Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Vlach, Michael J. Dispensational Hermeneutics: Interpretation Principles that Guide Dispensationalism’s Understanding of the Bible’s Storyline. Theological Studies Press, 2023.

by

Insights:

I’m the first chapter Vlach surveys “Key Elements of Dispensationalism’s Storyline.” His survey includes a number of important insights.

  • Rightly sees the importance of Genesis 1:26-28 as foundational for the theology of Scripture and rightly sees the centrality of kingdom and glory to the Bible’s theology.
  • Rightly sees redemption as encompassing not only individuals but also to all of creation, including ethnicities and nations.
  • Understands the covenants as the means by which God brings about his kingdom.
  • Recognizes the spiritual aspects of God’s work coexist alongside the material aspects of God’s work. The material aspects are not merely typological but often have eschatological significance.
  • Recognizes that an emphasis on a progression from the material to the spiritual in redemptive history may be due to the influence of Platonism and other unbiblical worldviews. This viewpoint is at odds with the Bible’s high view of the importance of material creation, including that of the resurrection body.
  • Recognizes God’s role for Israel as the nation through whom God gave the Scripture, through whom the Messiah came, and through whom all the nations will be blessed.
  • Affirms the salvation of all Israel in the last day.
  • Affirms that the spiritual blessings of the covenants have been inaugurated and also affirms that the material blessings will be fulfilled in the last day. (I don’t like spiritual and material as the distinguishing terms. Spiritual in the Bible usually referrs to the Holy Spirit and his work, rather than to a material/spiritual dichotomy; furthermore, the Holy Spirit was at work in the creation of the material world and will be essential to its recreation—just as he is essential to our personal salvation, sanctification, and glorification.)
  • Sees promises in the covenants made with Israel fulfilled in the church, and he sees believing Israel in the present age as part of the church. He also sees the church and Israel as two different kinds of entities. Israel is a nation while the church is a multiethnic body of believers.
  • Affirms that Christ will return to rule all the nations.

In chapters 2-4 Vlach turns to what he identifies as the hermeneutics of dispensationalism. This section also contains a number of insights.

  • He rightly supports discerning authorial intention.
  • He rightly accepts that there are types, symbols, and analogies in the text. He denies that these require a different hermeneutic since grammatical-historical interpretation already recognizes the reality of types symbols, and analogies and seeks to discern their author-intended, contextually governed meaning.
  • He recognizes that dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists both operate with the same grammatical-historical hermeneutic. (He does say that non-dispensationalists often abandon this approach when it comes to prophecies about the restoration of Israel, which may be too sweeping a judgment.)
  • He notes that Israel came under the covenant curses and the judgment of exile just as the Mosaic covenant and the prophets predicted. He then asks why, if the covenant promises of judgment happened as written, the promises and prophecies about Israel’s future restoration and blessing should be reinterpreted as typological and fulfilled only in the church? This is an insightful point, especially since often the prophecies of restoration are textually linked to Israel’s experience of judgment. It would be most odd then for Israel to only experience the judgment and for the promised restoration to be applied only to a different corporate party that did not experience the judgment.
  • He rightly recognizes that turning a promise into a type to be fulfilled for someone other than the person to whom the promise was originally made would violate God’s integrity. “Promises also contain an ethical component. The one making a promise is ethically bound to keep the content of the promise with the audience to whom the promise was made” (40).
  • He recognizes that later revelation “does not reinterpret or change the meaning of earlier revelation” (41). I don’t take this as a denial that the NT properly interprets the OT. That denial, if made, would be a problem.
  • He affirms that the progress of revelation does not alter promises or change the recipients of the promises, though the beneficiaries of the promises may be expanded through progressive revelation.
  • The first coming of Christ did not exhaust prophetic fulfillment; some prophecies await fulfillment at the second coming.
  • The reason that some OT prophecies are only partially fulfilled at present is due to the fact that Christ comes twice. We can see this in certain prophecies where within the same passage part of the prophecy was begun to be fulfilled in the earthly ministry of Christ and another part awaits the second coming (cf. Zech. 9:9-10; Isa 61:1-2; Amos 9:11-15).
  • Jesus is the “Yes” to OT promises in a complex way:
    • Jesus “directly” fulfills some prophecies (73)
    • “Jesus is the means for the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, promises, and covenants” (73). Vlach explains: “There are predictions about a coming antichrist, temple, Israel, nations, destruction and rescue of Jerusalem, battles between nations, the Day of the Lord, kingdom, resurrection, judgment, etc. While not Jesus, these matters are significant to God’s purposes and Jesus is involved with their fulfillment. These things do not vanish or dissolve into Jesus in a metaphysical way” (p. 74).
  • Jesus is the true Israel and national Israel still exists as an entity for which promises will be fulfilled. This is a “both/and” rather than an “either/or.”
  • Vlach observes different ways in which Israel is used in Scripture. (1) “an ethnic, national, territorial, corporate entity”, (2) “to the believing remnant of Israel,” (3) “the ultimate representative of Israel.” (76).
  • Dispensationalism historically has been Christocentric and Christotelic.
    • But it is careful not to “read meanings into texts that are not there” in an effort to be Christ-centered.
    • Dispensational Christ-centered interpretation does not find Christ in the text by “adding a hermeneutical move beyond the grammatical historical” interpretation of a text (82).
    • The OT should be read from the perspective of a NT believer with the knowledge of how Jesus has fulfilled the law and the prophets.
  • Vlach agrees that there are types, but he argues that the promises of the Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are not types. He also rejects what he terms typological interpretation, which he defines as interpretations that transform covenant promises into something other than what was promised.

In chapters 5-6 Vlach turns to what he describes as the hermeneutics of non-dispensationalism.

  • He rejects NT priority. He defines this as the idea that the NT use of the OT involves a “radical reinterpretation” of OT prophecies (93, citing Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed., 373). He is right to deny that the NT “reinterprets” the OT or changes the meaning these texts originally had. But he over-reacts when he denies that that the NT teaches interpreters how to interpret the OT (see below).
  • He rejects spiritualizing the promises regarding the physical creation.
  • He denies that covenantal promises are types
  • He denies that prophecies about events to come are types. (I would affirm this denial even while granting that these prophecies may involve people and institutions that are typological at some point in history.)
  • He denies that a typical entity or institution can cancel out the fulfillment of promises regarding those entities or institutions. He helpfully quotes Craig Blaising’s opposition to when typology is “employed to contravene, suppress, or subvert the meaning of explicit covenant promise, and even more so when the NT explicitly repeats and reaffirms the same promise as declared in the covenants of the OT” (Blaising, “A Critique of Gentry and Wellum’s, Kingdom through Covenant: A Hermeneutical-Theological Response,” 117 as cited on p. 108).
  • He objects to the use of the following terms to describe the NT’s interpretation of the OT: “redefine,” “reinterpret,” “transform,” “transcend,” “transpose” (114).
  • Vlach is correct to say, “Matters like corporate Israel, nations, land, earthly kingdom, and physical blessings are not Jesus, but they are related to Jesus. We should understand how everything relates to Jesus without assuming all things disappear or metaphysically collapse into Him” (122).

Weaknesses

  • He defines redemption and redemptive history too narrowly. Redemption encompasses the restoration of all creation and includes God’s kingdom purposes. This narrow definition of redemption is inconsistent with things Vlach says elsewhere. I think it is a place where some traditional dispensational thinking is it odds with his broader theology.
  • Vlach is correct to focus on the multidimensional nature of the covenants, but in this book he only seems to speak of the Israel aspect of the covenants. If some covenant theologians err by focusing only on the salvation aspects of the covenants, dispensationalism often errs by focusing on the Israel side of things to the neglect of other aspects.
  • He doesn’t always accurately represent covenant theology. For instance, presents the Covenant Theolgoy position as holding that the Moasic covennat was a restatement of the covenant of works, that the Mosaic covenant was a restatement of the covenant of grace, or that the Mosaic covenant was a restatement of both. But the Mosaic covenant as a republication of the covenant of works is controversial among covenant theologians. In addition, among most covenant theologians, the Mosaic covenant is not a restatement of the covenant of grace but is an administration of the covenant of grace.
  • Sometimes Vlach’s statements about what non-dispensationalists think are too sweeping. Other times non-dispensational viewpoints are stated prejudicially; that is, they are stated in ways that I don’t think proponents of those views would hold. I should note however, that this critique can also be applied to almost every single critique of dispensationalism that I’ve read from a covenant theologian. Covenant theologians are almost always critiquing either older forms of dispensationalism or they are critquing straw men. Both sides in this debate need to do better in understanding the other side before registering their critiques.
  • Vlach’s typology of the temple fails to recognize that the temple was solely and purely a symbol that would pass away. The typology of the land is different. It seems that both Vlach and the major altenatives to dispensationalism (covenant theology and progressive covenantalism) don’t recognize this difference. This causes all of these parties to err in their understading of biblical typology, though in different ways.
  • Vlach over-reacts to the misuse of typology. He has some legitimate concerns. But in response, Vlach wants to limit typology to “the Mosaic Law and its elements” (108), and he wants to deny that Israel and the land are types because they are “linked with … covenants of promise.” However, David was a type of Christ even though kingship is linked to the Davidic covenant, a covenant of promise, rather than being a provision of the Mosaic Law and its elements. Thus, Vlach is drawing the definition of typology too tightly.
    • This is how I woudl respond to the problem that Vlach is seeking to address:
    • If someone were to say: David is a type of Christ; therefore, he will not enjoy eternal life in the new creation because Christ is the reality and the type has entirely passed away, the proper response would be to note that David was a type of Christ in his life and reign in the Old Testament. His life in the new creation is not typological.
    • Likewise, Israel was a type of the church during the period of the Mosaic Covenant. Its continued existence in the new creation is not typological. The land was a type of the new creation in the period of the conquest and during Solomon’s reign, and the future fulfillment of the land promise is not typological.
    • In other words, rather than denying that David or Israel or the land are types (as Vlach does), the better solution is to understand that certain types all have a time dimension to them.
  • Vlach rejects that the NT should instruct us in how to interpret the OT. I understand his concern about approaches that re-interpret original OT meaning, but this is a problematic over-reaction that undercuts the sufficiency of Scripture for hermeneutics.
  • Too often Vlach makes assertions rather than arguments when dealing with opposing views.

Toward an Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5

by

וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֤ם אֶת־חֻקֹּתַי֙ וְאֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַ֔י אֲשֶׁ֨ר יַעֲשֶׂ֥ה אֹתָ֛ם הָאָדָ֖ם וָחַ֣י בָּהֶ֑ם אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֽה׃

“So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does them, he shall live by them; I am Yahweh” (LSB)

Thesis: This verse promises eternal life upon obedience to the statutes and judgments of the Mosaic covenant. In fact, no one (except Christ) would ever be able to fulfill this requirement and thus no one would obtain salvation by this path.

Place of Leviticus 18 in the Structure of Leviticus

Leviticus 18 begins a major section of the book of Leviticus. Leviticus 18:5 thus stands at a strategic point in the book.

Leviticus 1-16 deals with the cultic matters that relate to entering into the tabernacle. This section climaxes with the day of atonement as recounted in chapter 16. Chapter 17 “serves as a pivot between Leviticus 1-16 and 18-26” (Averbeck, “Tabernacle,” DOTP, 820).

Jay Sklar concurs with this structure:

Like chapters 1–16; Leviticus 17 addresses issues related to the proper place of sacrifice (cf. 17:4 with 1:3; 3:2; 4:4), the proper use of blood (cf. 17:10, 12, 14 with 3:17; 7:26), the importance of addressing ritual impurity (cf. 17:15–16 with 11:24–25, 39–40; 15:31; 16:16, 19), and the application of these laws to resident aliens (cf. 17:8, 10, 13, 15 with 16:29). But like chapters 18–20; Leviticus 17 also has a prohibition against illicit cultic practices (cf. 17:7 with 18:21; 19:4; 20:2). The chapter therefore serves as a smooth transition between Leviticus 1–16 and Leviticus 18–20. [TOTC, 217]

Averbeck also notes,

On the one hand, ch. 17 looks back to chs. 1-16 in the sense that it emphasizes making offerings in the tabernacle (vv. 1-9) along with blood “atonement,” which therefore includes the prohibition against eating blood (vv. 10-16). On the other hand, the primary goal of the regulations in ch.17 is to introduce one of the major concerns of chs. 18-26: the absolute exclusivity of Yahweh worship. [NIV BTSB, 200]

Averbeck also notes that the statements, “Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy” and “I am the LORD (your God)” occur throughout Leviticus 18-26 but do not occur in Leviticus 17 or 27 (DOTP, 820).

Thus Leviticus 18:1-5 is the beginning section of the next major part of the book of Leviticus. Its scope, therefore, should not be reduced to the laws regarding unlawful sexual relations. Rather, these verses occur at the center of the book of Leviticus, at the center of the Pentateuch, and at the beginning of a section about holiness of life in the promised land.

It should not be surprising, therefore, that New Testament figures discerned in Leviticus 18:5 a programmatic statement regarding the Mosaic Law. Neither Jesus nor Paul was cherry-picking a random verse from the Pentateuch when he quoted Leviticus 18:5. Both recognized that Leviticus 18:5 occupies a strategic position within the structure of Leviticus and within the structure of the Pentateuch.

The Use of the OT in Leviticus 18

Nobuyoshi Kiuchi observes numerous connections between Leviticus 18 and Genesis 2-3 (ApOTC, 330-31). For instance, much of Leviticus 18 deals with forbidden sexual relations, including between men and men and between man and beast. These laws are rooted in the creation order outlined in Genesis 2:20-23. Adam’s inability to find a corresponding helper in the animal world and God’s creation of woman as the corresponding helper for man reveals the proper creation order regarding intimate relations. Leviticus 18 also refers repeatedly sexual relations in terms of uncovering nakedness. This evokes Genesis 2:25 and Genesis 3:21. Unfallen man and woman were “both naked and were not ashamed” (Gen 2:25), but after the Fall man and woman are in need of covering (Gen 3:21). Finally, just as man was sent (שׁלח) from the garden after his sin so the nations are sent out of the promised land, the analogue to Eden (Lev 18:24).

Given the extensive connections between Genesis 2-3 in this chapter, it is difficult not to read, “”So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does them, he shall live by them” (LSB) as an analogue to “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen 2:17). Since Genesis 2:17 encompassed not only physical death but also eternal death, Leviticus 18:5 may also encompass not only temporal life but also eternal life.

It is also notable that Leviticus 18:5 switches from the phrasing, “So you shall keep” to “if a man [הָאָדָ֖ם] does them. Jason DeRouchie observes, “the noun phrase ‘the man’ (הָאָדָם) in Leviticus 18:5 may be an allusion to the first man (הָאָדָם) in the garden, who himself foreshadowed Israel’s existence. God created the first man in the wilderness (Gen 2:7), moved him into paradise (2:8, 15), and gave him commands (2:16–17), the keeping of which would have resulted in his lasting life (2:17; cf. 3:24). Then, upon the man’s disobedience (3:6), God justly exiled him from paradise, resulting his ultimate death (3:23–24; cf. 3:19). This too becomes Israel’s story” (“The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12,” Them 45 [2020]: 249). DeRouchie concludes, “”The Mosaic covenant, therefore, in many ways mirrored God’s covenant with creation through Adam (Isa 24:4–6; Hos 6:7), with Yahweh’s relationship with Israel supplying a microcosmic picture of the larger relationship he has over all humanity” (“The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12,” Them 45 [2020]: 249).

Exegetical Observations on Leviticus 18:1-5

Leviticus 18:1-5 establishes that just as Adam and Eve were in a covenant relationship with Yhwh, so the people of Israel are in a covenant relationship with Israel. Twice Yhwh identifies himself with the phrase, “I am Yhwh your God” (Lev 18:2, 4). For Yhwh to be “your God” implies a covenant relationship with the people he is addressing.

John Kleinig rightly observes, “The promise of life here goes beyond mere physical survival. It has to do with the possession of God-given life in its fullness: liveliness and vitality, prosperity and blessing (Deut 30:15-20). This abundant life continues into the age to come (Jn 10:10)” (ConC, 375-76). As Kiuchi astutely observes, if eternal life is not in view, the phrase “and lives” refers to a state that “will ultimately result in death” (ApOTC, 332).

In support of the eternal life interpretation, Kiuchi observes, “In Leviticus the term ḥāyâ means to ‘live’ in the biological sense of moving freely (cf. 13:10, 14-16; 14:4-5; 16:10; Deut 8:3; Ezek. 20:11, 13, 21). However, as this life is guaranteed by the observance of these rules, and not by food, the life envisaged here must mean more than just physical life, but primarily spiritual life, a life that embraces physical life” (ApOTC, 332). Kiuchi concludes, “it is possible to read this verse as saying that by ‘and live’ the Lord intends to say that a man lives forever, on the assumption that the present life is part of eternal life (cf. Eccl. 3:11; Gen. 3:22)” (ApOTC, 332).

This interpretation is consistent with other statements in the Mosaic covenant, as Jason DeRoucie notes: “Moses frequently conditions life and blessing/good (Lev 26:3–13; Deut 28:1–14), death and curse/evil (Lev 26:14–39; Deut 27:11–26; 28:15–68), on a perfect keeping of all the law (Deut 11:26–28; 30:15–19; cf. e.g., 5:29; 6:25; 8:1; 11:32; 26:18) with all one’s heart and soul (4:29; 6:5; 10:12; 11:13; 13:3; 26:16; cf. 30:2, 6, 10). By their pursuing God’s standard of ‘righteousness’ (צֶ֫דֶק, 16:20) and by their keeping his whole commandment manifest in the various statutes and rules, the Lord would preserve their lives (6:24), they would enjoy the status of ‘righteousness’ (צְדָקָה, 6:25; cf. Ps 106:30–31), and they would secure lasting ‘life’ (Deut 8:1; 16:20; 30:16)” (“The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12,” Them 45 [2020]: 247). Though many of these statements emphasize the temporal blessings that Israel would receive, those blessings were to anticipate the blessings of eternal life. Thus DeRouchie notes, “”The community needed God to preserve their present lives (cf. Deut 4:4; 5:3; 6:24), and the blessings they sought included temporal provision and protection (see esp. Lev 26:3–13; Deut 28:1–14). Nevertheless, in a very real sense the “life” Moses was promising also included a soteriological and eschatological escalation beyond their present state—one that he could contrast with being “cut off from among their people” (Lev 18:29)” (“The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12,” Them 45 [2020]: 247).

DeReouchie goes on to observe, “In light of the above, the prepositional phrase in the clause “they shall live by them” in Leviticus 18:5 most likely includes a sense of instrumentality (i.e., “by means of the statutes”) and not just locality (i.e., “in the sphere of the statutes”)” (“The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:12,” Them 45 [2020]: 247).

Many interpreters (Gathercole, Moo, and others) hold that Leviticus 18:5 was speaking typologically about life in the land but that later OT passages, NT texts, and rabbinic writings interpret the typological in light of what it typified (that is, eternal life) or that they expanded the scope. It would be better, however, to understand Ezekiel, Jesus, and Paul as correctly interpreting Leviticus 18:5.

Reception History

Tg. Ps.-J. and Tg. Onq. identify the life in this verse as “eternal life” (Hartley, WBC, 282). Likewise, Damascus Document and Psalms of Solomon understand life in this passage to be eternal life (Rosner, Paul and the Law, NSBT, 63). Jewish intertestamental and rabbinic literature is not always correct in their interpretations, but these sources do provide early evidence for the plausibility of the eternal life reading

That this covenant promised eternal life on the condition of perfect obedience is a strand that runs through the Protestant interpretive tradition. As John Calvin observed, “If someone expresses the Law of God in his life, he will lack nothing of the perfection required before the Lord. In order to certify that, God promises to those who shall have fulfilled the Law not only the grand blessings of the present life, which are recited in Lev. 26:3–13 and in Deut. 27:1–14, but also the recompense of eternal life (Lev. 18:5)” (“Calvin’s Catechism (1537),” in Reformed Confession, 1:364). Calvin reiterates this understanding in the Institutes: “We cannot gainsay that the reward of eternal salvation awaits complete obedience to the law, as the Lord has promised”—while also observing, “Because observance of the law is found in none of us, we are excluded from the promises of life, and fall back into the mere curse” (Battles translation, 1:351, 352; 2.7.3).

Andrew Bonar understands the life in this verse to be eternal life, and he concludes: “so excellent are God’s laws, and every special, minute detail of these laws, that if a man were to keep these always and perfectly, this keeping would be eternal life to him.” Noting the quotation of this verse in Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:12, Bonar finds this interpretation “to be the true and only sense here” (Leviticus, 329-30).

Similarly, Geerhardus Vos quotes this verse in support of the claim that “even after the covenant of works is broken, perfect keeping of the law is presented as a hypothetical means for obtaining life, a means that must work infallibly” (Reformed Dogmatics, 41:1).

Old Testament Use of Leviticus 18:5

Simon Gathercole identifies Ezekiel 20 as the “first commentary on Leviticus 18:5 (“Torah, Life and Salvation,” in From Prophecy to Testament, 127; cf. Kleinig, ConC, 375; Moo, BECNT, 221). In Ezekiel 20:11, 13, 21 Yhwh refers to the laws of the Mosaic covenant as those “by which, if a man does them, he will live by them” (LSB). Disobedient Israel is then given over to “statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life,” which is probably a reference to giving them over to idolatrous ways (Calvin, Commentary, 2:315; Poole, Annotations, 2:721; Owen, Works, 22:465-66; KD 9:157; Fairbairn, Ezekiel, 220-22; Vos, Biblical Theology, 144; Feinberg, Ezekiel, 112; Cooper, NAC, 205; Alexander, REBC, 749). To say that idolatrous ways were those “by which they could not have life” is an understatement as idolatry brings eternal death. Also, the contrast between eternal death and life indicates that the life in view is eternal life. Finally, this passage foretells a restoration of Israel in the new creation. Ezekiel 20 seems, therefore, to interpret life in Leviticus 18:5 as eternal life.

Nehemiah 9:29 also alludes to Leviticus 18:5 (Kleinig, ConC, 375; Moo, BECNT, 221). Once again, the laws of the Mosaic covenant are referred to as that “by which if a man does them, he shall live” (LSB). What follows are temporal punishments. This does not invalidate the thesis, for as Kiuchi above noted the eternal life in view would include this present life also.

New Testament Use of Leviticus 18:5

Matthew 19:17

When the rich young man asked Jesus, “Teacher what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” (Mt 19:16) Jesus responded in a twofold manner. First, he established that only God is good (Mt 19:17). Second, he said, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” (Mt 19:17). The commandments that are then detailed are the from the Decalogue to which is added the second great commandment (from Lev 19:18).

Calvin understands Jesus to teach “that the Law teaches how men may obtain righteousness by works, and yet that no man is justified by works, because the fault lies not in the doctrine of the Law, but in men” (Harmony of the Evangelists, 3:60). It will not do to say that Jesus simply answers the rich young man according to his own viewpoint. Though the young man’s viewpoint provides the framework for Christ’s answer, Jesus was not simply accomodating himself to this young man. Christ both teaches that eternal life can in theory be obtained by obedience to the law and that in fact it cannot be so obtained since no one is good but God alone.

Luke 10:28

Just preceding the Parable of the Good Samaritan, a lawyer asked Jesus, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Lk 10:25). When Jesus asked the man what the Law of Moses said, he responded by citing the two great commandments. To which Jesus, responded, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live” (Lk 10:28). The two great commandments summarize the Mosaic Law, and Jesus echoed Leviticus 18:5 in affirming this to be the right answer (Crowe, Perfect Life, 81). In context, this is eternal life that Jesus is speaking of. However, the way Jesus phrased this affirmation implied that the lawyer was not yet fulfilling the law and thus still lacked eternal life (Garland, 438-39). The lawyer, for his part, recognizes that he cannot keep the Mosaic Law without narrowing its requirements. Thus obedience to the Mosaic covenant is seen as a potential path to eternal life, but not one that any sinner will achieve. As Calvin says, “for the reason why God justifies us freely is, not that the Law does not point out perfect righteousness, but because we fail in keeping it, and the reason why it is declared to be impossible for us to obtain life by it is, that it is weak through our flesh, (Rom. 8:3.) So then these two statements are perfectly consistent with each other, that the Law teaches how men may obtain righteousness by works, and yet that no man is justified by works, because the fault lies not in the doctrine of the Law, but in men” (Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, 60).

Galatians 3:12

In this context Paul establishes first that those who do not keep all of the Mosaic Law fall under its curse (Gal 3:10 citing Dt 27:26). To this he opposes Habakkuk 2:4, “The righteous shall live by faith” (Gal 3:11). This observation is in service of the argument that “no one is justified before God by the law” (3:11) since “The law is not of faith” (3:12). To establish the provided alternative (and impossible, cf. 3:10) path to eternal life, Paul quotes Leviticus 18:5, “The one who does them shall live by them.”

Bryan Estelle observes, “When we come to Paul’s use of these terms and explore the context in which he understood the promise of life conditioned upon obedience, he clearly parsed that ‘life’ as ‘the life of eternity’ or ‘the world to come'” (“Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:1-14 in Biblical Theological Development,” in The Law Is Not of Faith, 110).

Some claim that when Paul cites Leviticus 18:5 he is doing to so to critique a misinterpretation of the verse (Sklar, TOTC, 229). However, Paul was not citing a misinterpretation of Leviticus 18:5 but was citing the verse itself. In context, Paul was contrasting the Mosaic and new covenants. He could do this by quoting verses from the Pentateuch because the Mosaic writings contain not only the provisions of the Mosaic covenant but statements of its inadequacy (due to human sinfulness) and predictions of the coming new covenant and its provisions. In addition, what Sklar identified as a misinterpretation seems to be the interpretation Jesus gave to the verse in Luke 10:28.

Romans 10:5

In context Paul is discussing two ways of pursing righteousness. The Gentiles pursued righteousness by faith and attained it, but the Jews pursued righteousness by works and stumbled over the stumbling stone, that is Christ. By seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not receive Christ’s righteousness. They failed to see that Christ was the end (the fulfillment, terminus, and completer) of the law for the purpose of bringing righteousness to everyone who believes. In other words, justification through faith in Christ is what the Mosaic Law was always pointing to and the coming of Christ brought the Mosaic law to a point of completion.

In Romans 10:5-9 Paul establishes his argument with Scripture. He quotes Leviticus 18:5 to establish that the Mosaic covenant promised righteousness and eternal life based on doing the commandments. To this he opposes Deuteronomy 30, in which the people are told that the word of faith can bring them salvation. Paul is not pitting Moses against himself here. In context Deuteronomy 30 establishes that the Mosaic covenant would not save the Israelites; it predicted they would come under its covenant curses. Therefore, Deuteronomy 30 points the people forward to a coming new covenant, the benefits of which could be obtained by faith by anyone in any era who called on the Lord by faith.

Romans 7:10

Though Paul does not quote Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 7:10, the statement “the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me” seems to allude to it (Rosner, Paul and the Law, NSBT, 66). Leviticus 18:5 was a promise of (eternal) life on the basis of obedience. However, as Paul makes clear in Romans 7, no one (other than Christ) is able to keep the Law and obtain life by that promise.

Proposed Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5

This verse promises eternal life upon obedience to the statutes and judgments of the Mosaic covenant. In fact, no one (except Christ) would ever be able to fulfill this requirement and thus no one would obtain salvation by this path. Something the Mosaic Law itself made clear. However, the “except Christ” is a very important exception. Christ was born under this Law, and he fulfilled it in our place.

Objections to the Proposed Interpretation of Leviticus 18:5

Obj. 1: The claim that eternal life is promised upon obedience to the Law is contrary to the doctrine of justification by faith alone

Mark Rooker observes that verse 5 ” has been interpreted as rewarding salvation to those who keep the commandments,” but he rejects this interpretation on the grounds that it is “in conflict with the doctrine of justification by faith” (NAC, 240).

Ans. Galatians 3:12 and Romans 10:5 cite this verse as pointing to a way of justification by the works of the law. These passages are clear that no one will actually be justified in this way. But it is nonetheless presented as a hypothetical way of obtaining righteousness.

Obj. 2: Israel had already been graciously redeemed by Yhwh

This is how Jay Sklar argues: “It is crucial to understand that this verse does not mean the Israelites were to earn relationship with the Lord through their obedience. The larger context makes clear that the Lord gives the Israelites the law after he redeemed them (cf. Exod. 1–19 with Exod. 20–23). The law regulates this relationship; it does not create it. As in the New Testament, relationship with the Lord is always grounded in his gracious redemption (cf. Rom. 5:8)” (Sklar, TOTC, 229).

Ans. This is to confuse the type and the reality. Physically and typologically Israel had been redeemed from slavery in Egypt. The very structure of the exodus account reveals that the physically and typologically redeemed Israelites still stand in need of redemption.

Exodus 15:1-21 marks the end of Israel’s redemption from Egypt. These verses mark the beginning of a transitional section between that redemption and the giving of the Mosaic covenant (ch 19ff.). This transitional section begins with three pericopes in which the people are grumbling against Yhwh and against Moses regarding food and water. These three pericopes reveal that even though Israel was physically redeemed from Egypt, the Israelites were still in need of new hearts. They still needed redemption from sin.

At the end of the first of these grumbling pericopes, the text provides a brief preview of the Mosaic covenant: “There Yhwh made for them a statute and a rule, and there he tested them, saying, ‘If you will diligently listen to the voice of Yhwh your God, and do that which is right in his eyes, and give ear to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you that I put on the Egyptians, for I am Yhwh, your healer'” (ESV, adj.).

Note the conditional nature of the statement: If Israel keeps Yhwh’s law, then God will keep the judgments of Egypt from Israel. The implication is that if Israel does not keep Yhwh’s law they will receive the judgments of Egypt themselves. A case and point would be the locust plague Israel experienced as recorded in Joel 1.

Note also Yhwh’s identification of himself at the end of this statement, “for I am Yhwh, your healer.” This is given as a reason for why Yhwh will not bring the diseases of Egypt upon Israel. It is not a statement that Yhwh will heal Israel from these diseases.

The fact that this pericope is followed by two more in which Israel grumbles at Yhwh demonstrates that the nation did not come to Yhwh for healing. Israel’s rebellion at the golden calf incident and in Numbers shows that Israel still remained in need of healing.

Jason DeRouchie observes, “By Leviticus 18, the narrator has highlighted how the people have tested God seven times since leaving Egypt, and by the time the ten spies fail to believe the Lord, the total testings would be ten (Num 14:21–23).24 Thus, Moses rightly labels them “stubborn” (Exod 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Deut 9:6, 13; 10:16; 31:27), “unbelieving” (Num 14:11; Deut 1:32; 9:23; cf. 28:66), and “rebellious” (Num 20:10, 24; 27:14; Deut 9:7, 24; 31:27; cf. 1:26, 43; 9:23). … The cry, “Do this law so that you may live!” came to a primarily unregenerated community” (“The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:!2,” Them 45 [2020]: 248).

Thus, the Israelites whom Moses addressed in Leviticus 18:5 were still in need of eternal life.

Obj. 3: The sacrificial system would have dealt with the problem of imperfect obedience, thus enabling the Israelites to keep Leviticus 18:5

Jason DeRouchie responds to this claim by observing, “If, as I have argued, most original recipients of Moses’s words were unregenerate, a call to “do in order to live” would have resulted in nothing less than a type of legalism for the majority, as the ‘gracious character of the Levitical system’ would be inoperative without the feeling of guilt, confession, and trust (Lev 5:5–6; Num 5:6–7)” (“The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Galatians 3:!2,” Them 45 [2020]: 251, quoting Jim Hamilton to critique his view).

The regenerate in Israel were to continue to practice the sacrifical system, but they should have realized that repeated animal sacrifices could not ultimately atone for their sin. They should have been looking forward to the new covenant sacrifice of the promised Seed.

Obj. 4: An offer of eternal life based on obedience to the law cannot be made because the Israelites (and all mankind) are already born sinners as a result of Adam’s sin

Ans. 1: In actual fact no sinner would be saved by their personal obedience to the Mosaic law because no sinner could meet the requirement of this covenant. However, this very fact reinforces the inability of sinners to be saved by the works of the Law.

Ans. 2: The New Testament does not present Christ as being born under the Adamic covenant and keeping the requirements of the Adamic covenant in our place for salvation. That covenant was already broken by Adam. The New Testament presents Christ as being born under the Mosaic Law and keeping the requirements of the Mosaic Law for our salvation (Gal 4:4). if obedience to the Mosaic Law could not bring salvation, how could Christ’s obedience to that Law bring us salvation?

Obj 5: The Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace and thus cannot be a works covenant

Ans. 1: This presumes that there is a single overarching covenant of grace of which all the biblical covenants (save the Adamic covenant) are administrations. However, there are several factors opposed to this presumption. (1) It is difficult to establish the single, overarching covenant of grace position exegetically. (2) There is significant exegetical evidence for the Mosaic covenant as being in some way a works covenant, and while there are various ways to integrate this evidence into an overarching covenant of grace view, the exegetical data and theological construction do stand in some tension with each other. (3) There are better models which better account for the data.

Ans. 2: There are ways for those who hold to a unitary covenant of grace to hold that the Mosaic Covenant is in some sense a covenant of works. These approaches have their own complications, but it allows certain covenant theologians to handle the exegetical data of Leviticus 18:5 and its co-texts well without abandoning their system of covenant theology.

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from the ESV.

The quotation of a source above does not mean that source is complete agreement with the arguement I am making. For instance, Calvin’s views of law and covenant have some complexity to them. Likewise, Estelle’s view is complicated; he holds that the “temporal life promised in the Mosaic covenant portended and typified the greater ‘eternal life'” but that this is not “merely and exclusively a typological arrangement.” (“Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:1-14 in Biblical Theological Development,” in The Law Is Not of Faith, 118).

Jeremiah 30-31: The New Covenant and the Land

by

In this section of Jeremiah the phrase “The word that came to Jeremiah from Yhwh” (30:1) marks off the beginning of a major section. The same phrase occurs in 32:1, marking off the next major section.  Within Jeremiah 30:1-31:40 the phrase “Thus says Yhwh, the God of Israel” marks the beginning of the prologue (30:1) and epilogue (31:23). Between these are seven songs each marked out by the phrase “Thus says Yhwh.” After the Epilogue there are three promises each marked out by the phrase “Behold, the days are coming, declaration of Yhwh” (31:27, 31, 38). After the second promise, there are two guarantees marked out by the phrase, “Thus says Yhwh.” All this is to say that the new covenant promises that get quoted in the NT are part of a highly structured section of Jeremiah. 

30:1-4Preamble: Promise of restoration to the land
30:5-11First Song: Israel’s distress; anticipation of the deliverance and service to Yhwh and the Messiah
30:12-17Second Song: Yhwh will heal Israel’s incurable wound
30:18-31:1Third Song: The restoration of Jerusalem under the Messiah; Israel will be God’s people, and He will be their God
31:2-6Fourth Song: Restoration of the remanent, restoration of the land, Yhwh’s reign from Zion
31:7-14Fifth Song: Call for rejoicing; announcing Israel’s restoration to the nations
31:15Sixth Song: Israel’s mourning
31:16-22Seventh Song: Yhwh will have compassion on Israel and restore her not only to the land but to Himself
31:23-26Epilogue: The blessing of restoration to the land
31:27-30First Promise: Yhwh will watch over Israel “to build and to plant”
31:31-34Second Promise: Yhwh will cut a new covenant with Israel and Judah in place of the Mosaic covenant; it will internalize the law and provide for regeneration and forgiveness
31:35-36First Guarantee: These promises are as sure as the fixed order of creation
31:37Second Guarantee: These promises as sure as the immensity of creation
31:38-40Third promise: Jerusalem will be rebuilt never to be destroyed again

Note: This structure and the wording “preamble,” “song,” “epilogue,” “promise,” and “guarantee” are taken from Andrew Shead, A Mouth Full of Fire: The Word of God in the Words of Jeremiah, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2012), 189. I depart from Shead in taking 31:15 as its own song rather than as the beginning of the final song and in dividing his single “guarantee” into two.

It is notable that the preamble (30:1-4) to this section focuses on restoration of Israel and Judah back to the land that Yhwh gave to their fathers. 

The theme of restoration from the land shows up in the first song, third song, fourth, fifth song, and seventh song. And it is the emphasis of the epilogue. The sixth song is a brief song of weeping to which the seventh is a response. The second song seems to be about spiritual renewal rather than physical renewal. The seventh song combines the two. 

The first promise uses the metaphor of seed to portray Israel and Judah growing up in the land. The third promise is about the rebuilding of Jerusalem. This has to be eschatological given that the valley of Hinnom is said to be sanctified and the city is said to never again be overthrown.

In the following section, Jeremaih 32:1-33:13 Jeremiah was told to buy a field while Jerusalem was under siege. Jeremiah recognized that it is because of Israel’s violation of the Mosaic covenant that Babylon will conquer Judah (32:23-24; cf. 32:29-35). But God reiterates the new covenant promise of the restoration of exiled Israel to the land—at which point they will fear God (32:36-44; 33:6-13). The transformation of heart indicates that this restoration is eschatological rather than merely post-exilic. In addition, the idea that Jeremiah would received the land purchased presupposes resurrection and also pushes to an eschatological fulfillment. 

 The emphasis on restoration to the land (along with the phrasing “house of Israel and house of Judah”) require that the new covenant promise in these chapters be focused on the nation of Israel specifically rather than the people of God most broadly. This is confirmed by the fact that the nations are mentioned in these chapters in distinction from Israel and Judah (30:11; 31:7, 10; 33:9). In addition we have the specific statement in 31:36 “If this fixed order departs from before me, declaration of Yhwh, then shall the seed of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever.”

None of this is to deny that the redeemed from the nations have also been made party to the new covenant. From the very beginning, God’s covenant’s with Israel have been for the sake of nations (Gen 12:3; 18:18; 22:18). Jeremiah himself anticipated Gentile inclusion in these blessings (Jer 3:17-18; 4:2; 12:14-17; 16:19; 46:26). In fact, some of these texts are land promises to the nations. See also Isa 19:25; 54-55 (esp. 54:2-3; 55:5 with attention to the covenantal context of these verses) and Zeph 3:9 with Isa 2:2-4; 11:10;  42:1, 4; 56:7; Eze 36:23, 36; 37:28; 39:7; Mic 4:1-3. All of these texts point to Gentile inclusion in the new covenant.

The New Testament is clear that the new covenant is now in force for both Jews and Gentiles. Jesus’s death, as memorialized in the Lord’s Supper, cut the new covenant (Matt. 26:28; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). Paul was a minister of the new covenant (2 Cor. 3:6). Hebrews 8 teaches that the new covenant has already replaced the Mosaic covenant. Romans 11:7 and Ephesians 2:11ff. reveal that Gentile branches were grafted in and that believing Jews and Gentiles have become one new man. 

These passages do not teach that ethnic distinctions have been done away. Nor do they cancel the specific land promises made to Israel as part of the promised new covenant. Passages like Hebrews 8 indicate that the new covenant promises regarding relationship with Yhwh are now being equally enjoyed by believing Jews and Gentiles as members of the new covenant together. But the new covenant promises regarding the restoration of Israel and Judah to the land are so pervasive and emphatic that they cannot be dismissed. In the structure of Jeremiah 30-33, the promises regarding relationship with Yhwh serve the land promises since it is only when the people know God and love his law that they can be sure to remain in the land. This is not to say that the land promises are more important than promises regarding relationship to Yhwh. Far from it. But, in the context of Jeremiah, they are intertwined. 

Does this mean, then, that there are new covenant land promises to which Gentiles are not party? In that the specific land of Israel is promised to a reunified Israel and Judah, yes. But as noted above, there are land promises to Gentiles in the new covenant as well. The new earth is the fulfillment of the land promises—not as an abstraction but with Israel and the nations all receiving lands.

Some might see the land element of the new covenant as the husk which falls away with the spiritual promises being the kernel. To be sure, the relationship between God and his people is central. But God has always intended for his people to be embodied and emplaced. Embodiment and emplacement are not a husk that can be discarded. That is a gnostic tendency, and Jeremiah 30-31 forecloses that way of thinking for the Christian. 

Baptist Covenant Theologies: An Analysis and Evaluation

by

I just posted on the Writings page a link to my Bible Faculty Summit paper: “Baptist Covenant Theologies: An Analysis and Evaluation.”

This paper analyzes and evaluates two Baptist versions of covenant theology as represented by Samuel Renihan’s The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom and Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum’s God’s Kingdom through God’s Covenants. Renihan’s book articulates a contemporary Baptist covenant theology informed by seventeenth-century Baptist covenant theologians and by twentieth century theologian Meredith Kline. This version of covenant theology often goes by the name 1689 Federalism. In 2012 Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary published Kingdom through Covenant to argue for Progressive Covenantalism as an alternative to covenant and dispensational theologies. The covenant theology they critiqued was specifically paedobaptist, and Progressive Covenantalism is a Baptist alternative. This naturally raises the question of the relation of 1689 Federalism and Progressive Covenantalism to one another as well as an evaluation of each.

Comparison between these two Baptist systems demonstrates that while sometimes contemporary theologians, thinking freshly over the Bible, truly advance our understanding of Scripture, at other times old, but forgotten and recovered, formulations provide the best understanding of Scripture. The wise theologian examines treasures new and old, examining them all against the touchstone of Scripture.

“The Covenant of Grace: A Critique of the Concept in Stephen Myers’s God to Us: Covenant Theology in Scripture.”

by

Stephen Myers has produced the best recent exegetical and theological argument for covenant theology, and this paper, published in the most recent issue of the Journal of Biblical Theology & Worldview critiques his argument for an overarching covenant of grace, of which the post-Fall biblical covenants are administrations.

Summary Charts from Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views

by

The conclusion to Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views includes several helpful tables which compare and contrast the four views on specific issues. I’ve added a column reflecting my own views on those topics. When possible I’ve used the wording from one or more of the preceding columns to indicate agreement. (Note: to see my column, you’ll probably need to scroll the chart; see the scroll bar at the bottom of each chart.)

Table C.1. Systems of Theology on Hermeneutics and the Structure of the Bible

 Covenant Theology (Horton)Progressive Covenantalism (Wellum)Progressive Dispensationalism (Bock)Traditional Dispensationalism (Snoeberger)Collins
Hermeneutical Framework and/or PrinciplesLaw/gospel contrast (wrath, curse, condemnation versus grace, blessing, promise); covenant of works and covenant of grace as the outworking of the covenant of redemption.God’s one plan is developed through the plurality of covenants (creation, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, new) across the storyline of Scripture; three horizons of Scripture are key: textual, epochal, and canonical.Emphasis on three key covenants of promise (Abrahamic, Davidic, and new); complementary hermeneutic (both/and reading) as the original meaning can be expanded as it is developed in the NT, but the original sense is not lost.Dispensations and arrangements with emphasis on the covenants to and for Israel (including the new covenant); originalist hermeneutic—strict intentionality with binding authority to the author’s intention, meaning and referents are fixed.God’s one plan is developed through the plurality of covenants (creation [law], Noahic [promise], Abrahamic [promise], Mosaic [law], Davidic [promise], new [promise]) across the storyline of Scripture; three horizons of Scripture are key: textual, epochal, and canonical. complementary hermeneutic (both/and reading) as the original meaning can be expanded as it is developed in the NT, but the original sense is not lost.
Hermeneutical PriorityNT, for it is the divinely inspired interpretation of the OT.NT, later texts in progressive revelation bring more clarity and understanding; yet, grammatical-historical-canonical method focuses on covenants in terms of what precedes and follows each one.Neither, a complementary hermeneutic allows each text in each testament to say what they say without nullifying what was originally communicated.OT, Christ and NT authors honor the OT and bring NT faith, practice, and mission in conformity to it.Neither, a complementary hermeneutic allows each text in each testament to say what they say without nullifying what was originally communicated. Later texts in progressive revelation bring more clarity and understanding; yet, grammatical-historical-canonical method focuses on covenants in terms of what precedes and follows each one.

Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, “Conclusion,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2022), 252, with Collins column added to reflect my own views.

Table C.2. Systems of Theology on the Covenants

 Covenant Theology (Horton)Progressive Covenantalism (Wellum)Progressive Dispensationalism (Bock)Traditional Dispensationalism (Snoeberger)Collins
Is there a Covenant in Gen 1‑3?Yes, the covenant of works with a commandment of life based on law (“Do this and you shall live; disobey and you will surely die”), made with Adam as the covenant head in a state of nature prior to grace.Covenant of creation—Adam is federal head, image, son, and in a Lord/vassal relationship; foundational for all future covenants as Adam’s role as priest-king and image-son is unpacked and the typological structures are tied to the creation covenant.No covenant but a mandate. Covenants are about restoration and the delivering work of God. The idea of creation covenant has no role in progressive dispensationalism.Not a formal covenant, but an Edenic “arrangement” with Adam and Eve involving civil and redemptive spheres.Yes, the covenant of creation, a covenant or works (“Do this and you shall live; Disobey and you will surely die”), made with Adam as the covenant head, image, son, and in a Lord/vassal relationship; Foundational for all future covenants.
Categorization of the CovenantsConditional (suzerain vassal or bilateral) and unconditional (promissory) covenants.All covenants have both unilateral and bilateral aspects (conditional and unconditional elements) even as an accent may be on the bilateral or unilateral aspects (e.g. the Mosaic covenant is predominantly bilateral, but God unilaterally keeps his promises).There are covenants of promise (Abrahamic, Davidic, new covenants), and covenants that are other: Mosaic covenant is promise and law; Noahic covenant is not promissory but features God’s commitment to preserve the creation.Covenants are unilateral or promissory or royal grant (Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic) or bilateral, suzerain vassal (Mosaic and new covenants). Note: God’s expectations are communicated through “arrangements” that may or may not be governed by covenants.Conditional/bilateral (Adamic, Mosaic) and unconditional, unilateral, promissory (Noahic, Abraham, Davidic, New); all post-fall covenants are graciously established, and even the unconditional covenants come with expectations for obedience.
Covenants Already Fulfilled in ChristAllAll covenants (even as creation and Noahic structures continue in this age) are fulfilled in Christ and the new covenant.Covenants of promise (Abrahamic, Davidic, new) have initial realization in Christ. The Mosaic covenant has been completely fulfilled through the work of Christ and the indwelling Spirit.Abrahamic covenant could be considered “partially” fulfilled but generally is not. Mosaic covenant is fully fulfilled in Christ. The church has no legal relationship to the new covenant and it will be fulfilled to national Israel in the future.The Mosaic covenant has been completely fulfilled through the work of Christ. The covenants of promise (Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, and new) have initial realization in Christ and the new covenant.
Covenants to Be FulfilledNoneNoneThe covenant promises to Israel remain (especially the Abrahamic covenant) and will be realized in the future.The Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new covenants are distinctly Israelite and the terms must be fulfilled by ethnic Israel. Fulfillment (except the Mosaic covenant) will occur in the future along with the eternal benefits to national Israel.All covenants are fulfilled or have begun to be fulfilled, but the Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants all have promises that await the second advent for their ultimate fulfillment.

Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, “Conclusion,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2022), 253–254, with Collins column added to reflect my own views.

Table C.3. Systems of Theology on Various Ecclesiological/Eschatological Issues

 Covenant Theology (Horton)Progressive Covenantalism (Wellum)Progressive Dispensationalism (Bock)Traditional Dispensationalism (Snoeberger)Collins
Israel/Church RelationshipThe church is the Israel of God (Gal 6:16), the descendants of Abraham are those who believe and so the true Israel are the people of Christ. Israel is not superseded as Rom 9–11 holds out hope of a future salvation of Jews. It is the nation of Israel that is a parenthesis; the church from Eden onward are those in the body whose head is Christ.The church is part of the one people of God and yet is covenantally new. The church is God’s new creation and remains forever, consisting of Jews and Gentiles together. The church receives all of God’s promises through Jesus Christ. Rom 9–11 could speak of a mass gathering of Jews into the church at the return of Christ.There is unity as Jews and Gentiles are made one and are saved in Christ, but the expansion of the Abrahamic promises does not lose what was originally promised for the people of Israel. Israel is not transformed into another entity even if nations are added to the people of God. There is one people of God, unity in salvation, but diversity in reconciliation as Israel will be among the nations.The church is an intercalation parenthetical to God’s covenants with Israel. Israel and the church remain distinct forever.Israel is a nation, and (along with the Gentile nations) will persist for all eternity. The church is a multinational institution comprised of people from every nation. There is one people of God, unity in salvation, but diversity in reconciliation as Israel will be among the nations.
Future Restoration for National Israel?No, for example James’s citation of Amos 9:15 in Acts 15:13–21 shows that the promise of restoration is fulfilled in Christ. The people of God are redefined around Jesus. The Mosaic/Sinai covenant is made obsolete and there is no revival or renewal of it. Jesus is the fulfillment of the temple and the sacrificial system and nothing is then left for Israel as a nation now or in the future.No, Christ fulfills the OT covenants as all the promises, instruction, and typological patterns culminate in him. Further, Israel’s restoration begins at Pentecost, and the OT restoration promises for Israel are applied to the church through ChristYes, the national hope of Israel remains and will occur in the future and through the new heavens and earth. The role of national, territorial Israel is promised and is complementary to the blessing extended to all who believe in Christ. National Israel will live in shalom with the nations in the new creation.Yes, after the church age (when all the Gentiles enter), God returns his attention to Israel with Christ returning after the tribulation and thus fulfilling the Abrahamic and new covenants with the mass conversion of every Israelite. Israel will remain distinct from the nations in the eternal state.Yes, the national hope of Israel remains and will occur in the future and through the new heavens and earth. The role of national, territorial Israel is promised and is complementary to the blessing extended to all who believe in Christ. National Israel will live in shalom with the nations in the new creation.
Israel and the Promised LandNo, the promise was fulfilled when God brought Israel in the land. The Mosaic/Sinai covenant took over for the nation of Israel to remain in the land. Israel and the land point and lead to God’s worldwide family inheriting the whole earth through Christ.No, in the context of Genesis, the land points back to creation and an expansion beyond the Promised Land to include the whole earth. The land is typological and is fulfilled in Christ already in his inauguration of the new creation and finally in the consummated new heavens and earth.Yes, even if the NT adds or augments the original promise of land, the language of the original OT text stands.Yes, the Abrahamic covenant is left unfulfilled unless Abraham’s physical descendants (national Israel) occupy the Promised Land forever.Yes, for even though the Promised Land conquered by Israel under the Mosaic covenant was typological of the new creation, and even though the land promise is extended to the Gentiles and finally consummated in the new earth, Israel will receive the land God promised her.
Circumcision and BaptismPaedobaptism—the Abrahamic covenant continues with respect to the promises of worldwide family and inheritance in Christ. Circumcision was a sign and seal of Abraham’s faith and baptism welcomes recipients into the covenant of grace. The covenant promises are to believers and their children as the household texts in the NT indicate. The warning passages of Hebrews show that members of the visible church can turn away.Credobaptism—the arrival of Christ and the new covenant brings changes to the structure and nature of the people of God such that all in the new covenant community receive the Spirit and forgiveness of sin, and all know God savingly unlike OT Israel. The church by nature consists of those circumcised in heart and in faith union with Christ.Baptism is distinct from the practice of circumcision and represents Spirit baptism, evidencing a new era and new dispensation. Baptism depicts union with Christ and the new life of the Spirit indwelling believers, pointing to circumcision of the heart.Baptism is restricted in the NT to the regenerate (believers only).Credobaptism—the arrival of Christ and the new covenant brings changes to the structure and nature of the people of God such that all in the new covenant community receive the Spirit and forgiveness of sin, and all know God savingly unlike OT Israel. The church by nature consists of those circumcised in heart and in faith union with Christ.

Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, “Conclusion,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2022), 255–256, with Collins column added to reflect my own views.

Stephen Wellum, “Progressive Covenantalism,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views—Agreements and Disagreements

by

Stephen Wellum’s essay is perhaps the best written in the book. Wellum’s essay is well-organized and generally clear in its argumentation. On many points I have long held the positions Wellum is arguing for, on some points I have learned from him, and on other points I think he needs to make some refinements, which is to be expected in a relatively new theological system.

 I agree with Wellum on a number of points.

1. I agree that the divine origin of Scripture results in “an overall unity and coherence,” and that this coherence includes an unfolding plan of God through a series of covenants (77) rather than making the individual covenants administrations of a covenant of grace (204-5).

2. I agree that since God used humans to write his Word, grammatical historical exegesis within the context of the entire canon is the proper way to read Scripture. (77).

3. I agree that “the NT’s interpretation of the OT is definitive, since later texts bring greater clarity and understanding” and I further agree that “later texts do not contravene the meaning of the earlier texts” (77-78).

4. I agree with the affirmation of progressive revelation, and I agree with the centrality of Christ in the fulfillment of that revelation (78).

5. I agree with the three horizons of interpretation that Wellum lays out: textual, epochal, and canonical (79).

6. I agree that “God’s one eternal plan is unveiled through a plurality of covenants,” that covenant theology flattens this diversity of covenants by making them administrations of the covenant of grace (81).

7. I agree that the creational covenant is foundational to God’s covenant plan, that the Noahic covenant is a commitment to God’s original intentions of creation and looks ahead to the new creation. I agree that the Abrahamic covenant is “the means by which God will fulfill his promises for humanity, especially in light of Genesis 3:15″ and that it unfolds first through Israel and then the promises are expanded to include all the redeemed and the whole world. I agree that the Mosaic covenant was “temporary in God’s plan, and thus when Christ comes, it is fulfilled as an entire covenant package, and Christians are no longer under it as a covenant (Gal 3:15–4:7).” I agree that the Davidic covenant draws together all the previous covenants and indicates that they will be fulfilled by a Davidic king. And I agree that the new covenant is new because is made with individual believers and that every member of the new covenant is regenerate (91-98).

8. I agree that Jesus as “David’s greater Son, who inaugurates God’s kingdom” is “now seated as the Davidic king” fulfilling all the covenants and “leading history to its consummation at his return.” I agree that Jesus is “the true Israel,” “Abraham’s true seed,” “the last Adam, “the promised Messiah who receives the Spirit in full measure … and who pours out the Spirit on his people.” In other words, I agree that Jesus is the one who fulfills the preceding covenants (99-100).

9. I agree that “in Christ and the church, all of God’s promises are now being fulfilled” (109). (Redeemed Israel is now part of the church.)

10. I agree that “there is only one elect people of God throughout time who are saved by grace through faith in God’s promises grounded in Christ alone,” that the church is God’s new covenant people, that the church is “God’s new temple,” that the church is “God’s new creation/humanity that remains forever, comprising believing Jews and Gentiles, who equally and fully receive all of God’s promises in Christ” (106-8).

11. I agree that covenant theology “does not sufficiently account for the relationship of Christ—the head of the new covenant—to his people,” and I agree that “now that Christ has come, one is either in the new covenant or not, and to be in the new covenant entails that one now knows God, is forgiven of his sins, and is circumcised in heart” (104-5).

12. I agree with Wellum that Horton wrongly identifies the field with the church rather than the world in his interpretation of the wheat and the tares. I further agree that with Wellum that Tom Schreiner’s approach to the warning passages in Hebrews is superior to Horton’s. Thus I agree with Wellum that the new covenant is not a mixed covenant containing regenerate and unregenerate people (209).

13. I agree with Wellum (contra Snoeberger) that the Noahic covenant is part of God’s plan of redemption (211).

14. I agree with Wellum (contra Snoeberger) that the church has been brought into the covenant promises made with Israel (211-12).

15. I agree with Wellum that it is a weakness of many dispensationalists to begin the “covenantal storyline” with the Abrahamic covenant rather than with the creation covenant (213).

I largely agree with Wellum on a number of points, but I also think these points need further refinement.

1. I agree that typology is rooted in history and text. I agree that types are intended by God and  are thus a kind of prophecy. I agree that types may not be discerned without the later unfolding of revelation. I agree that types are discerned through repetition that creates a pattern. I agree that types often reach their fulfillment first in Christ and then in his people (83). But I don’t think that this is always the case. For instance, the conquest of Canaan is part of a series of day of the Lord judgments that begin in Genesis 3:8 and reoccur in history (including in AD 70, shortly after the earthly ministry of Jesus) and reached final fulfillment in the Parousia of Christ. Christ is clearly involved in that he is bringing about the judgment, but the type is more focused on the judgment that unbelievers will receive.

2. I agree that Noah, Abraham, Israel, and David all prefigure Christ. However, I don’t think it is wise to identify them as “Adams” (83-84). Adam and Christ are unique heads of humanity. As covenant head of the creation covenant, all who are in Adam fell when he fell. As covenant head of the new covenant, all who are in Christ died and rose with Christ. But Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David do not play the same role in the covenants made with them. It is for this reason that Adam is termed “the first man” and Jesus “the second man” (1 Cor. 15:47).

3. I agree that there is a son of God typology that runs from Adam through Israel to Christ and from him into the church. I agree that Jews and Gentiles in the church are (in Christ) Abraham’s seed (84). But I disagree that this means that Israel as God’s firstborn son “takes on Adam’s role” since Israel is not a federal head for all mankind.

4. I agree that Christ can be called the true Israel in the sense that he, as the Davidic king, is the representative Israelite. I further agree that in Christ, the seed of Abraham, Gentile Christians can be identified as the seed of Abraham. I disagree with the claim that Galatians 6:16 identifies the church as the Israel of God (84). This position contradicts the main thrust of Paul’s argument in Galatians, and thus cannot be correct (the Judaizers were the ones who held that Gentiles needed to become Israelites and Paul argued that Jews and Gentiles distinctly were one in Christ). Grammatically the best translation is “May peace come to all those who follow this standard, and mercy [also] to the Israel of God!” (CSB, alt.), and contextually and intertextually, the best understanding is that “all those who follow this standard” are Jews and Gentiles in Christ and that the “Israel of God” refers to elect Jews who will come to salvation due to God’s mercy. See further argumentation here.

5. I agree that Israel has a typological function in relation to the church (84), but Wellum’s typology is too abstract in that it doesn’t properly take time into account. It is not Israel per se that is a type of the church; it is Israel under the Mosaic covenant that is the type of the church. This distinction is necessary since Jews with Gentiles are part of the one new man that makes up the church. Thus, the new covenant promise is not applied to the church because the church is now identified as “the house of Israel/Judah” (84) but because promises originally given to Israel in the covenants of promise have now been extended to Gentiles as well as Jews since Christ has formed Jew and Gentile together into one new man (Eph. 2:11-16).

6. I agree that types often move in a lesser to greater pattern and that escalation typically occurs with Christ at his first coming (84), but I’m not sure that these features are universal. For instance, Mitchell notes with regard to marriage typology, “However, the NT fulfillment of the OT nuptial theme may be more preliminary and provisional than the NT fulfillment of many other OT themes because of the eschatological shift: the OT pictures God’s people as his wedded wife, while the NT portrays the church as the betrothed bride, awaiting the future consummation” (The Song of Songs, CC, 71). Similarly, while AD 70 was a day of the Lord connected with Christ’s first coming, the real escalation of the day of the Lord typology occurs with the second coming.

7. I agree that typology often “develops through covenantal progression” (85). However, I’m not sure this is always the case. The day of the Lord comes to mind as a counter example.

8. I agree that “the new covenant is the fulfillment and telos of the biblical covenants,” and I agree, with one caveat, with the statement, “Yet now that Christ has come, Christians are no longer under the previous covenants as covenants (other than the creation and Noahic until the consummation)” (86-87). The one correction that I’d make is that we are no longer under the creation covenant. Adam broke the creation covenant. It is for this reason that several of its provisions are restated as part of the Noahic covenant, adjusted to the context of the Fall.

9. I agree that “Scripture begins with the declaration that God, as Creator and triune Lord, is the king of the universe (Gen 1–2; Ps 103:19; Dan 4:34–35; Acts 17:24–25),” that “sin is essentially rebellion against the king,” and that God’s kingdom is restored through the covenants (88). However, Wellum leaves out the important fact that the kingdom theme in Genesis 1 is rooted not only in the Lord’s role as king of the universe but also in the role humans have as vice-regents under God. Redemption involves not merely subduing the rebellion of humans against God, the King but also involves the restoration of humans to the role of obedient vice regents over all creation.

10. I agree with Wellum that a creation covenant exists in Genesis 1-2 despite the absence of the word, that Hosea 6:7 refers back to the creation covenant, that all the covenantal elements are present in Genesis 1-2, and that Romans 5:12-21 requires a creation covenant since Adam is there portrayed as a covenant head” (89-90). However, I do not think that the use of qum in Genesis 6:18; 9:9, 11, 17 “implies a pre-existing covenant.” While the language of cutting a covenant only refers to the initial establishment of a covenant, qum in connection with covenants is used in various ways, including the initial establishment of covenants. In any event the Noahic covenant cannot be the continuation of the creation covenant because the creation covenant is a works covenant and the Noahic covenant is a grace covenant. The two covenants are a different nature and thus the one cannot be the continuation of the other (see disagreement 1 below).

11. I agree that the creational covenant is foundational with subsequent covenants. I further agree that the temple and priest typology has roots in Eden (90). However, I do not think that Eden was a temple or that Adam was a priest in Eden. There is no need for a temple when God is present or a priest when access to God is unmediated.

12. Wellum objects to certain dispensationalists who claim that the spiritual blessings of the new covenant are being fulfilled already while the physical blessings remain to be fulfilled in the future is attractive on one level. Who would not want to affirm that “all new covenant realities are now here in Christ and applied to the church in principle” (104). I agree that in Christ’s resurrection we see an initial realization of the new creation and that Christians themselves are identified in Scripture as new creations. And yet, Christians are new creations in their inner man and are still awaiting the resurrection body. The renovation of the earth is something creation still groans for. I think that dispensationalists do affirm what Wellum wants affirmed: that in Christ’s resurrection and in regenerated Christians the new creation is inaugurated; I’m sure Wellum himself believes that the resurrection of the body and the renovation of creation awaits the Parousia.

13. With Wellum, I “agree that the Scripture’s central plot is ‘not the nation of Israel, but the seed of Abraham together with his spiritual family from Israel and all nations,'” and, with Wellum, I “deny that the church is a parentheses in God’s plan.” With Wellum, I “deny that the NT changes the meaning of the OT.” I further agree that “in Christ, God’s revelation is now complete; we now know what the OT was predicting” (202). However, I favor a complementary hermeneutic because I think a complementary hermeneutic best allows for the text in both testaments to be understood according to authorial intent of both the human authors and the divine Author.

14. Contrary to Wellum’s understanding, not all progressive dispensationalists believe in a restoration of the sacrificial system (and it was not clear to me from Bock’s article that he believed in it). Most or all do believe that Antichrist will set himself up in a future temple, but that does not impact the development of the temple in the storyline of Scripture. I agree with Wellum’s development of the sacrifice and temple themes in Scripture.

I disagree with Wellum on a few points:

1. Wellum distinguishes between “creation realities such as male-female that do continue forever” and “nation-states that are more tied to the fall and Babel but now reversed at Pentecost and in the church” (219).

1.a. This is a significant error on Wellum’s part that colors his whole analysis. In fact, nations are creational realities just as the male-female distinction is a creational reality. For an understanding of creation as encompassing structures such as marriage, government, nations, and more, see Wolters, Creation Regained.

1.b. Nation-states are not tied to the fall and Babel in contrast to creation realities such as male-female distinctions. Nations are part of the created order. Psalm 86:9 and Acts 17:26 identify nations as created by God. Christopher J. H. Wright observes, “The nations of humanity preoccupy the biblical narrative from beginning to end. . . . The obvious reason for this is that the Bible is, of course, preoccupied with the relationship between God and humanity, and humanity exists in nations” (The Mission of God, 454). Daniel Strange argues the structure of Genesis 10-11 supports the claim that the diversity of nations is part of the creation order: by placing the Babel event after the Table of Nations, Genesis avoids the idea that the division into nations is itself a curse and confirms that the “scattering” was not merely a judgment but an enforced fulfillment of God’s command to fill the earth (Their Rock Is Not Like Our Rock, 124).

1.c. As part of the created order, nations will exist for all eternity (Rev. 21:24-26).

1.d. Nationhood is not reversed at Pentecost or done away with by the church. Rather, Pentecost revealed that the church is a multiethnic body.

1.e. Since nationhood is a significant theological theme within the storyline of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, Progressive Covenantalism will remain a defective system until it incorporates this theme into its system.

2. I disagree with Wellum’s claim that covenants cannot be categorized as unconditional/unilateral or conditional/bilateral. Wellum argues that all covenants are unilateral in that God always keeps his promises and that all covenants are bilateral in that God demands obedience from his covenant partners. Thus, God provides Christ as “an obedient covenant partner” so that the promises can be fulfilled (85-86; 207).

2.a. I agree that all the covenants are initiated by God and are in that sense gracious. I further agree that all the covenants have expectations for obedience.

2.b. The terms conditional and unconditional relate not to the selection of the covenant partner or to the presence of stipulations. Rather, conditional and unconditional identify whether the fulfillment of the covenant depends upon the promises of God alone or upon the obedience to the covenant stipulations.

2.c. There are obligations in the Noahic covenant: to live out the creation blessing, to exercise capital punishment when necessary. But humans have regularly violated these obligations since the time of Noah. Nonetheless, God has not sent worldwide floods because the fulfillment of the covenant depends not on obedience to the obligations but to God’s unilateral promise.

2.d. By contrast, the nation of Israel came under the curses of the Mosaic covenant because that covenant promised blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. Wellum has made all the covenants conditional covenants and then claims that Christ will fulfill the conditions. But this reading does not survive a close study of the covenants themselves.

2.e. Wellum points out that Genesis 15 indicates “God’s unilateral commitment to keep his own promises” but that Genesis 17:9-14; 22:16-18 present “bilateral emphasis of the covenant” (207). But Genesis 15 is the cutting of a unilateral covenant. Genesis 17 presents us with expectations which are the means for bringing the covenant to fruition, and Genesis 22 is a test of Abraham’s faith. These covenant expectations cannot change a unilateral covenant into a bilateral covenant. This is fundamental to Paul’s argument in Romans 4:9-12.

2.f. I agree with Horton against Wellum that Galatians 4:21-26 “distinguish covenants of promise (e.g., Abrahamic) from covenants of law (e.g., Sinai).” Wellum objects, “it is questionable whether Paul is using this distinction as the means to distinguish all the covenants” (208). But this objection is beside the point. Though Paul does not have all covenants in view, he does clearly communicate that the Abrahamic covenant is unilateral in nature and the Mosaic covenant bilateral. 

3. I disagree that Genesis 3:15 is part of the creation covenant (90-91). The creation covenant was broken by Adam’s Fall, and Genesis 3:16-19 recounts the cursing of the blessings of the creation covenant. Genesis 3:15 is a judgment on the serpent that involves a promise of redemption. It is not itself a covenant or part of a covenant. The following covenants are the means for fulfilling this promise.

4. I agree with Wellum’s overall hermeneutical approach (see points 1-5 under agreement above). However, despite his professed intention to not change the meaning of the OT, I think there are reasons that Bock and Snoeberger argue that Wellum is changing the meaning of the OT.

4.a. I’ll use the land promise as an illustration of how I think Wellum’s hermeneutic works: In Genesis 15, 17, and 22 God makes promises to Abraham’s seed. Wellum understands that seed as not being fully defined in the OT, and he understands the NT to define the seed of Abraham as Christ and the church in Christ. Thus, when Wellum reads Genesis 15, 17, and 22 he reads Abraham’s seed as referring to Christ and the church in him. Wellum does not think he is changing the meaning of the Genesis 15, 17, and 22 in doing this any more than reading the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15 as Christ changes the meaning of that OT text.

4.b. But the seed of Abraham is not undefined in the way that the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15 was. Genesis 22, for instance, distinguishes between the physical seed of Abraham (plural), the seed of Abraham (singular), and the Gentiles (whom Paul will later identify with the seed of Abraham in Christ). All three seeds of Abraham sit adjacent to one another in passages like Genesis 22, and it does change the meaning of the OT texts in a way that the NT does not require to read the seed of Abraham language in the OT as referring only to Christ and the church.

4.c. Thus, despite his intent to the contrary, Wellum does at times change the meaning of OT passages.

5. I disagree with the claim that the church is “the true, eschatological Israel who receives all of the promises, including the inheritance of the land fulfilled in the new creation (103).

5.a. I affirm that the church is the antitype (through Christ) of Old Testament Israel. I deny that this means that the church is eschatological Israel because the NT continues to speak of redeemed ethnic Israel as a part of the church in both Ephesians 2 and Romans 11.

5.b. I affirm that all the covenant promises made to Israel in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are expanded to encompass the entire church. (I agree with Wellum that the Mosaic covenant was a temporary covenant that is no longer in force; in addition, Ephesians 2 specifies the covenants of promise as the ones that the church is brought into.) I deny that the expansion of the covenant promises to the entire church means that specific promises to redeemed ethnic Israel are not fulfilled in the specificity with which they were given (e.g., land promises with specific boundaries).

5.c. Wellum objects that granting Israel the specific land promised to it gives Israel promises “distinct” from Gentiles in the church. This objection misunderstands the nature of land promises; it abstracts the land promises so that they only speak of the entire new creation. But in the nature of the case the land Israel receives will be distinct from the land other ethnic groups receive just as the land that Michael, Stephen, Darrell, and Mark receive in the new creation will be distinct from one another. A certain kind of distinctness is necessary if the land promise is not to become a mere abstraction. On the other hand, what Israel receives is not distinct from what Gentiles in the new creation receive: land in the new creation.

5.d. While I agree with the concern to uphold the unity of the people of God, I’m not sure that “nations receiving slightly different … privileges” is necessarily a problem since I think it is possible that individuals will receive slightly different privileges in eternity (e.g., the parable of the servant who received ten cities). At the very least it seems difficult to avoid the fact that Christ is an Israelite and that he rules over the world as a Davidic king. I wouldn’t want to minimize Jesus’s ethnicity any more than I would want to minimize his humanity.

6. I disagree with Wellum’s reading of Acts 1:6, in which he says that the kingdom is being restored to Israel (understood as the church) through the spread of the gospel and the growth of the church. Wellum is here concerned that all the promises of God be expanded to include Jew and Gentile in the church (108). But Wellum is here reading the promises too narrowly. Jew and Gentile in the church alike receive the land promise. But only Israel can receive the land promise as a restoration. A restoration of the kingdom does not make sense for Gentiles since in the OT era they were strangers to God’s kingdom. The better way to understand the disciples’ question is to recognize that the OT connected the giving of the Spirit with restoration to the land and the reestablishment of the Davidic monarch (cf. Eze 36-37). So their question is based in the text of the OT. Jesus’s answer does not give the timing but instead points out what must happen before the kingdom is restored to Israel. Romans 11:25 (“I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in”).

7. I disagree with the idea that the restoration of Israel to the land is only a dispensational idea (110). This view was held by many Puritans, by Jonathan Edwards, and by David Brown of “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown” fame. I fear that the eschatological restoration of Israel to the land is often rejected today in reaction to dispensationalism without the realization that this has been a historic position on non-dispensationalists as well.

Michael Horton, “Covenant Theology” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views—Agreements and Disagreements

by

I have read all of Michael Horton’s significant writings on covenant theology, and, other than 1689 Reformed Baptist covenant theology, Horton’s version of covenant theology is my preferred version. That said, this essay was not Horton’s best contribution. It was too tradition-focused and more attuned to intra-covenant theology debates when this book called for more Scripture-based argumentation designed to persuade those holding alternative positions. Further, the structure of the essay led to some repetition. A more persuasive essay would have sought to make a clear exegetical case for the three covenants of covenant theology.

I agree with Horton on a number of points.

1. I agree with his claim of a pretemporal covenant of redemption that is worked out in the historical, biblical covenants (41, 52).

2. I agree that the biblical covenants can be classified as law covenants and promise or grace covenants (40). I further agree that that this distinction is not denying that all the post-Fall covenants are established by God’s grace (44). I further agree that both law and grace covenants are contributing to God’s gracious plan of redemption (52). I would add that this distinction is also not denying the existence of promises in law or works covenants or the existence of commands in promise covenants (57). Finally, I agree that the difference between a law/works covenant and a promise covenant whether the “basis” for the realization of the covenant’s blessings is unilateral on God’s part or requires obedience on the human participant’s part (57).

3. I agree that the creation covenant is a covenant of works (43, 46).

4. I agree that the Sinai covenant is a works covenant, but I think its promises pertain not only to temporal blessings (Horton’s view) but also to eternal life (53-54, 68).

5. I agree that the Abrahamic covenant is a promise covenant and that God has unilaterally promised to uphold its provisions (55). The requirements of the Abrahamic covenant will be fulfilled as the fruit of faith and not as conditions for the promises being fulfilled (57).

6. I agree that the new covenant is a grace covenant distinct in type from the Sinai covenant, which is a law covenant (58).

7. I agree with his critique of the traditional dispensational tendency to operate with such a rigid hermeneutic that they engage in question-begging exegesis of the NT, I agree with his critique of the traditional dispensationalist interpretation of Acts 15, and I agree with his critique that the resort to analogy and implication fails to interpret the NT use of the OT accurately (184, 185). (One might say that traditionalist dispensationalists fail to interpret the NT literally.) On the other hand, Horton does not seem to appreciate that Amos 9 also has elements that were not fulfilled in the first century.

8. I agree, against those traditional dispensationalists who deny the church membership in the new covenant, that Ephesians 2 teaches that the Gentiles now partake of the covenants of promise since Christ created one new man through his blood (188).

9. I agree, against Bock, that there is a covenant of creation. Horton rightly points out that Bock misunderstands what elements need to be present for there to be a covenant (189).

10. I agree, against Wellum, that the creation covenant is a works covenant. Horton is correct to note that “the question is not whether covenants contain both promises and obligations” but whether the covenant is a “do this and live kind of covenant” or a covenant in which God unilaterally promises certain benefits. I further agree with Horton that the protoevangelium and the Noahic covenant are not continuations of the creation covenant (196-97).

11. I agree with Horton, against Wellum, that there are only two Adams: Adam and Christ (197).

I also disagree with Horton on a number of points:

1. I disagree that the post-fall biblical covenants are administrations of an over-arching covenant of grace. The fact that Sinai was made post-Fall, serves to advance God’s plan of redemption, and contains promises of a new covenant and coming redemption (45) does not make it a covenant of grace. A covenant may be graciously given, as the Sinai covenant was, but if its principle is “do this and live,” it is not a covenant of grace even though it furthers the plan of redemption. The designations works covenant or grace covenant refer to whether or not the fulfillment of the promises rest entirely on God’s oath or whether they rest on human performance. In Sinai, they rest on human performance—even as the Sinai covenant points Israel ahead to the new covenant as their only hope for salvation both through the imagery of the sacrificial system and through the explicit teaching of Deuteronomy 30.

2. I disagree that the land promises were fulfilled with the conquest of Canaan (60, 190-91). This is to not read carefully the promises themselves as stated in Genesis, the book of Joshua’s acknowledgment of more land to be conquered, the prophets’ predictions of restoration to the land on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant, and Jesus’s statement that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob need to be resurrected so they can experience the promised covenant blessings.

3. I disagree that that the Abrahamic covenant is still in force and that circumcision, transposed to baptism, is thus required of all covenant children (61).

4. I disagree that the new covenant is a mixed covenant, including those who are internally part of the covenant and those who are externally part of the covenant (64). This is the very point of contrast between the old and new covenants that Jeremiah identifies as distinguishing them.  I further disagree that the church ought to include both wheat and tares until the eschaton (65). The field is the world, not the church. I further disagree that the warning passages in Hebrews demonstrate a mixed covenant (198-99). Hebrews 6 is certainly speaking of professing Christians who denied the faith. But this does not demonstrate that the apostates were members of the covenant of grace. Saying so proves too much. If Horton’s view is correct, a covenant child who rejected the faith could never be restored to repentance again.

5. Horton sometimes speaks as though an inaugurated fulfillment in the first century is the complete fulfillment of prophecies. Horton also seems to think that the establishment of an earthly kingdom requires the revival of the Sinai covenant (68-69). But this is not the case. The prophecies of new covenant include the earthly, political reign of the Messiah and the return of Israel to the land.

6. Horton seems to think that sacrifices, temple, and the national of Israel are all types that have been fulfilled in Christ (69).  Horton is confusing two distinct things here. The temple and the sacrifices (as Hebrews plainly indicates) are types that are superseded by Christ. But Israel is not a type as such. Israel in the time of the Old Covenant is a type of the church just as David, as king, was a type of Christ. But David will be resurrected and will live in eternity, and Israel will be resurrected (Eze. 37) and be restored as a nation in all eternity.

7. I disagree that Charles Hill demonstrated amillennialism to be the dominant eschatological position in the early church (189). (See further here.)

Samuel Renihan, The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom—1. Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology in Covenant Theology

by

This book is designed to be an accessible introduction the covenant theology that stands in the heritage of seventeenth-century Baptist covenant theologians. Renihan introduces the book by laying four foundations for Baptist covenant theology. First, he claims that covenant theology covers all of Scripture and yet must avoid “facile reductions or generalizations” (13). Instead, it “must be built on supporting premises, and the supporting premises must be studied as completely and thoroughly as possible” (13).

Second, Renihan distinguishes between creation and covenant and between natural law and positive law. God is not naturally obligated to give man any reward for obedience. That arrangement is not natural but covenantal. Likewise, covenants go beyond natural law, which is “the universal moral law of God” (15) and introduces positive law, “indifferent things prescribed or proscribed for a particular period, place, and people” (15). Thus, an interpreter cannot infer from the presence of a particular feature in one covenant that such features must be present in all covenants. Different covenants can have different positive laws.

Third, Renihan distinguishes between two ways of thinking about law and gospel. Law and gospel can be thought of as “two opposite paths of righteousness” (20). They can also be thought of as “two historical time periods, the Old and New Testaments” (20). It is important to note that law and gospel in the first sense are present in both these periods. This accounts for covenant continuity. But the historical sense should prevent covenant theologians from identifying “the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants with the new covenant, or covenant of grace” (22).

Fourth, the Pauline concept of mystery indicates that there was partial revelation that awaited fuller explication in the New Testament. Thus, “a covenant theology’s treatment of the Old Testament must preserve the presence of Christ as a mystery. And one’s covenantal system must not so flatten out the progress of redemptive history that it effectively, even if unintentionally, unveils the mystery before its actual unveiling” (24).

Belcher, Fulfillment of the Promises of God—8. The New Covenant

by

Belcher turns to the new covenant in chapter 8. His treatment focuses almost exclusively on Jeremiah 31, though he notes that Ezekiel 36-37 is also a key passage. Belcher does an excellent job setting Jeremiah 31:31-34 within the context of Jeremiah 30-33. Interestingly, he observes that the land promise is a major theme throughout this section. He argues that this theme is fulfilled as the gospel goes out into all the world and will be fulfilled when Christ’s people inherit the earth.

Belcher identifies four new covenant promises:

(1) ‘I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts’
(2) ‘I will be their God and they shall be my people’
(3) ‘they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest’
(4) ‘I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more’ (132).

Belcher notes that the Mosaic covenant had the same goals. However, it could not achieve them because the transformation of heart was not a provision of the Mosaic covenant since the Mosaic covenant was shadowy and Christ had not yet come.

Belcher also qualifies the current fulfillment of the new covenant promises, noting that they are at present “provisional.” He argues that the promised inner transformation is still incomplete. Furthermore, not everyone in the covenant now knows the Lord, as promised on the new covenant. Belcher acknowledges that this is a point of debate with Baptists, who hold that only those who know the Lord are part of the new covenant. Belcher demurs, claiming that the threat on Romans 11 that Gentile branches may be removed from the tree, the reality of apostasy (1 John 5:19), the warnings found in Hebrews, and the fact of church discipline all testify that some people who were externally part of the new covenant were not internally members of it.

In general, this is a helpful chapter. Belcher is correct about the need for the new covenant to replace the old. He is correct that the land promise is a major theme in the new covenant passages. I don’t think, however, that the spread of the gospel around the world is a fulfillment of those passages. More significantly, the Baptists are correct that everyone in the new covenant knows the Lord. This is a point of distinction that makes the new covenant better than the old covenant. To assert that this feature is absent at present is, in effect, to deny the inauguration of the new covenant. It is true that the NT warns against apostasy and that church discipline is a necessity in the present age, but this does not falsify the reality that all in the new covenant know the Lord. It simply indicates that fallible humans cannot see the heart. In fact, church discipline testifies to the importance of regenerate church membership. That is, a membership that attempts to restrict church membership to those who are part of the new covenant.