|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2024 14:38:47 GMT -5
INTRODUCTION
STUDENTS of historical theology, even those who entertain a
radically different view of the history of divine revelation from that
which governs the thought of classic Reformed theology, have
recognized that the covenant theology marked an epoch in the
appreciation and understanding of the progressiveness of divine
revelation. William Robertson Smith, for example, gives the
following appraisal: ‘With all its defects, the Federal theology of
Cocceius is the most important attempt, in the older Protestant
theology, to do justice to the historical development of revelation’.
Geerhardus Vos, steeped in and sympathetic towards the covenant
theology, says that it ‘has from the beginning shown itself possessed
of a true historic sense in the apprehension of the progressive
character of the deliverance of truth.’
When we use the term “covenant theology”, however, we must not
restrict this evaluation to the more fully developed covenant theology
of the seventeenth century. For in John Calvin there is a distinct
emphasis upon the historic progressiveness and continuity of
redemptive revelation. We need only to be reminded of the
Institutes, Book II, Chapters x and xi where he unfolds in detail the
similarities and differences of the two Testaments. It is in connection
with this discussion that he says: ‘The covenant of all the fathers is so
far from differing substantially from ours, that it is the very same.
Only the administration varies.’ Later, in one of the most significant
statements relevant to this subject, he says: ‘If the subject still
appears involved in any obscurity, let us proceed to the very form of
the covenant; which will not only satisfy sober minds, but will
abundantly prove the ignorance of those who endeavour to oppose it.
For the Lord has always covenanted thus with his servants: ‘I will be
to you a God, and ye shall be to me a people" (Lv. xxvi. 12). These
expressions, according to the common explanation of the prophets,
comprehend life, and salvation, and consummate felicity.’ Nothing
could be more pertinent to the perspective which is indispensable to
the proper understanding of covenant revelation than the
recognition that the central element of the blessing involved in
covenant grace is the relationship expressed in the words, ‘I will be
your God, and ye shall be my people’.
The covenant theology not only recognized the organic unity and
progressiveness of redemptive revelation but also the fact that
redemptive revelation was covenant revelation and that the religion
of piety which was the fruit and goal of this covenant revelation was
covenant religion or piety. The necessity of this conclusion can
readily be shown by the fact that the relation of grace and promise
established by God with Abraham was a covenant relation. It is this
Abrahamic covenant, so explicitly set forth in Genesis xv and xvii,
that underlies the whole subsequent development of God’s
redemptive promise, word, and action. It is in terms of the promise
given to Abraham, that in him and in his seed all the families of the
earth would be blessed, that God sent forth His Son in the fulness of
time in order that He might redeem them that were under the law
and all without distinction might receive the adoption of sons. It is in
fulfilment of this promise to Abraham that there is now no longer
Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, bond nor free, that Christ is all
and in all, and that all believers are blessed with faithful Abraham.
The redemptive grace of God in the highest and furthest reaches of
its realization is the unfolding of the promise given to Abraham and
therefore the unfolding of the Abrahamic covenant. Soteriology is
covenant soteriology and eschatology is covenant eschatology.
The covenant theology was governed by this insight and by this
conception. It was in the Reformed theology that the covenant
theology developed, and the greatest contribution of covenant
theology was its covenant soteriology and eschatology.
It would not be, however, in the interests of theological conservation
or theological progress for us to think that the covenant theology is
in all respects definitive and that there is no further need for
correction, modification, and expansion. Theology must always be
undergoing reformation. The human understanding is imperfect.
However architectonic may be the systematic constructions of any
one generation or group of generations, there always remains the
need for correction and reconstruction so that the structure may be
brought into closer approximation to the Scripture and the
reproduction be a more faithful transcript or reflection of the
heavenly exemplar. It appears to me that the Covenant theology,
notwithstanding the finesse of analysis with which it was worked out
and the grandeur of its articulated systematization, needs recasting.
We would not presume to claim that we shall be so successful in this
task that the reconstruction will displace and supersede the work of
the classic covenant theologians. But with their help we may be able
to contribute a little towards a more biblically articulated and
formulated construction of the covenant concept and of its
application to our faith, love, and hope.
DEFINITION OF THE TERM
‘COVENANT’
From early times in the era of the Reformation and throughout the
development of the covenant theology the formulation has been
deeply affected by the idea that a covenant is a compact or agreement
between two parties. As early as Henry Bullinger’s De Testamento
seu Foedere Dei we find such statements as the following. ‘A
diaqhvkh in the singular number signifies a pact and agreement and
promise. And Bullinger proceeds to construe the covenant of grace as
a uniting together of God and man in terms of certain prescriptions -
on God’s side promises, on man’s side the condition of keeping the
covenant by fearing the Lord, walking in His ways, and serving Him
with the whole heart. Ursinus, in like manner, says: ‘A covenant in
general signifieth a mutual contract or agreement of two parties
joined in the covenant, whereby is made a bond or obligation on
certain conditions for the performance of giving or taking something,
with addition of outward signs and tokens, for solemn testimony and
confirmation that the compact and promise shall be kept inviolable’.
Hence God’s covenant is a mutual promise and agreement between
God and men, whereby God giveth men assurance, that he will be
gracious and favorable to them . . . and on the other side men bind
themselves to faith and repentance’. This mutual compact, Ursinus
holds, is sealed by the sacraments, testifying God’s will toward us
and our dutifulness toward Him. John Preston, likewise, defines a
covenant as a compact, agreement, mutual engagement. The
covenant with Abraham comprised four things: (1) the seed
promised and fulfilled in Christ; (2) the condition — faith in the
promise; (3) the confirmation — promise and oath; (4) the parts
which answer to the three offices of Christ.’ And William Perkins
says that the covenant of grace is nothing more than ‘a compact
made between God and man touching reconciliation and life
everlasting by Christ’. The parties reconciled are God and man, God
being the principal, promising righteousness and life in Christ, and
man binding himself to faith. Christ is the mediator in whom all the
promises are yea and amen.
The more scholastic and systematic theologians took their point of
departure from this type of definition. Peter Van Mastricht, for
example, says that a covenant denotes an agreement (consensus)
between God and His people in which God promises beatitude and
stipulates obedience. Van Mastricht applies this notion of agreement
or consent of parties in different ways to different covenants and
thus makes important distinctions. But these distinctions are not our
concern at present. Cocceius also construes the covenant of grace as
‘an agreement between God and man a sinner’.
Francis Turretine defines the covenant of grace as ‘a gratuitous pact
between God offended and man the offender, entered into in Christ,
in which God promises to man freely on account of Christ remission
of sins and salvation, and man relying on the same grace promises
faith and obedience. Or it is a gratuitous agreement between God the
offended one and man the offender concerning grace and glory in
Christ to be conferred upon man the sinner on the condition of faith’.
Consequently the elements in the covenant consist in (1) the Author,
(2) the Parties contracting, (3) the Mediator, and (4) the Clauses a
parte Dei and a parte hominis.
Herman Witsius, to take another example, says that ‘the covenant of
grace is an agreement between God and the elect sinner; God
declaring his free goodwill concerning eternal salvation, and
everything relative thereto, freely to be given to those in covenant by
and for the sake of the Mediator Christ; and man consenting to that
goodwill by a sincere faith’.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2024 14:40:44 GMT -5
THE USE OF THE TERM IN SCRIPTURE
As we study the biblical evidence bearing upon the nature of divine
covenant we shall discover that the emphasis in these theologians
upon God’s grace and promise is one thoroughly in accord with the
relevant biblical data. As we shall see, the gracious, promissory
character of covenant cannot be over-accented. But the question that
confronts us is whether the notion of mutual compact or agreement
or convention provides the proper point of departure for our
construction of the covenant of grace. The question now is not
whether the theologians who made use of this concept were entirely
governed by its implications and carried it out so rigidly in their
construction of the covenant of grace that the total result was warped
and distorted by the importation and application of this idea.
Furthermore, the question is not whether the idea of compact may
not with propriety be used in the interpretation and construction of
certain aspects of those divine provisions which lie behind and come
to expression in God’s administration of saving grace to fallen men.
And, finally, the question is not whether mutuality must be ruled out
of our conception of what is involved in the relation which the
covenant of grace constitutes. The question is simply whether
biblico-theological study will disclose that, in the usage of Scripture,
covenant (berith in Hebrew and diatheke in Greek) may properly be
interpreted in terms of a mutual pact or agreement.
(a) Covenants between men
When we examine the Scripture we do find that berith is applied to
relationships established between men.
Abraham and Abimelech made a covenant at Beersheba (Gn. xxi. 27, 32).16
Abimelech said to Isaac, ‘Let us make a covenant with thee’ (Gn. xxvi. 28).
Laban said to Jacob, ‘Now therefore come thou, and let us make a covenant, I
and thou; and let it be for a witness between me and thee’ (Gn. xxxi. 44).
The Gibeonites said to Joshua, ‘Make ye a covenant with us’ (Jos. ix. 6, 11, RV, cf. verse 15).
David made a covenant with Jonathan, and Jonathan with David (1 Sa. xviii. 3).
David made a covenant with Abner (2 Sa. iii 12, 13, 21); he also made a covenant
with all the elders of Israel in Hebron when he became king over all Israel (2 Sa. v. 3).
Solomon and Hiram made a covenant (1 Ki. v. 12).
It might seem that here undoubtedly the notion of agreement or
contract prevails and that to make a covenant is simply to enter into a mutual compact or league.
It must be said, first of all, that, even should it be true that in these
covenants the idea of mutual compact is central, it does not follow
that the idea of compact is central in or essential to the covenant
relation which God constitutes with man. We have to recognize a
parity existing between men which cannot obtain in the relation
between God and man. And we must also appreciate the flexibility
that attaches to the use of terms in Scripture as well as in other
literature. Hence we might find that mutual compact is of the
essence of covenant when a merely human relationship is in view
and that such an idea would be entirely out of place when a divinehuman relationship is contemplated.
In the second place, it needs to be noted that the LXX in these cases
renders the Hebrew berith by the Greek word diatheke. This is
significant because, if mutual compact belonged to the essence of
covenant in these cases, we should have expected the translators to
use suntheke. To say the least this raises our suspicion that the LXX
translators were not governed by the thought of mutual agreement
when they came to these instances of covenantal human
relationships. Geerhardus Vos is mistaken when he says that ‘where
the berith is made between man and man and consists in a mutual
agreement, the translators do not employ diaqhkhbut sunqhkh, a
word exactly corresponding to the word covenant’. The term
suntheke hardly ever appears in the canonical books of the LXX. It
appears two or three times but only once possibly as the translation
of berith. In this one possible case it refers to the Lord’s covenant
with Israel.
In the third place, when we examine some of the instances in
question we shall discover that the thought of pact or contract is not
in the foreground. It is not denied that there is engagement or
commitment in reference to something upon which the person
entering into covenant is agreed. Abimelech said to Isaac, ‘Let us
make a covenant with thee; that thou will do us no hurt, as we have
not touched thee’ (Gn. xxvi. 28, 29). And Laban said to Jacob, ‘Let us
make a covenant, I and thou, and let it be for a witness between me
and thee’ (Gn. xxxi. 44). And Laban and Jacob apparently agreed
that they would not pass over the heap and pillar to each other for
harm (cf. verse 52). There is engagement or commitment indeed. But
when all the instances of merely human covenants are examined, it
would definitely appear that the notion of sworn fidelity is thrust into
prominence in these covenants rather than that of mutual contract.
It is not the contractual terms that are in prominence so much as the
solemn engagement of one person to another. To such an extent is
this the case that stipulated terms of agreement need not be present
at all. It is the giving of oneself over in the commitment of troth that
is emphasized and the specified conditions as those upon which the
engagement or commitment is contingent are not mentioned. It is
the promise of unreserved fidelity, of whole-souled commitment that
appears to constitute the essence of the covenant. There is promise,
there may be the sealing of that promise by oath, and there is the
bond resultant upon these elements. It is a bonded relationship of
unreserved commitment in respect of the particular thing involved or
the relationship constituted. This is well illustrated by what David
says to Jonathan: ‘thou hast brought thy servant into a covenant of
the Lord with thee’ (1 Sa. xx. 8). David accords to Jonathan’s
commitment the bonded character of divine sanction and regards it
as sealed by divine oath.
If this analysis of the nature of these human covenants is correct,
then the idea of stipulations and conditions devised by mutual
consultation and agreed upon as the terms of engagement need not
to be present even in human covenants. There is, of course, the bond
of commitment to one another, but so profound and all-embracing is
this commitment that the notion of contractual stipulations recedes
into the background or disappears entirely. To say the least, the case
is such in these instances of human relationship that no evidence can
be derived from them to support the idea of mutual contract or
compact.
b) Covenants made by man with God
The next type of covenant to be considered is the covenant of human
initiative entered into with the Lord. In the days of Joshua the people
said, ‘The Lord our God will we serve, and unto his voice will we
hearken’ (Jos. xxiv. 24, RV), and in answer to this promise ‘Joshua
made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and
an ordinance in Shechem.’ (xxiv. 25). There is the case of Jehoiada
who ‘made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people,
that they should be the Lord’s people’ (2 Ki. xi. 17). Josiah ‘made a
covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his
commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his
heart, and all his soul, to confirm the words of this covenant that
were written in this book: and all the people stood to the covenant’ (2
Ki. xxiii. 3, RV). Finally, Ezra said to the people in his day, ‘Now
therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the
wives’ (Ezr. x. 3). These are instances of covenanting with God. We
cannot fail to note that what is in the forefront in these cases is not a
contract or compact. Strictly speaking, it is not an agreement.
Though the persons entering into covenant agree to do certain
things, the precise thought is not that of agreement by the people
among themselves, nor a mutual agreement between the people and
the Lord. We must distinguish between devising terms of agreement
or striking an agreement, on the one hand, and the agreement of
consent or commitment, on the other. What we find in these
instances is solemn, promissory commitment to faith or troth on the
part of the people concerned. They bind themselves in bond to be
faithful to the Lord in accordance with His revealed will. The
covenant is solemn pledging of devotion to God, unreserved and
unconditional commitment to His service. We are far away from the
idea of a bond as sealed on the acceptance of certain prescribed
stipulations and the promise of fulfilment of these stipulations on the
condition that other parties to the contract fulfil the conditions
imposed upon them. The thought is rather that of unreserved, wholesouled commitment.
c) Divine covenants
When we pass on to those instances of covenant which are
specifically divine it is here that the question becomes particularly
pointed and urgent: does the idea of mutual compact or agreement
constitute the essence of a divine covenant? Or, if this points the
question too sharply, is mutual compact or agreement an integral
element in the biblical conception of a covenant which God dispenses to men?
There are a few instances in the Old Testament where the word
covenant is used with reference to God’s creative and providential
ordinances. The covenant of the day and of the night is synonymous
with the ordinances of day and night (Je. xxxiii. 20, 25). Obviously
what is emphasized is the stability and perpetuity of these
ordinances arising from the ordination of God and the immutability
arising from such ordination. There may also be an allusion to the
promise given after the flood that while the earth remained seedtime
and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night would
not cease (Gn. viii. 22). In that event the faithfulness of God not only
to His providential ordinances but also to His promise would be
brought into view, and the total thought would be that covenant in
this connection points to the ordinances of God as immovably
established by the ordination, power, and faithfulness of God. We are
given some indication of the way in which covenant may be used to
express divine monergism and fidelity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2024 14:41:40 GMT -5
THE POST-DILUVIAN NOAHIC COVENANT
We come now to those instances of covenant administration which
have respect to God’s bestowal of grace upon men, instances with
which we are directly concerned in our attempt to discover what
precisely constitutes a covenant and what precisely is the nature of
that relation on the part of God to men which covenant constitution
contemplates. We may consider, first of all, that instance which,
perhaps more than any other in Scripture, assists us in discovering
what the essence of covenant is, namely, the post-diluvian Noahic
covenant (Gn. ix. 9-17). In regard to this covenant the following
features are patent.
I. It is God’s covenant in that it is conceived, devised, determined,
established, confirmed, and dispensed by God Himself. ‘And I, behold,
I am establishing my covenant with you’ (Gn. ix. 9; cf. verses 11, 12, 13, 17).
2. It is universal in its scope, a covenant not only with Noah but with
his seed after him and with every living creature (verses 9, 10). This
places in obvious relief the fact that it affects for good even those who
do not have any intelligent understanding of its meaning. The
covenant operates for good to such an extent that its benefits are not
contingent upon intelligent appreciation of the covenant or of the
benefits which are dispensed in terms of it.
We must not forget, of course, that the blessings bestowed in terms
of this covenant are not dispensed in complete abstraction from the
revelation given at the time of its establishment nor in abstraction
from understanding of its significance on the part of men. God spoke
to Noah and to his sons. This was revelation, and revelation implies
subjects endowed with the intellectual capacity to understand its
character and its effects. Furthermore, we may not forget that the
covenant purpose and grace were made known to Noah, and the
perpetuity of the covenant is continuously attested in order that
those capable of understanding may have confidence in the security
and perpetuity of the covenant grace bestowed. But we must also
observe that the covenant operates on behalf of, and dispenses its
blessings to, those who are wholly unaware of its existence. It is a
covenant with all flesh.
3. It is an unconditional covenant. This feature is, of course,
co ordinate with the fact that intelligent understanding is not
indispensable to the reception of its benefits. But the particular
consideration now in view is that no commandment is appended
which could be construed as the condition upon which the promise is
to be fulfilled. And there is not the slightest suggestion to the effect
that the covenant could be annulled by human unfaithfulness or its
blessing forfeited by unbelief; the thought of breaking the covenant is
inconceivable. The confirmation given is to the opposite effect. In a
word, the promise is unconditional.
4. The covenant is intensely and pervasively monergistic. Nothing
exhibits this more clearly than the fact that the sign attached to attest
and seal the divine faithfulness and the irrevocability of God’s
promise is one produced by conditions over which God alone has
control and in connection with which there is rigid exclusion of
human co-operation. The sign is not an action instituted by God and
performed by man at the divine behest. It is one in which there is no
human agency whatsoever. Even what is said regarding the bow in
the cloud has a Godward reference. God will see it to remember the
everlasting covenant. There is. doubtless, anthropomorphism here.
But it is anthropomorphism for the purpose of bringing to the
forefront the unilateral character of the covenant. It is true that the
revelatory purpose of the bow in the cloud is not to be forgotten. But
the significant fact is that the revelatory purpose is to bear witness to
the divine faithfulness. It is the constant reminder that God will not
prove unfaithful to His promise. The main point to be stressed now,
however, is that this continuance is dependent upon divine
faithfulness alone; in anthropomorphic terms, upon the divine
remembrance alone. And if we fail to interpret the sign aright, if we
regard it simply as a natural phenomenon without any reference to
its covenantal meaning, this does not negate or nullify the divine
remembrance and the perpetuity of God’s faithfulness. ’I will look
upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God
and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.’ (Gn. ix. 16).
5. It is an everlasting covenant. All flesh will not again be cut off by
the waters of the flood (Gn. ix. 11). The perpetuity is bound up with
its divinely unilateral and monergistic character. It is because it is
divine in its origin, administration, establishment, and confirmation
that it can be perpetual. And we may say that the perpetuity both
stems from and witnesses to its divinity. Perpetuity and divinity are
complementary and mutually interdependent.
These features of the covenant plainly evince that this covenant is a
sovereign, divine administration, that it is such in its conception,
determination, disclosure, confirmation, and fulfilment, that it is an
administration or dispensation of forbearance and goodness, that it
is not conditioned by or dependent upon faith or obedience on the
part of men. It is an administration of grace which emanates from
the sovereign good pleasure of God and continues without any
modification or retraction of its benefits by the immutable promise
and faithfulness of God.
It is quite apparent that in this covenant we must not take our point
of departure from the idea of compact, or contract, or agreement in
any respect whatsoever. It is not contractual in its origin, or in its
constitution, or in its operation, or in its outcome. Its fulfilment or
continuance is not in the least degree contingent even upon
reciprocal obligation or appreciation on the part of its beneficiaries.
Yet it is a covenant made with men, with Noah and his sons and their
seed after them to perpetual generations. It is a covenant
characterized by divinity in a way unsurpassed by any other covenant
and yet it draws men within the scope of its operation as surely as
any other covenant does. Here we have covenant in the purity of its
conception, as a dispensation of grace to men, wholly divine in its
origin, fulfilment, and confirmation.
The question inevitably faces us: may we consider the post-diluvian
Noahic covenant as providing us with the essential features of a
divine covenant with men? Is there not in this covenant that which
makes it inappropriate as the criterion of the terms which could
govern the covenant relationship of God with men on the highest
level? In this covenant creation as a whole is brought within the
scope of the favour bestowed. Hence it can be argued that the
relationship with men involved in this covenant must be on a
denominator that is common to man and to the non-moral creation
and cannot, therefore, possess any of the differentiating features
which would characterize covenant relationship to men as men.
Needless to say this consideration must be taken into account in our
interpretation of what constitutes divine covenant on the highest
level of blessing and relationship. And yet it would be unwarranted
to disregard entirely the direction of thought provided by this
particular covenant.
An aspect of this differentiation appears in the pre-diluvian Noahic
covenant, the first instance of reference to covenant in the Old
Testament (see Gn. vi. 15). In this case Noah was commanded to do
certain things and the doing of these things on the part of Noah was
the indispensable condition of the fulfilment of the grace provided
for in the covenant. ‘Thus did Noah according to all that God
commanded him, so did he’ (Gn. vi. 22). Yet even in this case, where
obedience to commandments is the means through which the grace
of the covenant is to be realized and enjoyed, we must also take note
of the fact that in other respects this covenant exhibits the features of
divine initiation, determination, establishment, and confirmation
which are so conspicuous in the post-diluvian Noahic covenant. The
idea of compact or agreement is just as conspicuously absent as in
the post-diluvian.
Significantly enough, the commandments which, are appended,
compliance with which on the part of Noah is indispensable to the
blessing of preservation, do not in the least suggest mutuality of
agreement or compact. The commandments are added in such a way
that they are just as sovereign and unilateral in prescription or
dispensation as is the annunciation of the covenant itself. The
appended requirements are simply extensions, applications,
expressions of the grace intimated in the covenant. The directions
are as sovereign as the annunciation of the covenant and they flow
naturally from it so that there is no deflection from the idea of
sovereign dispensation. We may think of Noah as cooperating with
God in carrying out the provisions of the covenant but the co-
operation is quite foreign to that of pact or convention.
It is the co operation of response which the grace of the covenant constrains and demands.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2024 14:43:12 GMT -5
THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
When we come to the Abrahamic covenant we find features which
are entirely new in connection with covenant administration. The
first distinctive feature appears in connection with the initial
reference to the covenant (Gn. xv. 8-18). It is the solemn sanction by
which the Lord confirmed to Abraham the certainty of the promise
that he would inherit the land of Canaan. It is perhaps the most
striking sanction that we have in the whole of Scripture, particularly
if we interpret it as a self-maledictory oath in which,
anthropomorphically, God calls upon Himself the curse of
dismemberment if He does not fulfil to Abraham the promise of
possessing the land. The second distinctive feature is the reference to
keeping and breaking the covenant (Gn. xvii. 9, 10, 14).
With reference to the first distinctive feature there are certain
observations which are pertinent to the question we are now pursuing.
(1) Though this feature is signally distinctive, it underlines what we
have found already respecting the earlier covenants, namely, that a
covenant is a divine administration, divine in its origin,
establishment, confirmation and fulfilment. It is not Abraham who
passes through between the divided pieces of the animals; it is the
theophany. And the theophany represents God. The action therefore
is divinely unilateral. It is confirmation to Abraham, not
confirmation from him. Abraham here does not pledge his troth to
God by a self-maledictory oath but God condescends to pledge troth
to His promise, a fact which advertises the divine sovereignty and
faithfulness as brought to bear upon and as giving character to the
covenant constituted. ‘In the same day the Lord made a covenant
with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the
river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.’ (Gn. xv. 18).
(2) The distinctiveness of the sanction and the added solemnity
which it involves are correlative with the intimacy and spirituality of
the blessing which the covenant imparts. The essence of the blessing
is that God will be the God of Abraham and of his seed, the
characteristic promise of the Old Testament, ‘I will be your God, and
ye shall be my people’. In a word, this consists in union and
communion with the Lord.
With reference to the second distinctive feature, namely, the
necessity of keeping the covenant and the warning against breaking
it, we cannot suppress the inference that the necessity of keeping is
complementary to the added richness, intimacy, and spirituality of
the covenant itself. The spirituality of the Abrahamic covenant in
contrast with the Noahic consists in the fact that the Abrahamic is
concerned with religious relationship on the highest level, union and
communion with God. Where there is religious relationship there is
mutuality and where we have religious relationship on the highest
conceivable level there mutuality on the highest plane of spirituality
must obtain. This is just saying that there must be response on the
part of the beneficiary and response on the highest level of religious
devotion. The keeping of the covenant, therefore, so far from being
incompatible with the nature of the covenant as an administration of
grace, divine in its initiation, confirmation, and fulfilment, is a
necessity arising from the intimacy and spirituality of the religious
relation involved. The more enhanced our conception of the
sovereign grace bestowed the more we are required to posit
reciprocal faithfulness on the part of the recipient. The demands of
appreciation and gratitude increase with the length and breadth and
depth and height of the favour bestowed. And such demands take
concrete practical form in the obligation to obey the commandments of God.
We are led to the conclusion that in the Abrahamic covenant there is
no deviation .from the idea of covenant as a sovereign dispensation
of grace. We have found that grace is intensified and expanded rather
than diminished and the greater the grace the more accentuated
becomes the sovereignty of its administration. The necessity of
keeping the covenant on the part of men does not interfere with the
divine monergism of dispensation. The necessity of keeping is but
the expression of the magnitude of the grace bestowed and the
spirituality of the relation constituted. Even in this case the notion of
compact or agreement is alien to the nature of the covenant
constitution.
It may plausibly be objected, however, that the breaking of the
covenant envisaged in this case interferes with the perpetuity of the
covenant. For does not the possibility of breaking the covenant imply
conditional perpetuity? ‘The uncircumcised male . . . shall be cut off
from his people; he hath broken my covenant’ (Gn. xvii. 14, RV).
Without question the blessings of the covenant and the relation
which the covenant entails cannot be enjoyed or maintained apart
from the fulfilment of certain conditions on the part of the
beneficiaries. For when we think of the promise which is the central
element of the covenant, ‘I will be your God, and ye shall be my
people’, there is necessarily involved, as we have seen, mutuality in
the highest sense. Fellowship is always mutual and when mutuality
ceases fellowship ceases. Hence the reciprocal response of faith and
obedience arises from the nature of the relationship which the
covenant contemplates (cf. Gn. xviii. 17-19, xxii. 16-18). The
obedience of Abraham is represented as the condition upon which
the fulfilment of the promise given to him was contingent and the
obedience of Abraham’s seed is represented as the means through
which the promise given to Abraham would be accomplished. There
is undoubtedly the fulfilment of certain conditions and these are
summed up in obeying the Lord’s voice and keeping His covenant.
It is not quite congruous, however, to speak of these conditions as
conditions of the covenant. For when we speak thus we are distinctly
liable to be understood as implying that the covenant is not to be
regarded as dispensed until the conditions are fulfilled and that the
conditions are integral to the establishment of the covenant relation.
And this would not provide a true or accurate account of the covenant.
The covenant is a sovereign dispensation of God’s grace. It
is grace bestowed and a relation established. The grace dispensed
and the relation established do not wait for the fulfilment of certain
conditions on the part of those to whom the grace is dispensed.
Grace is bestowed and the relation established by sovereign divine
administration. How then are we to construe the conditions of which
we have spoken? The continued enjoyment of this grace and of the
relation established is contingent upon the fulfilment of certain
conditions. For apart from the fulfilment of these conditions the
grace bestowed and the relation established are meaningless. Grace
bestowed implies a subject and reception on the part of that subject.
The relation established implies mutuality. But the conditions in
view are not really conditions of bestowal. They are simply the
reciprocal responses of faith, love and obedience, apart from which
the enjoyment of the covenant blessing and of the covenant relation
is inconceivable. In a word, keeping the covenant presupposes the
covenant relation as established rather than the condition upon
which its establishment is contingent.
It is when viewed in this light that the breaking of the covenant takes
on an entirely different complexion. It is not the failure to meet the
terms of a pact nor failure to respond to the offer of favourable terms
of contractual agreement. It is unfaithfulness to a relation
constituted and to grace dispensed. By breaking the covenant what is
broken is not the condition of bestowal but the condition of
consummated fruition.
It should be noted also that the necessity of keeping the covenant is
bound up with the particularism of this covenant. The covenant does
not yield its blessing to all indiscriminately. The discrimination
which this covenant exemplifies accentuates the sovereignty of God
in the bestowal of its grace and the fulfilment of its promises. This
particularization is correlative with the spirituality of the grace
bestowed and the relation constituted and it is also consonant with
the exactitude of its demands. A covenant which yields its blessing
indiscriminately is not one that can be kept or broken. We see again,
therefore, that the intensification which particularism illustrates
serves to accentuate the keeping which is indispensable to the
fruition of the covenant grace.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2024 14:44:06 GMT -5
THE MOSAIC COVENANT
The Mosaic covenant offers more plausible support to the conception
of compact than does any other covenant of God with men.
Furthermore, the notion of prescribed conditions would appear to
receive more support from the circumstances of this covenant than
from those of any other. Such considerations as these have been the
occasion for constructions which set the Mosaic covenant in sharp
contrast both with the Abrahamic covenant and the New Testament.
At the outset we must remember that the idea of conditional
fulfilment is not something peculiar to the Mosaic covenant. We have
been faced quite poignantly with this very question in connection
with the Abrahamic covenant. And since this feature is there patent,
it does not of itself provide us with any reason for construing the
Mosaic covenant in terms different from those of the Abrahamic.
Another preliminary observation is that the deliverance of the
children of Israel from Egypt is stated expressly to be in pursuance of
the Abrahamic covenant. With reference to the Egyptian bondage we
read: ‘And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his
covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob’ (Ex. ii. 24). The
only interpretation of this is that the deliverance of Israel from Egypt
and the bringing of them into the land of promise is in fulfilment of
the covenant promise to Abraham respecting the possession of the
land of Canaan (Ex. iii. 16, 17, vi. 4-8; Pss. cv. 8-12, 42-45, cvi. 45). A
third observation is that the spirituality of relationship which is the
centre of the Abrahamic covenant is also at the centre of the Mosaic.
‘And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God’
(Ex. vi. 7; cf. Dt. xxix. 13). This fact links the Mosaic very closely with
the Abrahamic and shows that religious relationship on the highest
level is contemplated in both, namely, union and communion with
God. We must not, therefore, suppress or discount these important
considerations that the Mosaic covenant was made with Israel as the
sequel to their deliverance from Egypt, a deliverance wrought in
pursuance of the gracious promises given by covenant to Abraham,
wrought with the object of bringing to fulfilment the promise given
to Abraham that his seed would inherit the land of Canaan, and a
deliverance wrought in order to make Israel His own peculiar and
adopted people.
The first express reference to the covenant made with Israel at Sinai
occurs in connection with keeping the covenant. ‘Now therefore, if ye
will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a
peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine.
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation’
(Ex. xix. 5, 6). The next explicit reference appears as the sequel to the
promise of the people, ‘All that the Lord hath spoken will we do, and
be obedient’ (Ex. xxiv. 7, RV) and Moses sprinkled the blood and
said, ‘Behold, the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made
with you concerning all these words’ (Ex. xxiv. 8).
The foregoing references as well as other considerations might create
the impression that the making of the covenant had to wait for the
voluntary acceptance on the part of the people and their promise to
obey and keep it. A close study of these passages will not bear out
such an interpretation. It is an importation contrary to the texts
themselves and one that has deflected the course of thought on this
subject. Exodus xix. 5 does not say, ‘If ye will obey my voice and
accept the terms stipulated, then I will make my covenant with you’.
What is said is, ‘If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my
covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me’. The covenant
is conceived of as dispensed, as in operation, and as constituting a
certain relation, in the keeping of it and in obeying God’s voice. The
covenant is actually presupposed in the keeping of it. Undoubtedly
there is a conditional feature to the words, ‘If ye will obey my voice
indeed, and keep my covenant’. But what is conditioned upon
obedience and keeping of the covenant is the enjoyment of the
blessing which the covenant contemplates. In like manner in Exodus
xxiv. 7, 8, the covenant is not to be regarded as contingent upon the
promise of the people, so that the dispensing of the covenant had to
wait for this promise. And verse 8 is not to be construed as if then
the covenant had been inaugurated or as if acceptance on the part of
the people completed the process of constituting the covenant
relation. The covenant had already been established and the blood
was simply the confirmation or seal of the covenant established and
of the relation constituted. This gives a different perspective to our
interpretation of the Mosaic covenant, and we find that the Mosaic
covenant also is a sovereign administration of grace, divinely
initiated, established, confirmed, and fulfilled. Later references in
the Pentateuch confirm this interpretation of sovereign appointment
or dispensation (Ex. xxxiv. 27, 28; Lv. xxiv. 8; Nu. xviii. 19, xxv. 13;
cf. Neh. xiii. 29).
The question of the condition referred to above does call, however,
for some consideration. How does the condition of obedience
comport with the concept of a monergistic administration of grace?
The answer must follow the lines which have been delineated above
in connection with the keeping of the Abrahamic covenant. What
needs to be emphasized now is that the Mosaic covenant in respect of
the condition of obedience is not in a different category from the
Abrahamic. It is too frequently assumed that the conditions
prescribed in connection with the Mosaic covenant place the Mosaic
dispensation in a totally different category as respects grace, on the
one hand, and demand or obligation, on the other. In reality there is
nothing that is principally different in the necessity of keeping the
covenant and of obedience to God’s voice, which proceeds from the
Mosaic covenant, from that which is involved in the keeping required
in the Abrahamic. In both cases the keynotes are obeying God’s voice
and keeping the covenant (cf. Gn. xviii. 17-19; Ex. xix. 5, 6).
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2024 14:45:00 GMT -5
THE DAVIDIC COVENANT
If the Mosaic covenant does not disclose deviation from the
fundamental notion of a covenant, namely, that it is a sovereign
dispensation, divine in its origin, establishment, confirmation, and
fulfilment, we should not expect that subsequent covenant
administrations would evince a radically different conception.
Indeed so basic to the whole subsequent process of redemptive
history are the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants that the later
developments would be expected to confirm and intensify what we
have found to be the specific character of covenant administration.
Although the word covenant does not occur in 2 Samuel vii. 12-17, we
must conclude that this is specifically the annunciation to David,
which is elsewhere spoken of as the covenant made with David. In
Psalm lxxxix. 3, 4 the terms of 2 Samuel vii. 12-17 are clearly
reiterated. ‘I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn
unto David my servant: thy seed will I establish for ever, and build
up thy throne to all generations.’ And the same is true in later verses
of the same Psalm (cf.verses 26ff.). ‘My covenant shall stand fast
with him’ (verse 28). ‘My covenant will I not break, nor alter the
thing that is gone out of my lips’ (verse 34; cf. Ps. cxxxii. 11ff.). A
study of these passages will show that the most striking feature is the
security, the determinateness, and immutability of the divine
promise. Nothing could serve to verify the conception of the
covenant which has been elicited from earlier instances more than
the emphasis in these passages (relating to the Davidic covenant)
upon the certainty of fulfilment arising from the promise and oath of
God. Security and certainty as characterizing the covenant could not
be more plainly demonstrated than by the parallelism: ‘I have made
a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant’.
And David reflects this note of certainty when, at the close of his
career, his resort for consolation and assurance was nothing else
than the covenant of his God: ‘Verily my house is not so with God;
yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all
things, and sure: for it is all my salvation, and all my desire, although
he maketh it not to grow’ (2 Sa. xxiii. 5). No example of covenant in
the Old Testament more clearly supports the thesis that covenant is
sovereign promise, promise solemnized by the sanctity of an oath,
immutable in its security and divinely confirmed as respects the
certainty of its fulfilment.
These Davidic promises are, of course, messianic; it is in Christ that
David’s seed is established for ever and his throne built up to all
generations. In this connection we cannot overlook the relevance of
those passages in Isaiah in which the servant of the Lord is said to be
given for a covenant of the people. The prophet introduces this
messianic personage with the words, ‘Behold, my servant, whom I
uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth’ (Is. xlii. 1). And he
quickly adds, ‘I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will
hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of
the people, for a light of the Gentiles’ (verse 6). Later he reiterates:
‘And I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people’
(Is. xlix. 8). The co-ordination of Isaiah lv. 3, 4 is equally significant:
‘Incline your ear, and come unto me; hear, and your soul shall live;
and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure
mercies of David. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the
peoples, a leader and commander to the peoples’ (RV). Nothing less
than sovereign dispensation and unilateral bestowment will comport
with the donation of the servant as a covenant of the people. Any
notion of agreement or compact would ruthlessly violate the
sovereignty of the grace involved and the divine monergism of the
action entailed. And no doubt this unusual way of expressing the
bestowment of grace is dictated by the consideration that nothing
accentuates the certainty and security of promise and fulfilment
more than to invest the assurance given with the sanction of
covenant. Furthermore, in these Isaianic passages the inference is
inevitable that the everlasting covenant which the Lord makes with
the people is correlative with the fact that He has given the servant as
a covenant of the people. The security of the covenant with the
people is grounded in the security of the donation of the servant as a
covenant of the people. And when Malachi calls the messenger ‘the
messenger of the covenant’ (Mal. iii. 1), there is the implication that
not only is the Messiah given for a covenant of the people but that
when He is sent forth to discharge His office it is in terms of the
covenant that He does this. He is the angel of the covenant because
He comes in pursuance of the covenant promise and purpose, and
He is Himself the covenant because the blessings and provisions of
the covenant are to such an extent bound up with Him that He is
Himself the embodiment of these blessings and of the presence of
the Lord with His people which the covenant insures. To whatever
extent the response of inclining the ear, of hearing, and of coming
(Is. lv. 3) may be requisite in order that the blessings of covenant
grace and relationship may be ours, it must be apparent that the
covenant itself is a sovereign donation of the child born and the Son
given (Is. ix. 6). There is nothing that corresponds to the contractual
in the declaration ‘I will give thee for a covenant of the people’ nor in
the promise I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the
sure mercies of David’. Elsewhere in this prophecy of Isaiah it is the
certitude and immutability of God’s grace that is thrust into
prominence in connection with covenant disclosure. ‘This is as the
waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah
should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not
be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the mountains shall depart,
and the hills be removed; but my lovingkindness shall not depart
from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith
the Lord that hath mercy on thee’ (Is. liv. 9, 10; cf. lix. 21). This
passage shows that the post-diluvian Noahic covenant provides the
pattern or type of what is involved in God’s covenant of peace with
His people, namely, that it is an oath-bound and oath-certified
assurance of irrevocable grace and promise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2024 14:46:14 GMT -5
COVENANT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
When we come to the New Testament a goodly number of the
instances of diatheke are references to Old Testament covenants,
sometimes in quotation from the Old Testament (Lk. i. 72; Acts iii.
35, vii. 8; Rom. ix. 4, xi. 27; 2 Cor. iii. 14; Gal. iii. 15, 17, iv. 24; Eph.
ii. 12; Heb. viii. 9, ix. 4, 15, 20). There are others which refer to Old
Testament promises, though not specifically to Old Testament covenants.
There are instructive lessons, pertinent to our inquiry, to be derived
from these Old Testament allusions. The first (Lk. i. 72) is illumining
in this respect. When Zacharias says that the Lord, the God of Israel,
had remembered His holy covenant, the oath which He had sworn to
Abraham, it is apparent that he construes the redemptive events
which form the subject of his doxology as a fulfilment of the
Abrahamic covenant. The language of his blessing is unmistakably
reminiscent of the language used when God had been preparing His
people for the imminent deliverance from the bondage of Egypt. We
cannot escape the inference that the redemptive accomplishment
signalized by the coming of Christ found its historical prototype in
the redemption from Egypt. In Zacharias’ esteem it is the same
fidelity to covenant promise and oath that is exemplified in the
accomplishment of redemption through Christ and in the
redemption from Egypt by the hand of Moses and Aaron.
This indicates that the undergirding principle of the thought of pious
Israelites at this time was the unity and continuity of God’s covenant
revelation and action, a principle which came to spontaneous
expression in the thanksgiving of Zacharias and bears the
imprimatur of the Holy Spirit. It was by inspiration that Zacharias
spoke, for we are told that he ‘was filled with the Holy Ghost, and
prophesied’ (Lk. i. 67).
Another observation worthy of note is the occurrence of the plural
‘covenants’ in reference to the privilege of Israel (Rom. ix. 4; Eph. ii.
12). Apparently the New Testament writers did not think of the
peculiar prerogatives of Israel in terms simply of the Abrahamic
covenant even though this covenant is given very distinct
prominence in other passages. And of more significance is the fact
that Paul speaks of these covenants as ‘the covenants of promise’
(Eph. ii. 12). He does not hesitate to place the various covenants
which constituted the distinctiveness of Israel in the category of
promise just as he does not hesitate to list the ‘covenants’ together
with the adoption and the glory and the giving of the law and the
service of God and the promises (Rom. ix. 4). In this we are advised
of the direction in which we are to seek for the New Testament
conception of covenant.
Most significant of all, perhaps, in this classification of New
Testament passages is Galatians iii. 15, 17. Paul’s emphasis here is
upon the immutability, security, inviolability of covenant. ‘Though it
be but a man’s covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no one
makes it void, or adds thereto.’ ‘A covenant confirmed beforehand by
God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, does
not disannul, so as to make the promise of no effect.’ Whatever view
we may entertain regarding the precise import of diatheke in this
passage, whether it is the testamentary or the dispensatory, we
cannot escape the governing thought of the apostle, namely, that a
human covenant is irrevocable once it has been confirmed and that it
is that same inviolability which characterizes the Abrahamic
covenant and therefore, also, the promise which the covenant
embraced. Here, without question, covenant appears as a promise
and dispensation of grace, divinely established, confirmed, and
fulfilled, inviolable in its provisions and of permanent validity.
a) The new covenant and the old
When we come to those passages in the New Testament which deal
specifically with the new covenant in contrast with the old it is highly
significant that the contrast between the new economy and the old is
not expressed in terms of difference between covenant and
something else not a covenant. The contrast is within the ambit of
covenant. This would lead us to expect that the basic idea of
covenant which we find in the Old Testament is carried over into the
New. We are confirmed in this expectation when we take account of
the fact that the new covenant is the fulfilment of the covenant made
with Abraham (Lk. i. 72; Gal. iii. 15ff.). The new economy as
covenant attaches itself to the Old Testament covenant promise and
cannot be contrasted with Old Testament covenant in respect of that
which constitutes the essence of covenant grace and promise. We can
express the fact that the new covenant is the expansion and
fulfilment of the Abrahamic by saying that it was just because the
promise to Abraham had the bonded and oath-bound character of a
covenant that its realization in the fulness of the time was inviolably
certain. The new covenant in respect of its being a covenant does not
differ from the Abrahamic as a sovereign administration of grace,
divine in its inception, establishment, confirmation, and fulfilment.
The most conclusive evidence, however, is derived from a study of
the New Testament respecting the nature of the new covenant. We
shall find that the features of the covenant are the same as those we
found in connection with covenant in the Old Testament.
When our Lord said that His blood was the blood of the covenant
that was shed for many for the remission of sins and that the cup of
the last supper was the new covenant in His blood (Mt. xxvi. 28; Mk.
xiv. 24; Lk. xxii. 20; 1 Cor. xi. 25), we cannot but regard the covenant
as a designation of the sum-total of grace, blessing, truth, and
relationship comprised in that redemption which His blood has
secured. Covenant must refer to the bestowment and the relationship
secured by the sacrificial blood which He shed. It is the fulness of
grace purchased by His blood and conveyed by it. By way of
comparison there is an allusion, no doubt, to the blood by which the
old covenant, the Mosaic, had been sealed (Ex. xxiv. 6-8; cf. Heb. ix.
18). And since the new is contrasted with the old it cannot be that the
contrast inheres in any retraction or dilution of the grace which we
have found to be the essence of covenant under the Old Testament.
Apart from the reference to the institution of the Lord’s Supper in 1
Corinthians xi. 25, the only passage in Paul where he refers expressly
to the new covenant is 2 Corinthians iii. 6. Here, however, we have
the most illumining reflection upon the nature of the new covenant.
It is the ministration of the Spirit as the Spirit of life (verses 6, 8). It
is the ministration of righteousness (verse 9), and of liberty (verse
17). Most characteristically of all, it is the ministry of that
transfiguration by which we are transformed into the image of the
Lord Himself. When we assess the significance of such blessings in
terms of New Testament teaching and specifically of Pauline teaching
we see that Paul conceives of the new covenant as that which
ministers the highest blessing and constitutes the relationship to God
which is the crown and goal of the redemptive process and the apex
of the religious relationship.
When we turn to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and particularly to
those passages in which the contrast is drawn between the inferiority
of the Mosaic covenant and the transcendent excellence of the new
and better covenant, we find that the conception of covenant which
we have already found is applied to the highest degree. However
accentuated may be the problem connected with the writer’s
evaluation of the Mosaic covenant, which he contrasts with the new,
the resolution of this question will not interfere with our
understanding of the conception he entertains respecting the new
and better covenant. It is a covenant with a more excellent ministry
(Heb. viii. 6), that is to say, more excellent in respect of the access to
God secured and the fellowship maintained. To whatever extent the
old covenant was the means of establishing the peculiar relation of
the Lord to Israel as their God and their relation to Him as His
people, the new covenant places this older intimacy of relation in the
shadow. For it is the new covenant par excellence which brings to
realization the promise ‘I will be to them a God, and they shall be to
me a people’ (Heb. viii. 10). In other words, the spiritual relationship
which lay at the centre of the covenant grace disclosed in both the
Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants reaches its ripest fruition in the
new covenant. So grace is the enhancement that a comparative
contrast can be stated as if it were absolute. The new covenant is
enacted upon better promises (Heb. viii. 6). We found that bonded
and oath-bound promise constitutes the essence of the covenant
conception. In the new covenant the promises are better and they are
placed in the forefront as defining its superiority. Again, the new
covenant is not indifferent to law. It is not contrasted with the old
because the old had law and the new has not. The superiority of the
new does not consist in the abrogation of that law but in its being
brought into more intimate relation to us and more effective
fulfilment in us. ‘I will put my laws into their mind, and upon their
hearts will I write them’ (Heb. viii. 10). The new covenant is the
dispenser of the forgiveness of sins: ‘I will be merciful to their
unrighteousnesses, and their sins will I remember no more’ (Heb. viii. 12).
Finally, the new covenant is one that universalizes the
diffusion of knowledge: ‘They shall all know me from the least unto
the greatest of them’ (Heb. viii. 11). In all of this we have the
covenant as a sovereign administration of grace and promise,
constituting the relation of communion with God, coming to its
richest and fullest expression. In a word, the new covenant is
covenant as we have found it to be all along the line of redemptive
revelation and accomplishment. But it is covenant in all these
respects on the highest level of achievement. If the mark of covenant
is divinity in initiation, administration, confirmation, and fulfilment,
here we have divinity at the apex of its disclosure and activity.
b) The concept of ‘testament’
No instance of diatheke in the New Testament is more relevant to the
thesis now being developed than Heb. ix. i6, 17. There have been
interpreters who have taken the position that even in this passage the
word should not be rendered or construed as testament but as
covenant. It seems to me that Geerhardus Vos has effectively dealt
with the fallacy of this interpretation. We may assume, therefore,
that in these two verses the writer does introduce the testamentary
notion of a last will. It is admittedly an exceptional use of the term as
far as the New Testament is concerned, and it is introduced for the
specific purpose of illustrating the transcendent efficacy or
effectiveness of the death of Christ in securing the benefits of
covenant grace. Just as the disponement made in a last will goes into
effect with the death of the testator and is thereupon of full force and
validity for the benefit of the legatee, so, since Christ through the
eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, the blessing of the
new covenant becomes ours. Specifically in terms of the context, our
consciences are purged from dead works to serve the living God and
we receive the promise of an eternal inheritance. The testamentary
provisions referred to in verses 16 and 17 are introduced simply for
the purpose of enforcing the efficacy of Jesus’ death in bringing into
effect the blessings of the new covenant. There is no more possibility
or feasibility of interference with the effective application of the
blessings of the covenant than there is of interfering with a
testamentary disponement once the testator has died. This use of the
testamentary provision of Roman law to illustrate the inviolable
security accruing from the sacrificial death of Christ serves to
underline the unilateral character of the new covenant. One thing is
apparent that a testament is a unilateral disposition of possession.
How totally foreign to the notion of compact, contract, or agreement
is the disposition or dispensation which can be illustrated in respect
of its effective operation by a last will! This occasional use of
diatheke as testament cannot comport with a concept of covenant
which in any way derives its definition from the idea of mutual agreement.
CONCLUSION
This brings to a close our review of the evidence bearing upon the
nature of God’s covenant with men. From the beginning of God’s
disclosures to men in terms of covenant we find a unity of conception
which is to the effect that a divine covenant is a sovereign
administration of grace and of promise. It is not compact or contract
or agreement that provides the constitutive or governing idea but
that of dispensation in the sense of disposition. This central and
basic concept is applied, however, to a variety of situations and the
precise character of the grace bestowed and of the promise given
differs in the differing covenant administrations.
The differentiation does not reside in any deviation from this basic conception but
simply consists in the differing degrees of richness and fulness of the
grace bestowed and of the promise given. Preponderantly in the
usage of Scripture covenant refers to grace and promise specifically
redemptive. The successive covenants are coeval with the successive
epochs in the unfolding and accomplishment of God’s redemptive
will. Not only are they coeval, they are correlative with these epochs.
And not only are they correlative, they are themselves constitutive of
these epochs so that redemptive revelation and accomplishment
become identical with covenant revelation and accomplishment.
When we appreciate this fact we come to perceive that the epochal
strides in the unfolding of redemptive revelation are at the same time
epochal advances in the disclosure of the riches of covenant grace.
This progressive enrichment of the covenant grace bestowed is not,
however, a retraction of or deviation from the concept which is
constitutive from the beginning but, as we should expect, an
expansion and intensification of it. Hence, when we come to the
climax and apex of covenant administration in the New Testament
epoch, we have sovereign grace and promise dispensed on the
highest level because it is grace bestowed and promise given in
regard to the attainment of the highest end conceivable for men. It is
no wonder then that the new covenant is called the everlasting
covenant. As covenant revelation has progressed throughout the ages
it has reached its consummation in the new covenant, and the new
covenant is not wholly diverse in principle and character from the
covenants which have preceded it and prepared for it, but it is itself
the complete realization and embodiment of that sovereign grace
which was the constitutive principle of all the covenants. And when
we remember that covenant is not only bestowment of grace, not
only oath-bound promise, but also relationship with God in that
which is the crown and goal of the whole process of religion, namely,
union and communion with God, we discover again that the new
covenant brings this relationship also to the highest level of achievement.
At the center of covenant revelation as its constant
refrain is the assurance ‘I will be your God, and ye shall be my
people’. The new covenant does not differ from the earlier covenants
because it inaugurates this peculiar intimacy. It differs simply
because it brings to the ripest and richest fruition the relationship
epitomized in that promise. In this respect also the new covenant is
an everlasting covenant — there is no further expansion or enrichment.
The mediator of the new covenant is none other than
God’s own Son, the effulgence of the Father’s glory and the express
image of His substance, the heir of all things. He is its surety also.
And because there can be no higher mediator or surety than the Lord
of glory, since there can be no sacrifice more transcendent in its
efficacy and finality than the sacrifice of Him who through the
eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot unto God, this covenant
cannot give place to another. Grace and truth, promise and
fulfilment, have in this covenant received their pleroma, and it is in
terms of the new covenant that it will be said, ‘Behold, the tabernacle
of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his
people, and God himself shall be with them’ (Rev. xxi. 3)
|
|
