Covenant Theology: Continuing the Conversation
Richard P. Belcher, Jr.
Richard P. Belcher, Jr. is John D. and Frances M. Gwin Professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina and Atlanta, Georgia
Introduction
I would like to thank Drs. Parker and Lucas for the invitation to join this discussion.[1] I certainly cannot fill the shoes of Dr. Horton and I regret he could not be here. We agree on many issues related to covenant theology, including the broad structure of covenant theology, but we disagree on some important matters. He follows Meredith Kline more than I do. I don’t distinguish law covenants from promise covenants, and I do not understand the Mosaic covenant as a republication of the covenant of works (COW). I apologize if it seems like the target has shifted a bit. In my circles there is Kline’s views of the covenant and there is Murray’s view. I appreciate the writings of both men, but I am a follower of neither one completely when it comes to the covenants. I hold to the more standard view of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). I am in a denomination that subscribes to that confession, always under the authority of Scripture. I have several responses to the other views and in those responses my views will become clear.
A Future for National Israel?
I want to respond to both traditional and progressive dispensationalists on an issue they have in common. Both emphasize the original meaning to Israel so that there is still a future for national Israel. The traditional dispensationalist (TD) argues for the priority of the original meaning of the text with a strict view of the intention of the human author that gives a binding authority to those intentions. The implications are that the NT does not have priority in interpreting the OT and the typological approach is rejected. The New Covenant (NC) itself is a renewed suzerainty covenant sworn by Israel and excludes Gentiles. Thus, the church has no legal relationship to or participation in the NC.[2] The church has “no covenant unique to [it],” since “the church is [an intercalation] parenthetical to God’s covenant program with Israel.”[3] The church is thus subsidiary to and dependent on the primary relationship of Israel to the new covenant. This seems to place the mission of the nation of Israel more central to the NT than the Great Commission.
The progressive dispensational (PD) view is different in many ways, particularly they believe the new covenant is established by the death of Christ and it concerns the church, but I want to focus on something they have in common with the traditional view. There is a rejection of typology as used by Covenant Theology (CT) and Progressive Covenantalism (PC) because it cancels out a future for national Israel (not ethnic Israel). Bock terms this “covenantal suppression” which calls into question the character of God because he does not fulfill the promises he has made to Israel. The Mosaic covenant is obsolete and a future for national Israel is based on NT texts, such as Luke 22:16 where Jesus is supposed to refer to a future celebration of the Passover with his disciples (he also references Luke 13:34-35; Acts 1:8, 3:18-21). He seeks to maintain the unity of Jew and Gentile within the structural diversity of Jews and Gentiles in the one new man and in the future role for national Israel.
I don’t think either view takes seriously enough the radical nature of what the book of Hebrews teaches. The OT institutions related to the promises of God are shadows of both a heavenly reality and a future fulfillment in Christ. Hebrews 8:5 confirms Exodus 25:9, 40 that the tabernacle is made from a heavenly pattern when it says that the high priests of the OT serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. This suggests that the earthly tabernacle was provisional in character,[4] pointing forward to a future fulfillment in the coming of Christ. When Christ came, he obtained a ministry that was more excellent than the old because the covenant he mediates is better since it is enacted on better promises (Heb. 8:6). The OT institutions of the priesthood and temple are only a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of the heavenly realities (Heb. 10:1). Christ is better in every way and the Jewish people cannot go back to the shadows of the OT institutions.
The book of Hebrews also makes the point that God’s people in the OT were looking for more than an earthly fulfillment of the promises that God had made to them. The land of Canaan was not God’s highest goal for his people even in the OT. The fact that God’s rest was not just referring to the promise of earthly land is confirmed when we are told that Joshua did not lead God’s people to rest: “For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on” (Heb. 4:8). The highest goal is that the people would join God in his eternal rest by faith.[5] According to Hebrews 11:13-16 the faith of OT believers was forward looking because they did not view this world as their real home but “acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth” (v. 13). They were seeking something beyond the earthly promise of a homeland to a better heavenly country, a city prepared by God (vv. 14-16). OT believers lived and died in a state of anticipation as they waited for the better things that would come in Christ.[6] Abraham himself understood that the land was a shadow of a final heavenly dwelling place.[7] Thus, I would argue that Hebrews does not cancel out the promises made in the OT. Those promises are fulfilled in Christ in a way that brings about a greater reality of those promises in the ministry of Christ as our high priest and in the way God is present with his people. The shadows of the old covenant have fulfilled their purpose and God’s people now experience the fuller reality of what God had promised.
I also have questions about a future for national Israel. How can there be a future for national Israel if the constitution of national Israel (the Mosaic Covenant) is obsolete? In fact, part of the argument of the book of Hebrews is that not only is the Mosaic covenant obsolete, but so are the institutions that are so closely related to it, the Levitical priesthood and the temple. If the shadow realities of the Mosaic covenant are made normative for a future national Israel, it fractures the unity of Jew and Gentile in the New Covenant and leads to several false dichotomies. Does Israel continue to offer commemorative sacrifices at a rebuilt temple and participate in the Passover instead of participating in the LS? Part of the purpose of the Lord’s Supper is to demonstrate the unity between those who partake of it, including Jews and Gentiles (1 Cor. 10:14-17). Why would a Jewish person want to participate in a shadow reality when Christ has come to inaugurate the full reality of God’s presence in Christ? The book of Hebrews is saying that Christ’s priestly ministry in the throne room of God is much better and to go back to the old way is a rejection of Christ. Jesus’ priesthood is better than the Levitical priesthood (7:11-28). Jesus ministers in the greater and more perfect tent, not the earthly copy of the heavenly realities (the tabernacle/ temple). Jesus brings the full reality of what the Levitical priesthood and the temple represented. Why would anyone want to go back to the shadows of the old covenant?[8]
God’s Relationship with Adam before the Fall
I also want to respond to both PD and PC on an issue they seem to have in common. PD argues that there was no COW, only a call to trust in God. God made no covenant with Adam but just called people to carry out their responsibilities to him as Creator made in his image. Genesis 1-2 does not give a “do this and live” command. The warning of not eating from the tree or you will die meant that humans were to trust God for the knowledge of good and evil. Faith, not works, was the issue from the start.[9] The story of Scripture did not start in a legal connection but a regal, relational one.[10] However, Bock also acknowledges that there is a command given to Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He also agrees that with that command comes accountability with the warning of consequences should they disobey that sounds very legal).[11] I would argue that God gave Adam a probationary test of obedience before the Fall that makes God’s relationship with Adam before the Fall different from his relationship to Adam after the Fall (which I hope to show in a moment).
Wellum has a much better view of the relationship of God with Adam before the Fall. He understands Adam as the legal representative of humanity and that the obligation for perfect obedience to the law continues after the Fall. These things are foundational for the forensic nature of justification by faith and the Adam/Christ relationship that Paul develops in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. But he does not want to bifurcate creation in terms of two covenants (a COW before the Fall and a Covenant of Grace [COG] after the Fall).[12] Perhaps he is reacting to Horton’s view that covenants are either law or promise covenants. I don’t take that view, but I think it is important to recognize that God deals with Adam before the Fall differently than after the Fall (the COW is different than the COG). The command that God gave to Adam before the Fall not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil came with a clear statement of the consequence of what would happen if Adam or Eve disobeyed the command: in the day you eat from it you will surely die. Adam had the ability to keep this specific command. It was a “do this and live” command because if Adam had obeyed, he would not have experienced the consequences of sin. Those consequences had not yet entered the relationship between Adam and God. Adam had a warm relationship with God and was meeting with him regularly in the Garden for fellowship. There was no need of a mediator and no need of redemptive grace. God’s benevolence toward creation is evident as he showered kindness, goodwill, and many gifts and favors on those whom he had created.
After the Fall we see the consequences of sin and God’s relationship with Adam is much different. They hide from God when he comes into the Garden (Gen. 3:8). They tried to cover their shame and guilt with fig leaves (Gen. 3:7), but God must cover them with animal skins (Gen. 3:21). God promised the coming of a mediator to deal with the enmity that now existed between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). God responded to the sin of Adam and Eve with redemptive grace because there was the need of redemption and of a mediator. God’s response of grace is initiated in Genesis 3 and is further developed in the covenants of the OT which includes the development of the identity of the mediator.
One of Dr. Wellum’s criticisms is that CT loses the organic nature of divine revelation and how each covenant step-by-step discloses God’s plan reaching its fulfillment in Christ and the NC. Perhaps some have flattened the covenants, but a robust CT would see that there is one COG with a progression of unity in the different covenants related to the identity of the mediator, the basis of salvation, and the development of the promises of God. The goal of the COG is that God would dwell among his people (Gen. 17:7; Exod. 6:7; 2 Sam. 7:14; Ezek. 36:28; Jer. 31:33; 2 Cor. 6:16; Rev. 21:3). There is a unity of the people of the covenant related to the faith they share in God’s promises and in a coming mediator. There is unity in the way of salvation expressed in the same promise of eternal life, the same mediator, and the same emphasis on faith. Each covenant will have its distinctive emphases, but the promises given in each covenant will be continued in the subsequent covenants until they are fulfilled in the NC. Finally, each covenant will also administer the blessings of that covenant to God’s people so that they will experience those blessings through faith.[13]
The newness of the NC relates to all the different ways that Christ has brought to fruition the promises of the old covenant into the lives of God’s people through faith. Believers experience a dynamic reality through the power of the Holy Spirit in sanctification, the gifting of God’s people, and mission. But the newness is not absolute. God is not starting over with something only marginally related to the old covenant. The word for “new” (kainē) speaks of progression, not novelty.[14] It’s a movement from an acorn to an oak, or as a colleague of mine has stated, from a puppy to a dog, not a puppy to a cat.[15]
The Church as God’s Regenerate People
I appreciate that Dr. Wellum’s response to CT begins by listing the areas of agreement. It is very helpful and sets some parameters over against dispensationalism. His two criticisms of CT are that we fail to follow the Bible’s own covenantal presentation and so impose our own covenantal system on Scripture and that we do not fully account for the church’s newness as a regenerate people of God. Concerning the first criticism, I have already tried to show Scripturally that there is a difference in the way God responds to Adam before and after the Fall. After the Fall it is by redemptive grace in the outworking of that grace in the different covenants of the OT (Adam [Genesis 3], Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David). I think if you compared how I understand Scripture’s unfolding of these covenants with Wellum, there would be a lot of agreement until we get to the New Covenant.
Wellum also argues that CT fails to account for the newness of the church as God’s regenerate people in contrast to Israel. This means, according to Jeremiah 31:34, that in the NC everyone who becomes a part of the covenant community is a regenerate believer. Wellum makes two kinds of statements that should be kept separate because they deal with two different viewpoints. First, he states that “The NT knows nothing of one who is in Christ who is not regenerate, effectually called by the Father, born of the Spirit, justified, holy, and awaiting glorification.”[16] I agree with this statement if one looks at God’s people from the standpoint of election. Everyone united to Christ will receive the blessings of salvation.
But secondly, he also states, “the new people [NC people] will all be regenerate . . . the entire community will know God and obey from the heart.”[17] He wants to argue that all the members of the NC community, which is the church, are regenerate. These statements conflate election with covenant membership. The problem is that our perspective of who is in the NC is very different than God’s perspective. None of us know for sure when someone makes a profession of faith and is baptized, that they are a genuine believer who is united to Christ, yet they become members of the visible church.[18]
There are several things I would say in response to the necessity of a fully regenerate covenant community.
1) The Promises of Jeremiah 31 are at the Heart of this Discussion
Some PC’s argue that the problem of the Old Covenant was that it could not solve the problem of apostasy and that the NC is intended to remedy apostate covenant members (Heb. 8:9).[19]I would agree that is true eschatologically. In other words, part of the reason the Mosaic covenant failed was because it could not bring to eschatological fulfillment its promises. The New Covenant will bring to eschatological fulfillment its promises. But the promises experienced by believers in the NC are not fully realized eschatologically now because we are in a “already/not yet” situation related to salvation. Wellum recognizes this when he states,
The Holy Spirit gives a down payment of our salvation to come. We have only the first fruits. We now experience salvation rest entered into by faith in Christ, yet the fullness of that rest awaits the dawning of a new creation. NC believers are now the temple, individually and corporately, and yet we await the new creation where there will be no need for a temple. Lastly the promise of a transformed obedient people participates in the already-not yet dynamic.[20]
I agree with Wellum’s analysis of the “already/not yet” character of the promised blessings of salvation stated in Jeremiah 31 but would also apply the “already/not yet” character to the nature of the NC community. It seems like these are a package deal. How can the NC promises of salvation in Jeremiah 31 partake of the “already/not yet” character but the NC community also promised in Jeremiah 31 not partake of that same “already/not yet” character? Not until Christ comes will the church experience the full reality of a purified church. Even if you start with faith as the basis of membership, you need church discipline to keep the church pure.
2) The NT affirms the “already/not yet” character of the NC community.
CT emphasizes that the NC itself includes personal, corporate, and legal aspects. There is a legal aspect of the covenant that relates to the administration of the covenant that continues in the NC. In other words, someone can be in the NC legally (externally), without having a saving relationship with Christ. I think the following passages support this.
a) Jesus affirms this view in the parable of the four soils where some receive the word with joy and endure for a while, but persecution or the cares of the world cause them to fall away and they do not bear fruit (Mark 4:16–19).
b) Jesus also warns those who are in him that if they do not bear fruit, they can be removed from the vine (John 15:2), like Judas Iscariot.
c) The administration of the covenant is the same in the NC as it was in the Old Covenant (Rom. 11:13–24):
i) Paul expresses unity between Israel and the church in the olive tree with the root of the tree representing the OT foundation that paved the way for the coming of Christ and the inclusion of Gentiles.
ii) Paul makes the point in v. 16 that if the root is holy, so are the branches; there is no distinction made concerning the spiritual condition of the branches. They are holy by being connected to the olive tree whose root is holy – this concept first refers to Jews of the Old Covenant and then to Gentiles of the NC.
iii) Some of the Jewish branches, that were declared holy because of their connection to the root, were broken off so Gentiles could be added in; the branches were removed because of unbelief.
iv) Paul tells Gentiles, wild olive shoots, that they were grafted in and share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, but they should not be arrogant toward the branches. The Jewish branches were broken off because of their unbelief but you (Gentiles) stand fast through faith. Paul warns the Gentiles that if God did not spare the natural branches neither will he spare them. If they do not continue in his kindness, they too will be cut off. Gentiles are holy because they are engrafted into the olive tree and they stand fast through faith, but they can be cut off because of unbelief.
v) Paul teaches that for Jews and Gentiles there is a status of holiness that comes from being part of the covenant that is separate from the inward holiness that is the Spirit’s work; this status of holiness refers to the legal aspect of the covenant, which continues in the NT.
3) The Warning Passages in Hebrews are also Significant in this Discussion
A. I don’t disagree with the view that the warning passages can be a means of salvation (the PC view), but there is more going on in these passages than just a warning as a means of salvation. This becomes clear in the fourth warning of Hebrews 10:26-31. The nature of the sin is characterized as being done willfully and as an ongoing rebellious act (present active ptc). This sin does not describe the normal ongoing struggles with sin but is a deliberate act of rebellion against God (Num 15:30-31), a persistent lifestyle that repudiates the truth of the gospel which they once received. For such high-handed sins there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but only a terrifying coming judgment. Such a person “has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified” (10:29). Some argue that “sanctification” here must refer to genuine believers, but that does not fit the specific context of the description of high-handed rebellion nor the larger scope of Hebrews where perseverance is a criterion for true Christian identity (Heb. 3:6, 14). Hebrews 3:7-19 draws a parallel between Israel and the church where the current condition of the church which is struggling to persevere is parallel to Israel in the wilderness. In both cases perseverance is evidence of faith by which those in Israel and the church will enter the promised rest (3:6, 14).[21] Sin and unbelief will deny them entry (3:12–13, 17–19; 4:2, 6, 11). There is a warning that the church should also not respond to the word of God by hardening their hearts. The apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 also parallels the church with Israel and warns them not to respond the way Israel responded. We face the same temptation as Israel of rebellion against God through unbelief. Paul also says “Do not be idolators, as some of them were (10:7).” And then twice “We must not do . . . as some of them did (10:8 related to sexual immorality and 10:9 related to putting Christ or the Lord to the test).
B. The view that the warning passages in Hebrews are a means of salvation only gives one side of the coin. The warnings are a means of salvation for those who are true believers but the author of Hebrews warns the church about not hardening their hearts in chapters 3-4. Since we do not absolutely know those who are true believers and those who are not, the warning passages legitimately apply to both.[22] The true evidence of a genuine believer in all these situations is persevering faith. Those who are truly in Christ will persevere, those who are only legally connected to the covenant will not persevere.
It seems then that even if someone makes a profession of faith, is baptized and becomes a member of the church, they participate in the blessings of the covenant by taking the Lord’s Supper, by hearing the word preached, and by enjoying the fellowship of the saints, and thus such a person would be considered part of the covenant community. Notice the terminology used to describe such members in Hebrews 6:4-6: “who have once been enlightened,” “who have tasted the heavenly gift,” “have shared in the Holy Spirit,” “have tased of the good word of God and the powers of the age to come.” For those who have experienced such things and then have fallen away, Hebrews goes on to say that it is impossible to restore them again to repentance since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
DA Carson writes:
“like other NT books the Epistle to the Hebrews allows for a kind of transitory faith, a form of conversion which, like the seed sown on rocky soil, has all the signs of life, but which does not persevere. The Spirit brings initial enlightenment; the person enjoys the word of God (like the one in Mark 4 who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy), and tastes something of the power of the coming age: perhaps old habits fall away, and a new love for holiness and for God and his reign emerge. But . . . none of this is enough: there must also be perseverance.”[23]
4) Let Me Say a Further Word about the Idea of a Mixed Community
I can agree with Wellum about the church when he writes,
“the church is now the eschatological, “gathered” people identified with the “age to come.” Christians are now citizens of the new Jerusalem (Heb. 12:18–29) because we are no longer in Adam but in Christ. The church is the new man (Eph. 2:11–22); the new temple in whom the Spirit dwells (1 Cor. 6:19; Eph. 2:21); the new creation (2 Cor. 5:17); and presently raised and seated with Christ (Eph. 2:5-6).”[24]
This fits the perception of the church in my Presbyterian circles. The WCF faith uses the phrase “gathering and perfecting the saints.” It is not as if Presbyterian churches have the goal of many unbelievers – a large mixed community. I am sure there are both Presbyterian and Baptist churches that have many more members on the roll than faithful attenders. I think this kind of mixed community is unbiblical. But I believe it is impossible to have a completely pure covenant community this side of the second coming.
When Peter on the day of Pentecost declared that “the promise is for you and for your children, and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” he was speaking largely to a group of Jewish men who would have understood that promise in a certain way considering their Jewish background. The promise would be for them through faith but then also for their children. This promise was also for Gentiles who are far off.[25]
Children are considered part of the church. In Ephesians 6 Paul frames his instructions to children in covenant language saying, “children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right” and then quotes the third commandment. As parents, we sing and pray with our children, and we encourage them to trust in Jesus and if they do not, eventually they would experience the negative consequences of not trusting in Jesus.
In the NT’s account of the church and in our experience, the church is both glorious and full of problems. Paul addresses the church in Corinth as “those sanctified in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:2) and then in chapter 5 he excommunicates a member involved in sexual immorality. The letters of the NT are written to the church to strengthen the faith of those who believe, but there is also warning to those who are in danger of falling away. If someone makes a profession of faith, becomes a member of the church, but then starts to live in a way that denies Christ, the proper response is to start the process of church discipline, hoping it will lead to restoration. They are part of the community and must be removed from the community, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:12, quoting from Deut. 17:7, “Purge the evil person from among you.” Such people are legally, outwardly, and visibly part of the church (the visible church). Of course, from God’s perspective, he knows who are his.
I think both Baptist and Presbyterian churches need church discipline to maintain a pure, regenerated church because there are some who become part of the NC community whose professions of faith are not genuine. Not until Christ comes will the corporate church experience the full reality of a purified church. Even if you start with faith as the basis of membership, you need church discipline to keep the church pure.
[1] Editor’s Note: This essay was originally delivered in a session dedicated to Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies as part of the 2022 annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Denver, CO. The session was a follow up discussion between the contributors to Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, eds. Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2022). Due to health-related reasons Michael Horton was not able to participate, so the Covenant Theology view was represented by Richard Belcher in this session.
[2] Mark A. Snoeberger, “Traditional Dispensationalism,” 175-176.
[3] Snoeberger, “Traditional Dispensationalism,” 177.
[4] Scott Swain, “New Covenant Theologies,” in Covenant Theology, eds. Waters, Reid, Muether (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 564.
[5] Michael J. Kruger, Hebrews For You (The Good Book Co., 2021), 53.
[6] Eric Brian Watkins, The Drama of Preaching (Wipf & Stock, 2016), 94, 112-113.
[7] Vern S. Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (P&R, 1991), 71.
[8]Schreiner goes so far as to even describe the sin of apostasy in Hebrews as that of turning back to the Levitical cult. See Thomas R. Schreiner, Hebrews: Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic Press, 2020), 324–25.
[9] Darrell L. Bock, “A Progressive Dispensational Response,” 224.
[10] Bock, “A Progressive Dispensational Response,” 226.
[11] Darrell L. Bock, “Progressive Dispensationalism,” 135.
[12] Stephen J. Wellum, “A Progressive Covenantalism Response,” 207
[13]WCF 7.5 states that the COG was ‘for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation’.
[14]Stephen G. Meyers, God to Us: Covenant Theology in Scripture (Reformation Heritage Books, 2021), 248.
[15]Swain, “New Covenant Theologies,” 553.
[16] Stephen J. Wellum, “Progressive Covenantalism,” 107.
[17] Wellum, “Progressive Covenantalism,” 98.
[18]After the panel discussion at ETS it was clear to me that Wellum holds the classic “visible-invisible” distinction of the church. However, the difference between our positions came down to defining “new covenant membership.” Wellum sees that the real benefits of salvation come with joining the covenant community. I hold to a two-fold nuance: (1) the legal aspect of the covenant; and (2) the saving aspect of the covenant. I defend below why I hold this.
[19]Christopher W. Cowan, “The Warning Passages of Hebrews and the New Covenant Community,” in Progressive Covenantalism, eds. Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016), 197.
[20]101-104. See also Cowan, “The Warning Passages of Hebrews and the New Covenant Community,” 200. He writes, “Viewing God’s promises and warnings through the already-but-not yet orientation of the NT is therefore essential” 200.
[21]Isaac Noh, “Falling from the Greatest Height: An Exegetical Study of Hebrews 10:26-31,” unpublished paper but it can be accessed at https://rts.edu/campuses/charlotte/students/pen-and-parchment/Winter and Spring 2022.
[22]Richard P. Belcher, Jr., The Fulfilment of the Promises of God: An Explanation of Covenant Theology (Christian Focus, 2020), 247, n. 50.
[23]D. A. Carson, “Reflections on Christian Assurance,” WTJ 54 (1992): 20.
[24] Wellum, “A Progressive Covenantalism Response,” 210.
[25]When hosos is used with an it makes the expression more general, as in Matthew 22:9 and Luke 9:5, not more restrictive (BDAG, 729)