Covenant Theology: The Promises of God’s Word

Loading Scripture… Genesis 17:7 (ESV)

In our last chapter, we previewed the concept of biblical theology. There are recurring themes in Scripture that hold the overarching storyline of Scripture together. One of the best examples of this is the covenant theology we will now consider.

What is it and why does it matter?

Marriage is often called a covenant. In a marriage covenant, the man and woman vow to love, honor, and cherish one another in every circumstance and until death. A woman believing in the biblical doctrine of male headship may add “obey” to her list of vows. To break these vows is to break the covenant.

Another example of covenant in our society is contract law. Two parties enter into a business agreement. In exchange for “consideration” which can mean money, property, or something else, one party agrees to perform a task needed by the other party. If the task is completed, and the price is paid, then the terms of the contract are met. If one party fails to fulfill his end of the bargain, the contract (covenant) is broken.

God’s covenants with man are different in one sense. God initiates a covenant apart from any kind of negotiation that may occur between a man and woman or between two parties conducting business. In some covenants, God provides the terms, and the individuals subject to those terms face harsh penalties if they break those terms. The command in the Garden of Eden not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is often called a covenant of works. Do this and live. Disobey and you will surely die.

Then there’s what is known as the Covenant of Grace or the New Covenant. This covenant is unlike the covenants of the Old Testament in that it cannot be broken. God has fulfilled all the terms of the covenant by sending his Son as a substitute for believers. While man failed at every covenant God threw at him, Christ succeeded in every facet of his responsibility as federal head of the New Covenant. And if you don’t understand a word I just wrote, I have a few books I’d recommend.

There is significant disagreement within evangelicalism over the idea of covenants – especially the meaning I just attributed to the New Covenant. Some Dispensationalists will argue that the New Covenant has nothing to do with believers at all but is applied to ethnic Israel. Presbyterians will argue that the New Covenant can indeed be broken in the visible church, because babies they baptize into the New Covenant church can and do grow up to be unbelievers. But Reformed Baptists believe the visible church should reflect the invisible church. The visible church adds members by a person’s profession of faith and baptism. Those who profess faith but later fall away are excommunicated as they were wrongly attributed to church membership by men who are ignorant of the true condition of the heart. Are unbelievers on Reformed Baptist church membership rolls? Likely, but not intentionally. A major part of church discipline is removing those who, by profession or behavior, demonstrate they are not really members of the invisible church.

These are not generally considered to be serious enough disagreements for any kind of disfellowship – separate denominations, yes, heretical teaching, no. But the differences on the topic are serious enough to divide denominationally and so careful study should be made to rightly understand how God uses covenants – most importantly the New Covenant.

What should I seek to understand about the topic?

• Know the definition of federal headship and its significance.
• 1689 Federalism: The typical name given to the treatment of the New Covenant in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (the 1689)
• The various covenants throughout Scripture: Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, Covenant of Grace (the New Covenant)
• The covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, the covenant of grace
• The Covenant of Redemption: the three persons of the Godhead covenanted to redeem a people for God, and each member of the Godhead fulfills His covenant obligations.
• The differences between 1689 Federalism and the Paedobaptist form of Covenant Theology.
• The relationship of covenant theology to baptism, church membership, and identification of the people of God

My thoughts on the topic

Covenant theology is a fascinating study and one in which many godly men and women agree to disagree. The most glaring division that occurs within Christendom is the movement from covenant theology to New Covenant theology to progressive dispensationalism to classic dispensationalism. There are multiple ways in which people explain God’s interaction with his people and how it changes – or doesn’t change – over time.

I believe that the 1689 rightly explains the concepts of covenant theology. I disagree with the dispensationalist view that God has different purposes for Israel and the church. Ephesians 2:11-16 describes Gentiles who were once far off being brought near by Christ’s blood – resulting in “one new man in place of the two.” Jew and Gentile alike are in the New Covenant by Jesus’ blood. The promises to Abraham were fulfilled in Christ and all believers of all time are beneficiaries of those promises. I believe those promises culminated in the New Covenant promised by God in Jeremiah 31. And I believe Christ’s death on the cross secured salvation for His people – the covenant being sealed by His blood. And those people are the children of Abraham.

If you are in a Reformed Baptist church, covenant theology is considered a distinctive that makes Reformed Baptists unique. Dispensationalists and Paedobaptists might use a different word than “unique”, but as my pastor likes to say – they have every right to be wrong.

Typology is up next. “Literal” interpreters beware.