Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:04]
A
Hello, and welcome to Doctrine Matters, a weekly podcast exploring the rich theology of the Christian faith. Each week we want to take hold of one aspect of our faith and try to understand theological concepts that sometimes have been debated, controversial, or maybe just hard to understand. And hopefully we can look at them in a way that is clear, concise, and accessible. The goal is that believers would be encouraged and edified and that God would be glorified so we can love him more, know him more, enjoy him forever. I'm Kevin DeYoung, your host and teacher, and this is Doctrine Matters. We come now to a different topic in systematic theology, and that is the topic of covenant theology, how God relates to his creatures. This isn't always a separate section. It can be included in anthropology as it talks about the doctrine of man. It can be included in Soteriology because it details and outlines God's way of saving us. But here I'm giving it a separate section that we'll look at for a few weeks. And covenant theology in particular is central to Reformed theology. There are Reformed, Baptists and other groups. Everyone can recognize that covenant is a big idea in the Bible, and it shows up in a lot of different places, lots of different covenants. In particular with Reformed theology, this idea of the covenant tends to be central. Many of us, even without realizing it, have the word covenant all throughout our sort of spiritual memory. For example, Jesus says, this is my body, and then he takes the cup, and when he'd given thanks, he had them drink of it at the Last Supper. And he said, this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. And some Christians might hear those words hundreds of times and never even notice that the word covenant is in there. Why is Jesus talking about the blood of the the covenant? He's saying something really crucial, that this act in the Supper, which is leading to his death and then his resurrection, that this is fulfilling all sorts of promises that have been given to God's people, and he is going to inaugurate a new covenant. And we'll say much more about that in the weeks ahead. This new covenant which replaces the Old covenant, the Old Covenant not being all the ways and all the types, but rather the Mosaic covenant in particular. We'll see how the New Covenant relates to the Abrahamic covenant and the covenant with Moses and David. But Jesus is doing something that we must underscore, that he understands his work of redemption as being an aspect of God's covenant arrangement with human beings. In his introduction to Economy of the Covenants, which is a Classic work by the Dutch theologian Hermann vitzias from the 17th century. J.I. packer argues that covenant theology is a way of reading the whole Bible. It's not only a doctrine in the Bible, it's a way of reading the Bible. Biblical redemption starts with the covenantal relations among the persons of the Trinity. Biblical doctrine has to do with the covenantal relationship between God and man. Biblical ethics has to do with our covenantal relationships with each other, he says. We can't make sense of the gospel of God or the word of God, or the reality of God unless we view these through a covenantal framework. According to Packer, the Bible underlines the significance of covenant theology in a number of ways. By the story it tells, a unified story by the place it gives to Jesus Christ as the one the covenants foretold and the covenant keeping Messiah by the specific parallels between the two covenant heads, Adam and Christ, and by the eternal covenant of redemption, which is taught most clearly from Jesus himself in John's Gospel. Covenant theology, then, is not a system that superimposed upon the Bible by overzealous Reformed theologians. Rather, covenant theology forces itself upon us on anyone who reads the Bible thoughtfully and comprehensively from COVID to cover. It's right there. So what do we mean by covenant? Francis Turreton defines covenant in Scripture as a pact and agreement entered into between God and man, consisting partly in stipulation or duty, or of the thing to be done, and partly in the promise of reward. There are a lot of definitions, and they can get quite long, but Turretin certainly is giving a classic definition and helps us understand what we're talking about. More contemporary Richard Belcher argues that covenant refers to a legal agreement between two parties that is ratified by certain rituals that emphasize the binding nature of the agreement. JI Packer says covenant is a voluntary mutual commitment that binds each party to each other. And maybe the most well known in our day is from old Palmer Robertson, who defines covenant as a bond in blood, sovereignly administered. All of those are helpful. My definition differs slightly from Robertson's memorable definition. His definition is succinct, and it's useful in that it reminds us that covenants have to do with relationships, but bound by verbal oaths and symbolic actions. My. My quibble, however, is that there are covenants in the Bible that are not administered by a bond in blood. It's hard to see how the Noaic and the Davidic covenants involve the shedding of blood, or the covenant of redemption in eternity involves the shedding of blood, though it certainly commits the surety Christ to a bloody death. So I define covenant simply, and there's nothing sacrosanct about my definition, but I define covenant as a promissory agreement between two or more parties. So it's two or more parties coming together and there are promises between them. The various covenants in Scripture which are, are unique in some ways in what they are, certainly in what they are prefiguring and what they are doing for God's people. As we would expect, they are similar in structure and form to the covenants that were very common in the ancient world. So similar to the covenants of that same era, there are some identifiable elements. You can say there are at least seven elements associated with biblical covenants. And other people can divide these in different ways, but you can think of some P words and some s words. So 3P words, promises, prescriptions and penalties. And then the S words, swearing, that is of an oath, seeing statements and signs so you don't have to remember all of those. And I always have to look at my own notes to remember what the P words and the S words are. But that is pushing us toward an understanding of how covenants worked in the ancient near east and how they work in the Bible. So there are promises, prescriptions, that is, you're told to do certain things and there are penalties if you don't do them. And then the S words, there's a swearing, so there's an oath between parties, there's a seeing meaning, there's some kind of ratification that you see. And then there are statements, and then there are signs. So there's eyewitnesses to these oaths that are both given in written documents and then symbolic form of ratification. Everywhere throughout the Bible, God relates to his creatures by way of these promissory agreements. You can think of a covenant like marriage or contracts be similar. If you're buying a house or you're taking a loan from a bank, you have things to sign, there are stipulations, things you are going to do, things that each party is agreeing to. Especially in a marriage, you're making promises to each other, husband and wife, and you are sealing this with a ratification given verbally. You're making an oath before eyewitnesses, and then there is a covenant sign. And for marriage, it's the, the sign of sexual intimacy. That's why a husband and a wife, well, you may kiss the bride, okay, that's the, the publicly appropriate form of what we trust will later be a private ratification of that covenant or, you know, the giving of rings is a culturally conditioned way of making a promise to each other. And you look at that ring on your finger, all of these are ways of signing covenant promises. So a covenant, two or more parties make promises to each other. Now, how should we understand these terms that are in the testaments? In fact, should we understand a covenant as a testament? The Hebrew word for covenant is berith, and the Greek word is diatheke, and both are normally translated as covenant in modern English versions of the Bible. So when you thinking about covenant in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word is usually berith, and in the Greek it's usually the word diatheke. The Latin word is fetus. F O E D U S which is why covenant theology is sometimes called federal theology. So you have this idea of a covenant in a testament. Now there's a long standing debate about whether or not we are right to see a testamentary idea when we talk about covenants. And we don't have to settle that debate. There are certainly the older theologians saw that covenant had some testamentary idea. That is, think of a kind of last will and testament, that upon the death of one, then an inheritance goes to those who are given as beneficiaries in the will. And we can see how this would make sense with the death of Christ, that upon his death then those who are given as beneficiaries of his work receive these testamentary blessings. Now that that makes sense on a conceptual level. Many more recent theologians argue that it's not really part of the covenant idea, or perhaps that's not even how testaments worked in the ancient world. But what's important for us to realize whether there's some element to that testamentary idea or not, is to understand that the covenant as we see it in the New Testament, and this makes sense, is mostly bound up with an Old Testament covenant idea rather than how we might understand a last will in testament. So a covenant in both the Old and and the New Testament is a way of God relating to his people. And most of the time when this word diatheke is used in the New Testament, it is translated as a covenant. So we're thinking about how God relates to his people, the promises he makes, the stipulations that are given, and how all of this began in eternity. So here's the final point for this week, the covenant of works. Say more about next week. And then looking at the outworking of the covenant of grace, this bicoventalism that God relates to his people first in a covenant of works which they fail through Adam, and then a covenant of grace, which is administered in different ways throughout the Bible. But prior to that we have a covenant of redemption, or in Latin called a pactum salutis. It refers to the eternal agreement between the Father and the Son to save a people chosen in Christ. There's a lot written on this, and there are many who doubt whether this is really in the Bible and say that this is an imposition of too much theologizing and too much speculation to think that there is some kind of intra trinitarian agreement in eternity between Father and Son. And then there is a debate about, well, is it really between Father and Son, or between Father and Son and Holy Spirit? And all of those are issues worth talking about. But let's just try to understand what is meant by this pactum salutis, by this covenant of redemption. The reason why Reformed theology has usually insisted upon this is because of the way that the Bible talks about the Father and the Son, especially in the book of John, relating to each other. There are promises made to Christ that he would be given a people by the Father. We see that several times in John, and that Christ as the second Adam, is the covenant head of his people. We know there is a decree whereby the eternally begotten Son of God was given the nations as his heritage, the ends of the earth, his possession. Think of Psalm 2 or Psalm 110. Zechariah 6:13 speaks of a covenant of peace between Yahweh and the branch. Jesus in Luke 22:29 speaks of the kingdom of the Father assigned to him. So all of this language suggests that there was an agreement prior to time where a kingdom was assigned to Christ, or there was an agreement. Let's think of it not as, you know, two people as we imagine them hanging out, or three, if we include the Holy Spirit in this compact, as if there are three different wills. That's often where the covenant of redemption gets misunderstood, but rather there is an appropriation of the different roles that each person of the Trinity plays in the plan of redemption, and in that it is the Father who grants in an eternal pact to the Son and the Son, then, as surety agrees that he will take upon himself this work that the Father has given to him. The Father and the Son have the same aim and objective. But the Father wills to redeem by the agency of the Son as surety, and the Son wills to redeem by his own agency as surety. The important part in all of this is to understand that this unfolding plan of redemption which is described so often in the Bible as a covenant, has its antecedents in eternity that it has been God's plan since before there was time. Father, Son, and certainly there's a role for the Holy Spirit, whether He's another party in the covenant, formally or in some way is granted to administer and empower Christ to fulfill the covenant. Certainly want to understand all three persons of the Trinity having a role to play, that this is God's plan from eternity to save his people, an agreement among the persons of the Trinity and then in time this will be a covenant arrangement between God and His people. Thanks again for joining us on Doctrine Matters. I'm your host Kevin DeYoung. Our hope and prayer is that this has been helpful to you as you look at Scripture and try to understand the best of our theological tradition as Christians. Please consider subscribing to Doctrine Matters and if this has been encouraging, consider passing it on to others. If you'd like to learn more about this week's doctrine, you can ask your pastor for good resources or check out my year long mini systematic theology book called Daily Doctrine. It's available in print or audio from Crossway.org the doctrine matters podcast is produced by Crossway. To learn more, visit Crossway.org.