COVENANT THEOLOGY
(Our study in 2 Peter 2:1, 10-7-08) Covenant theology is a system developed by two men, Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) and Hermann Witsius (1636-1708). It was an attempt to tie the Old and New Testaments together by two covenants. The first was called the covenant of works, defined as the covenant instituted by God with Adam after creation. This was abrogated by the Fall and was replaced by the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace is the covenant of salvation, a single covenant for all men after the Fall. Thus the unifying feature of the Bible in this system is God’s grace.
Covenant theology is built on a weak hermeneutical base which consists of theological constructs. These constructs were established during the 17th century by serious scholars who no doubt genuinely sought to understand God’s Word and how it fits together. But it was done without sufficient evaluation of the basic issue of authority and hermeneutical foundations. Conversely dispensationalism is built on the strong hermeneutical base of literal interpretation. As such it has a strong external authority and a consistent method. Since Scripture is the believer’s authority, dispensationalism is concluded to be a more effective hermeneutical system. Dallas Theological Seminary, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 143 (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1986; 2002), 143:257-258.
Charles Fred Lincoln There is in the Holy Scriptures a distinctive Biblical doctrine of the Covenants. There is also in the writings of a large number of devout and honored theologians a system of doctrine called “The Covenant Theory,” or “Covenant Theology.” A great difference exists between the Scriptural doctrine and the theological concept. The latter is nowhere constructively taught in the Scripture and was not set forth in a system of teaching until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of the Christian era. Its conception of God’s purposes, His present divine program, and His future plans respecting the nation Israel are at notable variance with the doctrine of the Covenants as revealed in the Scriptures. The misuse of the word covenant in connection with the theory in question is most unfortunate. Scripture knows nothing of the names: Covenant of Redemption, Covenant of Works, and Covenant of Grace, and the unwarranted and artificial use of the word by the covenantists serves only to misconstrue, divert from, and bedim the real teaching of Scripture regarding the true Covenants. Dallas Theological Seminary, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 100 (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1943; 2002), 100:309.
John F. Walvoord The Divine record shows that all the major covenants have been made with the nation Israel or with individuals of that race for the benefit of the nation. Every one of the thirty-three places where the word covenant (διαθήκη) is used in the New Testament, there is a reference to and a discussion of the covenant relationships existing between Israel and God as set forth in the Old Testament Scriptures. This declaration is made with the understanding that the New Covenant was first of all given to Israel, Jeremiah 31:31–40, etc., and that the believer of the present age enters into the blessings of that covenant because he is united to Christ who is the mediator of the New Covenant. (Cf. Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; and 2 Corinthians 3:6).
Moreover, twenty-one of these thirty-three New Testament references are found in the epistle to the Hebrews. One major conflict of covenant theology with dispensationalism is Covenant theology regards all dispensations as phases of the one purpose of God expressed in the covenant of grace. Dallas Theological Seminary, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 107 (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1950; 2002), 107:286.
John F. Walvoord The entire Old Testament constitutes under covenant theology a progressive revelation of one covenant, the covenant of grace, and all the Biblical covenants are phases or developments of it. The final revelation is given in the New Testament. This in effect declares that God has one central purpose, the salvation of the elect, and that all the dispensations are essentially the fulfillment of this purpose. By contrast, the premillennial and dispensational interpretation of Scripture builds upon the successive Biblical covenants which are expressly revealed in the Bible, interprets them literally, and conditions the form and responsibility of life in successive dispensations according to the covenants which apply.
2 Covenant theology is built upon a spiritualizing method of interpreting the Scriptures. In order to make the various covenants of the Old Testament conform to the pattern of the covenant of grace it is necessary to interpret them in other than their literal sense. This is illustrated in the promises given to Abraham and to Israel which are interpreted as promises to the New Testament church. Berkhof states, in regard to the covenant of grace, “The main promise of God, which includes all other promises, is contained in the oft-repeated words, ‘I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.’ Gen 17:7.” The promise was intended to be applied to Abraham’s physical seed and to Abraham himself. It is characteristic of covenant theology to appropriate these promises as belonging to all who receive grace under the covenant of grace.
The covenant theory allows no place for literal fulfillment of Israel’s national and racial promises and either cancels them on the ground that Israel failed to meet the necessary conditions, or transfers them to the saints in general. From the dispensational and literal standpoint, this is misappropriation of Scriptural promises. A serious objection to the covenant of grace is that it is nowhere directly stated in Scripture in the form claimed by the amillenarian covenant theologians. The concept of an eternal covenant of grace was never seriously advanced until the post-Reformation period when it was proposed by Witsius. It is not contained in the historic creeds of the church as an eternal covenant.
One of the serious errors of the covenant theologians is their disregard of the essentially, legal and non gracious rule provided by the Mosaic Covenant. The New Testament in no uncertain terms describes it as a ministry of death and condemnation, and it is never described as a way of salvation. The dispensational view of Scripture taken as a whole is far more satisfactory as it allows for the literal and natural interpretation of the great covenants of Scripture, in particular those with Abraham, Moses, David, and with Israel as a whole, and explains them in the light of their own historical and prophetical context without attempting to conform them to a theological concept to which they are mostly unsuited.
Covenant theology, in a word, conceives the purpose of God as essentially soteriological, or concerned with the salvation of the elect. The unfolding of the successive ages of God’s dealings with men is, then, the fulfillment of the divine purpose supposedly embraced in an eternal covenant within the Godhead. This normally issues in a merging of Israel and the church and the point of view which considers the Old Testament, the present age, and the future millennium essentially parts of one progressive purpose. The strongest proponents of covenant theology today are Reformed churches still adhering clearly to Calvin and conservative theology. These are usually amillennial rather than premillennial and are opposed to dispensational theology. Dallas Theological Seminary, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 110 (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1953; 2002), 110:290.
(Our study in 2 Peter 2:1, 10-7-08) Covenant theology is a system developed by two men, Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) and Hermann Witsius (1636-1708). It was an attempt to tie the Old and New Testaments together by two covenants. The first was called the covenant of works, defined as the covenant instituted by God with Adam after creation. This was abrogated by the Fall and was replaced by the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace is the covenant of salvation, a single covenant for all men after the Fall. Thus the unifying feature of the Bible in this system is God’s grace.
Covenant theology is built on a weak hermeneutical base which consists of theological constructs. These constructs were established during the 17th century by serious scholars who no doubt genuinely sought to understand God’s Word and how it fits together. But it was done without sufficient evaluation of the basic issue of authority and hermeneutical foundations. Conversely dispensationalism is built on the strong hermeneutical base of literal interpretation. As such it has a strong external authority and a consistent method. Since Scripture is the believer’s authority, dispensationalism is concluded to be a more effective hermeneutical system. Dallas Theological Seminary, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 143 (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1986; 2002), 143:257-258.
Charles Fred Lincoln There is in the Holy Scriptures a distinctive Biblical doctrine of the Covenants. There is also in the writings of a large number of devout and honored theologians a system of doctrine called “The Covenant Theory,” or “Covenant Theology.” A great difference exists between the Scriptural doctrine and the theological concept. The latter is nowhere constructively taught in the Scripture and was not set forth in a system of teaching until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of the Christian era. Its conception of God’s purposes, His present divine program, and His future plans respecting the nation Israel are at notable variance with the doctrine of the Covenants as revealed in the Scriptures. The misuse of the word covenant in connection with the theory in question is most unfortunate. Scripture knows nothing of the names: Covenant of Redemption, Covenant of Works, and Covenant of Grace, and the unwarranted and artificial use of the word by the covenantists serves only to misconstrue, divert from, and bedim the real teaching of Scripture regarding the true Covenants. Dallas Theological Seminary, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 100 (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1943; 2002), 100:309.
John F. Walvoord The Divine record shows that all the major covenants have been made with the nation Israel or with individuals of that race for the benefit of the nation. Every one of the thirty-three places where the word covenant (διαθήκη) is used in the New Testament, there is a reference to and a discussion of the covenant relationships existing between Israel and God as set forth in the Old Testament Scriptures. This declaration is made with the understanding that the New Covenant was first of all given to Israel, Jeremiah 31:31–40, etc., and that the believer of the present age enters into the blessings of that covenant because he is united to Christ who is the mediator of the New Covenant. (Cf. Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; and 2 Corinthians 3:6).
Moreover, twenty-one of these thirty-three New Testament references are found in the epistle to the Hebrews. One major conflict of covenant theology with dispensationalism is Covenant theology regards all dispensations as phases of the one purpose of God expressed in the covenant of grace. Dallas Theological Seminary, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 107 (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1950; 2002), 107:286.
John F. Walvoord The entire Old Testament constitutes under covenant theology a progressive revelation of one covenant, the covenant of grace, and all the Biblical covenants are phases or developments of it. The final revelation is given in the New Testament. This in effect declares that God has one central purpose, the salvation of the elect, and that all the dispensations are essentially the fulfillment of this purpose. By contrast, the premillennial and dispensational interpretation of Scripture builds upon the successive Biblical covenants which are expressly revealed in the Bible, interprets them literally, and conditions the form and responsibility of life in successive dispensations according to the covenants which apply.
2 Covenant theology is built upon a spiritualizing method of interpreting the Scriptures. In order to make the various covenants of the Old Testament conform to the pattern of the covenant of grace it is necessary to interpret them in other than their literal sense. This is illustrated in the promises given to Abraham and to Israel which are interpreted as promises to the New Testament church. Berkhof states, in regard to the covenant of grace, “The main promise of God, which includes all other promises, is contained in the oft-repeated words, ‘I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.’ Gen 17:7.” The promise was intended to be applied to Abraham’s physical seed and to Abraham himself. It is characteristic of covenant theology to appropriate these promises as belonging to all who receive grace under the covenant of grace.
The covenant theory allows no place for literal fulfillment of Israel’s national and racial promises and either cancels them on the ground that Israel failed to meet the necessary conditions, or transfers them to the saints in general. From the dispensational and literal standpoint, this is misappropriation of Scriptural promises. A serious objection to the covenant of grace is that it is nowhere directly stated in Scripture in the form claimed by the amillenarian covenant theologians. The concept of an eternal covenant of grace was never seriously advanced until the post-Reformation period when it was proposed by Witsius. It is not contained in the historic creeds of the church as an eternal covenant.
One of the serious errors of the covenant theologians is their disregard of the essentially, legal and non gracious rule provided by the Mosaic Covenant. The New Testament in no uncertain terms describes it as a ministry of death and condemnation, and it is never described as a way of salvation. The dispensational view of Scripture taken as a whole is far more satisfactory as it allows for the literal and natural interpretation of the great covenants of Scripture, in particular those with Abraham, Moses, David, and with Israel as a whole, and explains them in the light of their own historical and prophetical context without attempting to conform them to a theological concept to which they are mostly unsuited.
Covenant theology, in a word, conceives the purpose of God as essentially soteriological, or concerned with the salvation of the elect. The unfolding of the successive ages of God’s dealings with men is, then, the fulfillment of the divine purpose supposedly embraced in an eternal covenant within the Godhead. This normally issues in a merging of Israel and the church and the point of view which considers the Old Testament, the present age, and the future millennium essentially parts of one progressive purpose. The strongest proponents of covenant theology today are Reformed churches still adhering clearly to Calvin and conservative theology. These are usually amillennial rather than premillennial and are opposed to dispensational theology. Dallas Theological Seminary, Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 110 (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1953; 2002), 110:290.