but this is not exactly how we are using the term. In fact, in church history, “biblical theology” has been understood in a number of ways.³

Generally speaking, before the past few centuries biblical theology was often identified with systematic theology, even though many in church history practiced what we currently call “biblical theology,” that is, an attempt to grasp the redemptive-historical unfolding of Scripture.⁴ One can think of many examples, such as Irenaeus (c. 115–c. 202), John Calvin (1509–1564), and Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669). In this sense, biblical theology is not entirely new, since the church has always wrestled with how to “put together” Scripture, especially in light of Christ. Any position, then, that seeks to think through the Canon is doing “biblical theology” in some sense. Granting this point, it is still accurate to note that, in the past, there was a tendency to treat Scripture in more logical and atemporal categories rather than to think carefully through the Bible’s developing storyline. Even in the post-Reformation era, where there was a renewed emphasis on doing a “whole-Bible theology,” biblical theology was mostly identified with systematic theology, and systematics was identified more with “dogmatic” concerns.

With the rise of the Enlightenment, however, biblical theology began to emerge as a distinct discipline. But it is crucial to distinguish the emergence of biblical theology in the Enlightenment along two different paths—one, an illegitimate path tied to Enlightenment presuppositions, and the other, a legitimate one that developed previous insights in church history but now in a more precise, detailed, and historically conscious manner, dependent upon the Bible’s own internal presentation.

In regard to the illegitimate Enlightenment approach to biblical theology, there was a growing tendency to read Scripture critically and uncoupled from historic Christian theology. This resulted in approaching Scripture “as any other book,” rooted in history but also open to historical-critical methods which viewed the Bible within the confines of methodological naturalism.⁵ This meant that the Bible was not approached on its own terms, i.e., as God’s Word written. Instead, the idea that Scripture is God-breathed through human authors—a text that authoritatively and accurately unfolds God’s redemptive plan centered in Christ—was rejected. The end result of this approach was not only a denial of a high view of Scripture but also an increasingly fragmented reading of Scripture, given the fact that the practitioners of this view did not believe Scripture to be a unified, God-given revelation. Biblical theology as a discipline became merely “descriptive,” governed by critical methods and non-Christian worldview assumptions. “Diversity” was emphasized more than “unity” in Scripture, and ultimately, as a discipline seeking to grasp God’s unified plan, it failed. In the twentieth century, there were some attempts to overcome the Enlightenment straitjacket on Scripture, but none of these attempts produced a “whole Bible theology,” given their low view of Scripture.

Contrary to the Enlightenment approach, there is a legitimate way to do biblical theology. In the history of the church, specifically in the post-Reformation and post-Enlightenment era, this path also emphasized a renewed attempt to root the Bible in history by stressing the “literal sense” (sensus literalis) tied to the intention(s) of the divine and human author(s). Yet, it was rooted in a larger Christian worldview and, as such, it operated self-consciously within Christian theological presuppositions, as illustrated in such people as Johannes Cocceius and the post-Reformation Reformed Protestant scholastics who came after him.⁶ Probably the best-known twentieth-century pioneer of biblical theology, who sought to follow a path distinct from that of the Enlightenment, was Geerhardus Vos, who developed biblical theology at Princeton Seminary in the early twentieth cen­tury.⁷ Vos, who was birthed out of Dutch Calvinism, along with such figures as Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck, sought to do biblical theology with a firm commitment to the authority of Scripture. Vos defined biblical theology as “that branch of Exegetical Theology which deals with the process of the self-revelation of God deposited in the Bible.”⁸ In contrast to the Enlightenment view, Vos argued that biblical theology, as an exegetical discipline, not only begins with the biblical text; it must also embrace Scripture as God’s own self-attesting Word, fully authoritative and reliable. Furthermore, Vos argued, in exegeting Scripture, biblical theology seeks to trace out the Bible’s unity and diversity and find its consummation in Christ and the inauguration of the new covenant era. Biblical theology must follow a method that reads the Bible on its own terms, following the Bible’s own internal contours and shape, in order to discover God’s unified plan as it is disclosed to us over time. The path that Vos blazed was foundational for much of the resurgence of biblical theology within evangelicalism, in the twentieth and now twenty-first century.

Following this evangelical view, we define “biblical theology” by employing Brian Rosner’s helpful definition: “Biblical theology” is “theological interpretation of Scripture in and for the church. It proceeds with historical and literary sensitivity and seeks to analyze and synthesize the Bible’s teaching about God and his relations to the world on its own terms, maintaining sight of the Bible’s overarching narrative and Christocentric focus.”⁹ In this definition, Rosner emphasizes some important points crucial to the nature and task of biblical theology. Biblical theology is concerned with the overall message of the whole Bible. It seeks to understand the parts in relation to the whole. As an exegetical method, it is sensitive to the literary, historical, and theological dimensions of Scripture, as well as to the interrelationships between earlier and later texts in Scripture. Furthermore, biblical theology is interested not merely in words and word studies but also in concepts and themes as it traces out the Bible’s own storyline, on the Bible’s own terms, as the plotli...