Upload
titanssm09
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
1/33
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
2/33
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
3/33
1
Introduction
Preoccupation with the biblical teaching on the covenants has long been a distinguishing
trait of Reformed theology.1This paper examines the origins and results of that preoccupation.
Covenant Theology (CT) also goes by the names, The Federal Theology, or just Federalism.2
The terms are interchangeable and are used variously throughout the paper. CT is by no means a
monolithic system of theology: as there are many variations (even competing versions) of CT
among its proponents. This paper focuses primarily upon tracing the origin of the two covenant
manifestation of CT since it is ostensibly the currently most popular formulation of CT. I also
offer a critique of the presuppositions that appear to have lead to its development. Surveying all
of the internecine battles (and there are many) within CT, and charting all the various
developments within CT that have taken place over the years, is beyond the scope of this paper.
However, mention of some of these is made when appropriate.
Defining Covenant Theology
CT is essentially a framework into which all of divine revelation is placed, and that
framework also functions as the interpretive grid by which divine revelation is understood. While
at first this short definition may seem to the critical reader to be a caricature of CT, it is not. The
proponents of CT simply claim that the framework is itself derived from Scripture and therefore
legitimate for organizing and understanding all of divine revelation. Therefore, for proponents of
1Mark W. Karlberg, Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective: Collected Essays and Book Reviews in
Historical, Biblical, and Systematic Theology(Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000), 11.
2Some would disagree. Cf., the treatment in, D. A. Weir, The Origins of The Federal Theology in
Sixteenth-Century Reformation Thought(New York: Oxford University Press, 1990). However, it is better to view
CT as simply having many divergent formulations than to claim CT and Federalism are two different theologies.
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
4/33
2
CT, Kline is typical in his sentiments that, Following the lead of the Scriptures themselves,
Reformed theology has long prized the covenant as a structural concept for integrating all that
God has so diversely spoken unto men of old time and in these last days.3Kline further relates
that, Before the end of the sixteenth century a growing biblical insight within the movement of
Covenant Theology had embraced all special revelation, pre-redemptive as well as redemptive,
in the unity of a covenant framework.4My contention is that CT is ultimately an artificial,
manmade framework that, while it incorporates many truly biblical ideas, is illegitimate for
organizing and understanding all of divine revelation.
Robertson explains the biblical catalyst for Reformed theologys preoccupation with the
covenant concept,
Ample biblical evidence establishes the vital role the divine covenants have played inGods dealings with man from Noah to Jesus Christ. No period in the history of
redemption from Noah to Christ stands outside the realm of Gods covenantal dealings
with his peopleThe promise of the New Covenantfinds its fulfillment in the days ofJesus Christ and extends to the consummation of all things.
5
To be sure, covenants that God has made with men loom large in Scripture. This causes
proponents of CT to inquire further concerning the covenant concept. Robertson reasons that,
The only question thatremains concerning the extent of the divine covenants has to do with
Gods relation to man prior to Noah. May the concept of the covenant be extended legitimately
to the period preceding the establishment of Gods covenant with Noah? Is the earliest portion of
3Meredith G. Kline,By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and
Baptism(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), 13.
4Ibid., 14.
5O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants(Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co., 1980), 17.
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
5/33
3
biblical history also to be understood from the perspective of a covenantal framework?6CT
answers this question in the affirmative.
When the concept of covenant found in Scripture is extrapolated backwards from Noah
as far as logically possible one ends up applying a covenant schema to the internal relationships
of the Godhead before creation. This is precisely what one finds in the three covenant
formulation of CT. Since the reformation, distinctions have been made between a pre-creation
covenantal bond among the persons of the Trinity and a historical covenant between God and
men.7The various names that this supposed covenant has been given are the covenant of
redemption, the eternal covenant, the counsel of peace, or the counsel of redemption.
8
Robertson notes that, This particular covenant finds no specific development in the classic
creeds of the Reformers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. But it has been recognized
broadly among covenant theologians since that time.9He does not affirm that there is such
covenant because, A sense of artificiality flavors the effort to structure in covenantal terms the
mysteries of Gods eternal counsels. To speak concretely of an intertrinitarian covenant with
terms and conditions between Father and Son mutually endorsed before the foundation of the
world is to exceed the bounds of scriptural evidence beyond propriety.10
In moving out of eternity past and into the history of the created order, if one were to
maintain the logic of CT one is confronted with the necessarily covenantal nature of Gods
6Ibid.
7Ibid., 53.
8Ibid., 54.
9Ibid.
10Ibid.
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
6/33
4
relationship with his creation. The covenant governing this period of time is variously called the
covenant of works, the covenant of nature, or the covenant of creation.11
Turretin claims
that, The covenant of nature is that which God the Creator made with man as his creature,
concerning the giving of eternal happiness and life under the condition of perfect and personal
obedience.12
In fact, according to CT, Had Adam before the Fall remained faithful to the
covenant with his God, he would have merited eternal life for himself and all his posterity.13
Or,
in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), The first covenant made with man
was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon
condition of perfect and personal obedience.
14
According to CT, under the dictates of the covenant of works Adam was appointed to
stand probation for himself and his race. Life was promised if he obeyed and cursing if he
disobeyed. Hodge contends that because of the federal and natural union between Adam and his
posterity, his sin, although not their act, is so imputed to them that it is the judicial ground of the
penalty threatened against him coming upon them also.15
The natural union that exists between
Adam and his posterity is that of a father and child; the character and conduct of t he one, of
necessity to a greater or less degree affect the other.16
The federal union between Adam and his
11Karlberg, Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective, 11.
12Francis Turretin,Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, trans. by George Musgrave Giger, ed. by James
T. Dennison Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1992), 575.
13Karlberg, Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective, 273.
14WCF, VII/ii.
15Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1940), 2:19293.
16Ibid., 2:197.
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
7/33
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
8/33
6
Murray claims that, It was with the Covenant of Grace that the covenant theologians of
the 16th
century were concerned almost exclusively.20
The covenant of grace is, simply stated,
That arrangement between the Triune God and his people whereby God promises friendship,
hence full and free salvation, to his people, upon the basis of the vicarious atonement of Christ,
the Mediator of the covenant, and they, out of gratitude, promise to live for him.21
According to
the WCF,
This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the
gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices,circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of
the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and
efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faithin the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation;
and is called the old testament.22
Some claim that the covenant of grace was founded on the covenant of redemption while
those who reject the covenant of redemption obviously do not.23
Regardless of its grounding, it is
plain by what is said above that the covenant of grace is conceived to be a covenant that
establishes the culmination of redemptive history. This covenant is then the subject of all of
Scripture discussed and viewed from various historical contexts and perspectives. A great
difference here exists in that some see the covenant of grace as ultimately satisfying the demands
of the covenant of works; while others, who reject the covenant of works, see it as simply a
covenant that God chose to implement out of pure grace in his relationship with man. Under this
20John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, 4 vols (Edinburgh, PA: The Banner of TruthTrust,
1982), 4:223.
21William Hendrickson, The Covenant of Grace(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1932), 18.
22WCF, VII/v.
23One area of confusion that can crop up here is that sometimes those who reject the notion of an
intertrinitarian covenant of redemption are wont to call the covenant of grace by the name, covenant of redemption.
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
9/33
7
scheme it still serves to alleviate the damage of sin and effect redemption, but the connection
with the prelapsarian economy is more general and undefined rather than explicit.
The Origins of Covenant Theology
Though CT did not fully bloom until the late 16th
century, the lines of thought that lead to
its formation can be traced back to the early church. In this sense, CT is a construct of various
streams of thought that came together in the milieu of 16th
century Europe. The two broadest
categories that one could group these various streams of thought into are hermeneutics and
polemical theology. The following discussion will explore these two categories and show how
they led to the creation of CT. Remarkably, when it comes to tracing the rise and development
of covenant (or federal) theology24
McGowan could say as late as 1997, There is, infact, no
complete study of this nature. Most of our information must meanwhile be drawn from the
standard historical work and from unpublished theses.25
Hermeneutics
It would be difficult to overstate the importance of the part that hermeneutics plays in
understanding Scripture. A hermeneutic is most simply defined is a set of principles one employs
to interpret a particular writing. For Christians, hermeneutics is the branch of philosophy that
involves formulating principles to properly interpret Scripture. I say it is a branch of philosophy
rather than a branch of theology because ones theology (whichever branch) should flow from
Scripture rightly interpreted, not the other way around (though there will obviously be interplay
24ATB McGowan, The Federal Theology of Thomas Boston (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Publishing, 1997),
1.
25Ibid., 16. N.B. endnote 1. The only circumstance that has changed as of the writing of this paper is that
some of the theses have been published.
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
10/33
8
between them). I may be accused of, so to speak, slicing the pie fairly thin in this caution, but if
ones hermeneutic is simply a construct of ones theology then one will simply find in Scripture
whatever one is looking for. It is also important to understand the affect that the cultural milieu
that an individual or group is situated in has on the hermeneutic they espouse. The various
cultural forces of a given age may exert a powerful influence upon how Christians of that age
interpret Scripture. The affect of ones cultural milieu upon the principles of interpretation that
one formulates may never be entirely eliminated: as absolute objectivity is an impossibility for
man. However, if one is aware of that affect, the influence upon ones hermeneutic may be
circumscribed to a certain degree.
The crux of CTs hermeneutic is typology. However, typological hermeneutics are much
older than CT. Modern interpreters are not the inventors of typology; indeed, the fact that it is
part of the warp and woof of Scripture is what gives this whole method its significance.26
It was
Christian interpreters of the Bible shortly after the close of the apostolic era that pioneered
typological interpretation. One of [post-apostolic Christians] most pressing tasks was to
demonstrate the underlying agreement and continuity between the Old Testament, properly
understood, and Christianity and its claims27
Gundry argues that typology became popular in
order to give validity to Christianitys claims via establishing continuity with the OT. However,
he argues, But there was a danger inherent within this approach, and it is easily discoverable to
anyone who will read early Christian writings. That danger is that whenever typology is used to
show the Christocentric unity of the Bible, it is all too easy to impose an artificial unity (even
26Stanley N. Gundry, Typology as a Means of Interpretation: Past and Present, JETS12, No. 4 (Fall
1969): 234.
27Ibid.
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
11/33
9
assuming that there is a valid use of the basic method).28
The imposition of artificial unity
happens when, types come to be created rather than discovered, and the drift into allegorism
comes all too easily. In fact, it is often difficult to distinguish typology from allegory.29
However, it may be noted that typology is an effort to understand the unity of the Bible from
the standpoint of history rather than allegory.30
In reality, the history of typological/allegorical interpretation pushes farther back than
this, and it might be legitimate to say that the hermeneutical method that post-apostolic
Christians picked up on in order to show the Christological unity of the Old and New Testaments
was simply in the air. A likely source of this method of interpretation in Christian circles was
Philo. Philo of Alexandria(b. about 20 B.C.; d. about 42 A.D.) stands as the leading exponent
of the Jewish-Alexandrine religious philosophy, and in its influence upon the literature of the
Christian Church its foremost representative.31
The influences upon Philos employment of
typology/allegory can be traced back even further. He knew all the important Greek
philosophers, from whom he cited freely; but first for him was Plato, from whom he derived his
philosophical content, while in his method of extravagant allegorizing he imitated the Stoics.32
It was primarily the Stoics who allegorized the Greek myths in the effort to philosophize the
multiple forms of popular religion and reduce them to simple fundamental principles; so did
28Ibid., 235.
29Ibid.
30Ibid., 234.
31Samuel Macauley Jackson, ed., Philo of Alexandria, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of
Religious Knowledge, 15 vols (repr; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), 9:38.
32Ibid., 9:39.
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
12/33
10
Philo in dealing with the Biblical and legal forms and cultic prescriptions of the Jews, in the
interest, however, of monotheism.33
It is noted that, The allegorizing of Philo is said to have
gathered up into a mighty basin all the streams of Alexandrian hermeneutics from the past and
discharged them again into multiple streams and rivulets of the later exegesis of Judaism and
Christianity.34
In Alexandria was one of the great libraries of the ancient world. In the Museum was the
equivalent of a university, famous throughout the Grco-Roman world. Before the end of the
second century Christianity was represented by vigorous but divided communities.35
There was
founded in Alexandria a catechetical school theprimary purpose of which was the intstruction
of candidates for Church membership in the principles of the Christian faith.36
One of the heads
of this school who exerted tremendous influence on succeeding generations of Bible interpreters
was Origen. Origen believed that the Scriptures were the word of God and that nothing in them
was to be believed that was unworthy of God.37
For Origen, the way around anything he
deemed unworthy of God was found through discerning three levels of meaning in the text:
first, the common or historical sense which is on the surface for even the simple-minded;
second, the soul of the Scriptures which edifies those who perceive it; and third, for the perfect, a
meaning hidden under what superficially is repugnant to the conscience or the intellect but
33Ibid.
34Ibid.
35Kenneth Scott Latourette,A History of Christianity, 2 vols (1953; repr, Peabody, MA: Prince Press,
1997), 1:14647.
36Ibid., 147.
37Ibid., 14950.
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
13/33
11
which, discerned, can be expressed by allegory.38
The influence of Origen on later interpreters
should not be underestimated. Most of the Greek fathers of the third and fourth centuries stood
more or less under the influence of the spirit and works of Origen, without adopting all his
speculative views.39
There were of course rival schools of thought in the early church; of which, the
Antiochian school is one example. The Antiochian School was not a regularinstitution with a
continuous succession of teachers, like the Catechetical School of Alexandria, but a theological
tendency, more particularly a peculiar type of hermeneutics and exegesis which had its centre in
Antioch.
40
Concerning this peculiar type of hermeneutics and exegesis, according to Schaff,
The characteristic features are attention to the revision of the text, a close adherence to the
plain, natural meaning according to the use of language and the condition of the writer, and
justice to the human factor.41
However, despite this the Antiochian school was not entirely free
from allegorizing when it was expedient: as can be easily seen in a perusal of the writings of the
prince of commentators among the church fathers, John Chrysostom. In fact, Though there
was diversity of opinion between the Alexandrian and Antiochene exegetes as to the importance
of literal exegesis, they were united on the importance of the witness of all scripture to Christ,
and typological exegesis of scripture was one means of seeing that unity and witness.42
Further,
38Ibid., 150.
39Philip Schaff,History of the Christian Church, 8 vols (1910; repr, Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1985), 2:797.
40Ibid, 2:816.
41Ibid.
42Gundry, Typology as a Means of Interpretation, 234.
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
14/33
12
Those exegetes influenced by the Antiochene school placed more emphasis on the historical
and literal, though they were not immune to the allegorizing tendency themselves. Jerome, who
was profoundly influenced by the Antiochene viewpoint, had sound exegetical principles, but in
practice he was an allegorist, even to the point of allegorizing the New Testament.43
Typological exegesis continuously found fresh impetus for its use because of its
convenience in polemical settings. It was found to be useful by Irenaeus in his contest with
Marcion, who posited a radical discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. Typology
was also the tack taken by Justin in his dialogues with Trypho as he attempted to show how the
Old Testament found fulfillment in Christ. Typological/allegorical hermeneutics were also a
weapon often used against chiliasts, whose conceptions of the millennium were considered too
carnal by their opponents.44
With the work of Augustine, allegorism became the most dominant
interpretative method in the West. He had been driven to it in his reaction to the letterism of the
Manichaens.45
This continued through the Middle Ages and became an integral part of the
scholasticshermeneutics. Typological/allegorical hermeneutics continued to be used down to
the time of the Reformation.
With Luther, Calvin, and others there was a conscientious turning away from allegory
toward historical-grammatical hermeneutics. This however was not a complete jettisoning of
typological or even allegorical interpretation. Gundry explains,
Calvin and Luther brought about a new epoch in the typological interpretation of
scripture with their return to the literal sense and methodical exegesis of scripture. With
43Ibid., 235.
44For an excellent treatment of the millennial controversy in the early church see, Martin Erdman, The
Millennial Controversy in the Early Church(Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005).
45Gundry, Typology as a Means of Interpretation, 23536.
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
15/33
13
this renewed concern for the grammatico-historical sense came a new appreciation of
typology. A typology grounded in an appreciation of the historical verities precipitated a
distinction once more between the typological and allegorical, though neither Calvin norLuther worked out a system of typology of his own. But through them typology had
gained a new lease on life.46
There came at the time of the reformation a separating out of typology and allegory.
Typology is not necessarily antithetical to a historical-grammatical hermeneutic since typology is
largely concerned with discovering the unity of the Bible from a historical standpoint. In fact, the
literal interpretation of a passage becomes quite important since the antitype would be rendered
meaningless if the type had never actually existed.
The long history of typological hermeneutics has great importance for the formation of
CT because what early federalists did was essentially develop a unique framework of history
along covenantal lines by which they could make typological applications between the Old and
New Testaments. Karlberg explains,
The sixteenth-century federalists were responsible for establishing the redemptive-
historical structure of biblical revelation, and the covenant structure was the
distinguishing mark of Reformed theological interpretation. Beginning as a termdescriptive of the era of redemption the covenant concept was broadened, in the interests
of further systematic and historical reflection, to include the preredemptive period of
biblical history. The entire development of the covenant idea was controlled and elicitedby the Reformers understanding of justification by faith, in the forensic sense, and the
coordinate law-gospel distinction.47
As the reformers sought to find intertestamental unity centered on the person of Christ,
the undoubtedly biblical concept of covenant came to the fore as a convenient framework by
which to categorize and understand all of divine revelation. The covenant concept that was easily
developed from the covenants explicitly revealed in Scripture, which centered upon Christ and
46Ibid., 236.
47Karlberg, Covenant Theology, 20.
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
16/33
14
his kingdom, was, so to speak, extracted from its native soil and transplanted as an overarching
framework. This framework facilitated the drawing of typological lines between the testaments
and blurred the intricacies and nuance of the biblical covenants in favor of a flattened out single
covenant (the covenant of grace) that had as its parties God and men and as its substance
justification by faith alone in Christ alone. The concept of a prelapsarian covenant (the covenant
of works) came to capture the imagination of later reformers in the midst of the fires of the
theological controversies of the latter part of the 16th
century, to which we now turn.
Polemical Theology
If typological hermeneutics served to develop a unifying framework for divine revelation
along covenantal lines, the theological battles of the Reformation and post-Reformation eras
tended to harden that framework. The transition from a loose covenantal framework in the early
period of the Reformation, that focused almost exclusively on the idea of a covenant of grace, to
a more hardened system comprised of a prelapsarian covenant of works and postlapsarian
covenant of grace that is administered under various dispensations is difficult to trace. What is
known is that, Whereas John Calvin (150964), in hisInstitutes of the Christian Religion, spoke
of an Old Covenant which extended after the fall to Christ and then a New Covenant which
extended from Christ to the Day of Judgment, the Westminster Confession of Faith, written
eighty years later, spoke of a covenant of works and a covenant of grace.48
Weir notes that,
Calvin makes no mention in any of his works of a prelapsarian covenant with Adam. However,
there is evidence that, at least to a certain degree, Calvin considered the Edenic relationship
48D. A. Weir, The Origins of the Federal Theology in Sixteenth-Century Reformation Thought(Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press, 1990), 1.
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
17/33
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
18/33
16
1531) taught a covenant of works before the fall and a covenant of grace after the fall.54
However, Weir notes that Schrenk55
traces the history of the idea of the covenant from Zwingli
up to Ursinus and Olevianus, but he realizes that the true federal theology consists of a
prelapsarian covenant with Adam and then a postlapsarian covenant of grace...Schrenk correctly
identifies Ursinus as the first person to utilize this idea in any systematic manner.56
Weir surmises that one motivation for forming the concept of a prelapsarian covenant of
works was that, The federal theology potentially provided an adequate base for the
reconstruction of northern European society and culture. With the loss of the traditional
institutions of the Church and its sacraments, and the demise of canon law, European society was
searching for an adequate base for its social ethic.57
The question would have been, How could
men be forced to live a Christian life-style when you were not sure they were under the covenant
of grace and that their hearts were turned unto the Lord?58
A prelapsarian covenant of works
provided just such a base. For, in federalist thinking, The covenant of works reflects the fact
that the most fundamental obligation of man the creature to his God his Creator always has been,
is now, and always will be obedience to the will of the Creator.59This means that man is
always ultimately related to God on a legal(covenantal) basis. Accordingly, while the covenant
54R. Scott Clark,A Brief History of Covenant Theology, Westminster Seminary California,
http://clark.wscal.edu/briefhistorycovtheol.php(accessed April 10, 2011).
55Cf., Gottlob Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund im lteren Protestantismus, vornehmlich bei Johannes
Cocceius(BFCh Th.M 5; Gtersloh, 1923). Due to my ignorance of German I am unable to verify Weirs findings.
56Weir, Origins of the Federal Theology, 24.
577.
5878.
59Robert L. Raymond,A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nded. rev. and updated
(Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1998), 439.
http://clark.wscal.edu/briefhistorycovtheol.phphttp://clark.wscal.edu/briefhistorycovtheol.phphttp://clark.wscal.edu/briefhistorycovtheol.php8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
19/33
17
of works is no longer in force as a probationary framework for mankind, it is still normative60
As such, the prelapsarian framework could be used to force all men to live a Christian life-style
whether they identified with Christ or not because the stipulations of the covenant of works were
in force upon all men of all times. After the Fall men were simply not in a probationary status
under the covenant whereby they could merit eternal life for themselves by their works.
The primary controversy agitating the Reformed world that Weir sees as serving as the
backdrop for the development of a prelapsarian covenant with Adam was the problem of
reconciling Gods providential sovereignty and the Fall of Adam.61
Weir explains, The
doctrine of afoeduswith Adam developed in response to this problem as a milder orthodox
elaboration and explanation of the seemingly harsh decretal doctrines of Theodore Beza.62
Weir
traces this development to the feet of Ursinus who Weir claims is the theologian who first
utilized the idea of a prelapsarin covenant to any great extent in the sixteenth century.63
Weir
goes on to claim, It seems that the prelapsarian covenant emerged in Ursinuss thought as a
means of articulating the problem of theodicy.64
Though Weir does not describe exactly how a
prelapsarin covenant would resolve the problem of theodicy in Eden, it would apparently remove
the Fall from being simply a necessity by decree. Instead, it could be claimed that Adam was
placed in a covenantal situation where there was the real possibility for him to succeed in
60Ibid.
61Weir, Origins of the Federal Theology, 63.
62Ibid.
63Ibid., 101.
64Ibid., 107.
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
20/33
18
fulfilling the terms of that covenant. It was by an act of Adams free will that brought the Fall
and ended any possibility of man thereafter to fulfill the terms of the covenant on his own.
Karlberg argues that Weir has erroneously made a distinction between CT and
federalism,65
but Weir seems to have in mind labeling stages of development, not stark division.
Karlberg, however, does point out that it was not just the doctrine of predestination that served as
a catalyst for the creation of a prelapsarian covenant, but also there was the question of the
relationship between the two testamentsa subject urged upon the Reformers by the
AnabaptistsThe issues of infant baptism and civil magistracy sparked debates among these
early disputants.
66
Karlberg is certainly correct, but his comment only serves to show the nature
of the development of CT. It was not a calmly constructed theology based on sound exegesis of
Scripture. It was a theology forged in the fires of the controversies of the Reformation. To be
sure, the ideas which lay behind CT are not unbiblicalper se, but the framework that was
developed seems to have been hastily put together by extrapolating various biblical concepts in a
direction that proved expedient in the midst of the various controversies. As such, it is unlikely
that anyone will ever be able to find the father of CT in the annals of church history.
Critique of Covenant Theology
Typological Hermeneutics
Kline claims that there is old and new orders revealed in the Old and New Testaments
and that, According to the divine design the old is provisional and preparatory for the new, and
65Karlberg, Covenant Theology, 11213.
66Ibid., 113.
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
21/33
19
by divine predisclosure the new is prophetically anticipated in the old.67
He then explains how
this was done, External event and institution in the old order were divinely fashioned to form a
systematic representation of the realities of the coming new order, so producing a type-antitype
correlativity between the two covenants in which their unity is instructively articulated.68
LaRondelles hermeneutical method(which is also decidedly typological), though he is a
Seventh Day Adventist, has received a warm welcome in CT circles.69
LaRondelle takes matters
a step further than Kline. He makes the bold claim that, Valid hermeneutical rules of Scripture
must be inspired principles which are legitimately and systematically derived from the
Scriptures themselves.
70
This is an astounding claim, and actually rather self-serving. How does
one get at the inspired principles in the first place? What hermeneutic based on uninspired
principles must be employed to draw out of the text the inspired principles to then build ones
(presumably) inspired hermeneutic? This is a vicious circle. One will find the inspired
principles one is looking for and then be in possession of nothing more than ones
presuppositions dressed as inspired principles.
Regardless of how the validity of the typological hermeneutic is argued for the net yield
for the proponent of it is usually the narrative that, The nation[of Israel] was the people of God
in the old covenant. Now in the new covenant the believing church is the people of GodWe
67Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1972), 98.
68Ibid.
69This is even more surprising since LaRondelle ascribes to the Calvin vs the Calvinists theory that was
popularized by Rolston. See, Hans K. LaRondelle, Our Creator Redeemer: An Introduction to Biblical Covenant
Theology(Berrien Springs, MO: Andrews University Press, 2005), xi.
70Hans K. LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation(Berrien
Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1983), 7.
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
22/33
20
Christians are the Israel of God, Abrahams seed, and heirs of the promises, only because by
faith we are united to him who is alone the true Israel, Abrahams oneseed.71
By use of a
typological hermeneutic nothing in the Old Testament is what it seems. The type-antitype
relationship between the testaments that has been supposedly divinely revealed turns out to
mean that the Old Testament is ultimately not just interpreted by the New Testament writers, but
often reinterpretedto mean something other than what it ostensibly meant in its original context.
The obvious objection to such an approach is that, NT antitypes neither explicitly nor implicitly
cancel the meaning of OT types. Thinking they do so misunderstands typology.72
There is also
the ever present danger mentioned earlier that, Types come to be created rather than discovered,
and the drift into allegorism comes all too easily. In fact, it is often difficult to distinguish
typology from allegory.73
Another objection may be lodged against CTs hermeneutic. The presupposition that the
New Testament authoritatively interprets the Old Testament with a typological hermeneutic,
such that it results in the historical-grammatical hermeneutic being invalid for the Old Testament
passage in question, is highly suspect. If the onlyauthoritative interpretation of Scripture that
exists (i.e., the New interpreting the Old) employs a non-historical-grammatical hermeneutic,
then what justification does the Bible interpreter have for employing a historical-grammatical
hermeneutic when interpreting the New Testament to begin with? Is it a valid way of proceeding
to argue that the interpretation of one portion of Scripture, using the historical-grammatical
71Robert B. Strimple, Amillennialism, in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond(Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1999), 89
72John S. Feinberg, Systems of Discontinuity, in Continuity Discontinuity: Perspectives on the
relationship between the Old and New Testaments(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 79.
73Gundry, Typology as a Means of Interpretation, 235.
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
23/33
21
hermeneutic, invalidates the use of that same hermeneutic in another portion of Scripture? The
net result would ostensibly be the invalidation of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic for all
of Scripture, since the application of it in one portion of Scripture would destroy its credentials
for applying it to the other.
Given the above presupposition, the analogy of Scripture becomes nothing more than a
principle that undermines the credibility of the very hermeneutic that gives rise to it in the first
place. I would suggest that a better presupposition is that the New Testament interprets the Old
Testament using the same historical-grammatical hermeneutic that should be employed when
interpreting the New Testament. The net result here would be the same for any portion of
Scripture; there is one correct interpretation and many possible applications. If the historical-
grammatical hermeneutic is valid for any portion of Scripture, then understanding how the New
Testament uses the Old Testament is simply a matter of using that hermeneutic on the New
Testament passage in question to discover the application of the Old Testament passage that the
New Testament writer is making of the one correct interpretation of that Old Testament passage;
which is discovered by using the same hermeneutic on the Old Testament passage. Interestingly
enough, all attempts to object to such a presupposition would have to be made while employing a
similar presupposition in another sphere; otherwise, how would anyone be able to understand the
objection being lodged against it?
Logic vs. Revelation
CT teaches that there was a covenant between God and Adam before the Fall whereby he
was appointed the representative head of mankind under the stipulations of that covenant. Also,
according to the dictates of this covenant he was to stand for an undefined period of time in a
probationary status, rendering perfect obedience to God (presumably obeying the law written on
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
24/33
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
25/33
23
covenant of works during his life. He satisfied Gods wrath justly due to the elect by his death,
thus satisfying the punishment demanded by the covenant of works. Thus, he merited for himself
and all that were chosen to partake of the covenant of grace in eternity past the inheritance
originally promised to Adam if he would have succeeded during his undefined probationary
period under the covenant of works.
The above synopsis is representative of CTs general framework. As mentioned earlier,
proponents of CT are not all in agreement and there are competing narratives when it comes to
formulating the general framework by which all of divine revelation is to be categorized and
understood. The greatest problem with the above framework and its various competitors within
CT is that none of them are actually taught in Scripture. CTs covenantal framework is the
foundation for theologizing and interpreting Scripture, yet it is itself artificially constructed from
the idle speculations of men. The Bible nowhere teaches that God made a covenant with Adam
under the stipulations of which he would stand as a covenant head of mankind for and undefined
probationary period. There is not a trace in Scripture of the idea that under the stipulations of this
supposed covenant Adam was to walk in perfect obedience for this undefined probationary
period and that if he was successful he would have merited by pure self-righteousness everlasting
life along with all his future progeny. The whole framework that CT posits is nothing more than
speculations about what Scripture is silent on that are loosely connected to selective biblical data.
These speculations are then extrapolated backwards to fill in the blanks of divine revelation.
What is filled into the blanks is then allowed to control how what has been revealed by God is to
be categorized and interpreted. In light of this procedure there are several questions that must be
put to the proponents of CT. What gives them leave to speak for God where God has chosen to
be silent? What credentials do they possess that enables them to fill in the white spaces of
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
26/33
24
Scripture with their own logical inferences and then build a theology upon those inferences as if
those inferences are themselves divine revelation? Which version of the framework constructed
by CT is divinely revealed; the three covenant, two covenant, or one covenant version; the one
where Adam was to earn eternal life purely by his own merit or the one where grace was to be
given, or was at least necessary for success?
It would not be so unfortunate if CT merely contented itself with speculations about
which Scripture says nothing, but because it then goes on to build its theology from the
framework derived from these speculations CT ends up with faulty understandings of several key
doctrines. The only two that are touched upon below are CTs faulty understandings of
mankinds relationship to Adams sinand the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers.
Faulty Understanding Mankinds Relationship to Adams Sin
As mentioned earlier, CT teaches that the first sin of Adam was imputed (according to the
stipulations of the covenant of works) to all of his progeny. When it comes to the discussion of
the imputation of Adams sinthere are two views, immediate and mediate imputation.
Immediate imputation may also be called the federal theory. This view holds that Adam is
both the natural and the federal head of the human race. The federal or representative headship is
the specific ground of the imputation of Adams sin. When Adam sinned.God imputed the
guilt of the first sin to.the entire human race.74
Mediate imputation holds that a corrupt nature
is inherited through natural generation from Adam and that this is what then becomes the ground
74Henry Clarence Thiessen,Lectures in Systematic Theology, revised by Vernon D. Doerksen (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 18889.
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
27/33
25
for God imputing the guilt of Adam to his posterity. The imputation is mediated through
inherited corruption which is the consequence, not punishment, of Adams sin.75
Whichever view is taken of imputation the idea expressed is that the guilt of Adams sin
is justly put upon all who are descendants of him in the ordinary way (Jesus was a descendant in
an extraordinary way and so is excepted). The only real reason usually given for the ground of
this imputation of guilt is the stipulations of some supposed covenant God made with Adam.
There is of course discussion about natural and federal headship, but these are but aspects of the
covenant of works. Every reason given devolves to some requirement of the covenant of works.76
Even when the covenant of works is nominally denied what ends up being expressed looks an
awful lot like arguing that the guilt of Adams sin is imputed to his progeny according to
covenantal stipulations.77
75Ibid., 18788.
76Cf. Turretin,Elenctic Theology, 61329.
77Ralph Allan Smith, Interpreting the Covenant of Works, Berith.org,
http://www.berith.org/essays/cov_works/(accessed February 15, 2011). N.B., pp. 56. Smith includes a discussion
of what this looks like in John Murrays and othersthinking,
John Murray, one of the most distinguished proponents of Reformed doctrine in the 20th century and a
recognized defender of the Reformed view of justification by faith, quite clearly denied the Covenant of
Works. He was not alone. Not only among those influenced by Murray, but also among the Dutch
Reformed in Europe, there are more than a few theologians and pastors who no longer hold to the Covenant
of Works.In Murrays view, it is essential to the argument of the apostle Paul that Adam and Christ be
conceived of as two representative heads of two different humanities. The old human race in Adam is
condemned in their head. The new human race in Christ is justified and accepted because of His
righteousness. Jesus obeyed the covenant and fulfilled its terms perfectly. His righteousness is imputed to
those who believe in Him. In this simple exposition, all of the essential elements of the Reformed view are
included, but it is stated in terms that avoid the notion of a Covenant of Works. However, it seems thatwhat Murray does, in fact, is to verbally deny a covenant relationship with Adam since for Murray the
word covenant implies redemptive arrangement and then important all the elements of a covenant into
his Adamic Administration. Although Murray would, like most Reformed writers, emphasize the
graciousness of the original arrangement, in substance he affirms a Covenant of Works or something very
close to one.
http://www.berith.org/essays/cov_works/http://www.berith.org/essays/cov_works/http://www.berith.org/essays/cov_works/8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
28/33
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
29/33
27
was discussed above, CT views the demands of the covenant of works as binding upon all men
of all times. As such, it was not enough for Christ to simply die in the place of sinners as a
substitute and bear the wrath of God on their behalf. If that were all that happened then man
would be no better than being placed back into a probationary state similar to Adams before the
Fall. Men would still need to merit their own righteousness by works in order to be rewarded
with eternal life. In this scheme salvation by grace alone has a strange twist to it. Sprouls
sentiments are typical of proponents of CT,
Ultimately the only way one can be justified is by works. We are indeed justified by
works, but the works that justify us are the works of the second Adam. To be justified by
faith means to be justified by faith in the works of Christ. Our faith is not the ground ofour justification. Faith serves as the instrument by which we receive the benefits of the
works of Christ, the sole ground of our justification.82
Salvation is only by grace in that it is by grace that believers take part in a works based
salvation. Salvation here is by the works of the law (the law contained in the covenant of works).
The caveat is simply that it is not the individuals works of the law, but Christs, which merit this
works based salvation. There is an obvious objection based on what Paul teaches in Scripture.
Paul repeatedly makes the categorical statement that justification comes apartfrom()
Law-works. Since he does not qualify this statement by specifying whoseworks are excluded, he
seems to be saying that justificationper seis not based on worksnot only works done by man,
but works quaworks.83
Or, put another way, Where Paul seems to be saying that justification
is by definition not earn-able by works, covenant theology adds the important qualifier,
82R. C. Sproule, Getting the Gospel Right: The Tie that Binds Evangelicals Together(Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, a division of Baker Book House Company, 1999), 160.
83Andrew V. Snider, Justification and the Active Obedience of Christ: Toward a Biblical Understanding
of Imputed Righteousness (ThM thesis, Masters Seminary, 2002), 85.
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
30/33
28
performed by mankind. Since it seems to stray from Pauls own description of justification, the
vicarious active obedience teaching must be viewed as suspect.84
There is perhaps no clearer
example of this than comparing Sprouls comments with Galatians 3:21 in which Paul says, If a
law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been
based on law. Apparently Paul was unaware of the logic of CT; for, according to CT, there was
a law given that was able to impart life: the law of the covenant of works fulfilled by Christ.
Righteousness, for CT, is indeed based on the law: the law of the covenant of works fulfilled by
Christ.
Conclusion
The preceding discussion has surveyed the two broadest categories that one could group
the various streams of thought which led to the development of CT: hermeneutics and polemical
theology. A critique of CT has also been offered along these lines with the addition of two
specific areas of theology where CT, because of its basic assumptions, proposes errant beliefs. It
has been shown that CT is an artificial framework that was constructed from biblical concepts
that were extrapolated in order to fill in the white spaces of Scripture. This framework then
served as a means for categorizing and interpreting all of Scripture by creating a basis of
Christological unity between the testaments along the lines of a type-antitype relationship. This
framework was a theological contrivance driven by suspect hermeneutics and polemical theology
hastily constructed amidst the fires of controversy during the Reformation.
Though much has been said in this paper that is critical of CT, it should be noted that I do
not consider CT to be damnable heresy. What seems to rescue CT from itself is that the
84Ibid., 101.
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
31/33
8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
32/33
30
Bibliography
Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets. Calvins Commentaries, 22 vols.
Trans. by John Owen. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2003.
.Institutes of the Christian Religion. In 2 vols, Library of Christian Classics vol. XXI.
Trans. by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977.
Clark, R. Scott.A Brief History of Covenant Theology. Westminster Seminary California.
http://clark.wscal.edu/briefhistorycovtheol.php.
Erdman, Martin. The Millennial Controversy in the Early Church. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock
Publishers, 2005.
Feinberg, John S. Systems of Discontinuity. In, Continuity Discontinuity: Perspectives on therelationship between the Old and New Testaments. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988.
6386.
Gundry, Stanley N. Typology as a Means of Interpretation:Past and Present,JETS12, No. 4
(Fall 1969): 23340.
Hendrickson, William. The Covenant of Grace. Revised ed. 2nd
printing. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1982.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 3 Volumes. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1940.
Hoekema, Anthony A. Created in Gods Image. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1986.
Jackson, Samuel Macauley. Ed. Philo of Alexandria. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia ofReligious Knowledge, 15 vols. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977.
Kaiser, Walt C. The Promise Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testament.Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.
Karlberg, Mark W. Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective: Collected Essays and BookReviews in Historical, Biblical, and Systematic Theology. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock
Publishers, 2000.
Kline, Meredith G.By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of
Circumcision and Baptism. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,1968.
. The Structure of Biblical Authority. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: William B. EerdmansPublishing Company, 1972.
http://clark.wscal.edu/briefhistorycovtheol.phphttp://clark.wscal.edu/briefhistorycovtheol.phphttp://clark.wscal.edu/briefhistorycovtheol.php8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth
33/33
31
LaRondelle, Hans K. Our Creator Redeemer: An Introduction to Biblical Covenant Theology.
Berrien Springs, MO: Andrews University Press, 2005
. The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation. Berrien Springs,
MI: Andrews University Press, 1983.
Latourette, Kenneth Scott.A History of Christianity. 2 vols. 1953; Reprint. Peabody, MA:
Prince Press, 1997.
Lillback, Peter A. The Binding of God: Calvins Role in the Development of Covenant Theology.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Book House Company, 2001.
McGowan, ATB. The Federal Theology of Thomas Boston. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Publishing,
1997.
Murray, John. Collected Writings of John Murray. 4 vols. Edinburgh, PA: The Banner ofTruthTrust, 1982.
. The Imputation of Adams Sin. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1959.
Raymond, Robert L.A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. 2nd
ed. Revised andUpdated. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1998.
Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsberg, NJ: Presbyterian and ReformedPublishing Co., 1980.
Schaff, Philip.History of the Christian Church. 8 vols. 1910; Reprint. Grand Rapids: Wm B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985.
Smith, Ralph Allan. Interpreting the Covenant of Works. Berith.org.http://www.berith.org/essays/cov_works/.
Snider, Andrew V. Justification and the Active Obedience of Christ: Toward a Biblical
Understanding of Imputed Righteousness. ThM thesis, Masters Seminary, 2002.
Sproul, R. C. Getting the Gospel Right: The Tie that Binds Evangelicals Together. Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, a division of Baker Book House Company, 1999.
Strimple, Robert B. Amillennialism. In, Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1999. 83129.
Thiessen, Henry Clarence.Lectures in Systematic Theology. Revised by Vernon D. Doerksen.Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979.
Weir, D. A. The Origins of The Federal Theology in Sixteenth-Century Reformation Thought.New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
http://www.berith.org/essays/cov_works/http://www.berith.org/essays/cov_works/http://www.berith.org/essays/cov_works/