an examination of the origins of covenant theology and critique of it's basic tenants - stiles,...

8/12/2019 An Examination of the Origins of Covenant Theology and Critique of It's Basic Tenants - Stiles, Kenneth

1/33


2/33


3/33

1

Introduction

Preoccupation with the biblical teaching on the covenants has long been a distinguishing

trait of Reformed theology.1This paper examines the origins and results of that preoccupation.

Covenant Theology (CT) also goes by the names, The Federal Theology, or just Federalism.2

The terms are interchangeable and are used variously throughout the paper. CT is by no means a

monolithic system of theology: as there are many variations (even competing versions) of CT

among its proponents. This paper focuses primarily upon tracing the origin of the two covenant

manifestation of CT since it is ostensibly the currently most popular formulation of CT. I also

offer a critique of the presuppositions that appear to have lead to its development. Surveying all

of the internecine battles (and there are many) within CT, and charting all the various

developments within CT that have taken place over the years, is beyond the scope of this paper.

However, mention of some of these is made when appropriate.

Defining Covenant Theology

CT is essentially a framework into which all of divine revelation is placed, and that

framework also functions as the interpretive grid by which divine revelation is understood. While

at first this short definition may seem to the critical reader to be a caricature of CT, it is not. The

proponents of CT simply claim that the framework is itself derived from Scripture and therefore

legitimate for organizing and understanding all of divine revelation. Therefore, for proponents of

1Mark W. Karlberg, Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective: Collected Essays and Book Reviews in

Historical, Biblical, and Systematic Theology(Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000), 11.

2Some would disagree. Cf., the treatment in, D. A. Weir, The Origins of The Federal Theology in

Sixteenth-Century Reformation Thought(New York: Oxford University Press, 1990). However, it is better to view

CT as simply having many divergent formulations than to claim CT and Federalism are two different theologies.


4/33

2

CT, Kline is typical in his sentiments that, Following the lead of the Scriptures themselves,

Reformed theology has long prized the covenant as a structural concept for integrating all that

God has so diversely spoken unto men of old time and in these last days.3Kline further relates

that, Before the end of the sixteenth century a growing biblical insight within the movement of

Covenant Theology had embraced all special revelation, pre-redemptive as well as redemptive,

in the unity of a covenant framework.4My contention is that CT is ultimately an artificial,

manmade framework that, while it incorporates many truly biblical ideas, is illegitimate for

organizing and understanding all of divine revelation.

Robertson explains the biblical catalyst for Reformed theologys preoccupation with the

covenant concept,

Ample biblical evidence establishes the vital role the divine covenants have played inGods dealings with man from Noah to Jesus Christ. No period in the history of

redemption from Noah to Christ stands outside the realm of Gods covenantal dealings

with his peopleThe promise of the New Covenantfinds its fulfillment in the days ofJesus Christ and extends to the consummation of all things.

5

To be sure, covenants that God has made with men loom large in Scripture. This causes

proponents of CT to inquire further concerning the covenant concept. Robertson reasons that,

The only question thatremains concerning the extent of the divine covenants has to do with

Gods relation to man prior to Noah. May the concept of the covenant be extended legitimately

to the period preceding the establishment of Gods covenant with Noah? Is the earliest portion of

3Meredith G. Kline,By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and

Baptism(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), 13.

4Ibid., 14.

5O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants(Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed

Publishing Co., 1980), 17.


5/33

3

biblical history also to be understood from the perspective of a covenantal framework?6CT

answers this question in the affirmative.

When the concept of covenant found in Scripture is extrapolated backwards from Noah

as far as logically possible one ends up applying a covenant schema to the internal relationships

of the Godhead before creation. This is precisely what one finds in the three covenant

formulation of CT. Since the reformation, distinctions have been made between a pre-creation

covenantal bond among the persons of the Trinity and a historical covenant between God and

men.7The various names that this supposed covenant has been given are the covenant of

redemption, the eternal covenant, the counsel of peace, or the counsel of redemption.

8

Robertson notes that, This particular covenant finds no specific development in the classic

creeds of the Reformers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. But it has been recognized

broadly among covenant theologians since that time.9He does not affirm that there is such

covenant because, A sense of artificiality flavors the effort to structure in covenantal terms the

mysteries of Gods eternal counsels. To speak concretely of an intertrinitarian covenant with

terms and conditions between Father and Son mutually endorsed before the foundation of the

world is to exceed the bounds of scriptural evidence beyond propriety.10

In moving out of eternity past and into the history of the created order, if one were to

maintain the logic of CT one is confronted with the necessarily covenantal nature of Gods

6Ibid.

7Ibid., 53.

8Ibid., 54.

9Ibid.

10Ibid.


6/33

4

relationship with his creation. The covenant governing this period of time is variously called the

covenant of works, the covenant of nature, or the covenant of creation.11

Turretin claims

that, The covenant of nature is that which God the Creator made with man as his creature,

concerning the giving of eternal happiness and life under the condition of perfect and personal

obedience.12

In fact, according to CT, Had Adam before the Fall remained faithful to the

covenant with his God, he would have merited eternal life for himself and all his posterity.13

Or,

in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), The first covenant made with man

was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon

condition of perfect and personal obedience.

14

According to CT, under the dictates of the covenant of works Adam was appointed to

stand probation for himself and his race. Life was promised if he obeyed and cursing if he

disobeyed. Hodge contends that because of the federal and natural union between Adam and his

posterity, his sin, although not their act, is so imputed to them that it is the judicial ground of the

penalty threatened against him coming upon them also.15

The natural union that exists between

Adam and his posterity is that of a father and child; the character and conduct of t he one, of

necessity to a greater or less degree affect the other.16

The federal union between Adam and his

11Karlberg, Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective, 11.

12Francis Turretin,Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, trans. by George Musgrave Giger, ed. by James

T. Dennison Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1992), 575.

13Karlberg, Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective, 273.

14WCF, VII/ii.

15Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,

1940), 2:19293.

16Ibid., 2:197.


7/33


8/33

6

Murray claims that, It was with the Covenant of Grace that the covenant theologians of

the 16th

century were concerned almost exclusively.20

The covenant of grace is, simply stated,

That arrangement between the Triune God and his people whereby God promises friendship,

hence full and free salvation, to his people, upon the basis of the vicarious atonement of Christ,

the Mediator of the covenant, and they, out of gratitude, promise to live for him.21

According to

the WCF,

This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the

gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices,circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of

the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and

efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faithin the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation;

and is called the old testament.22

Some claim that the covenant of grace was founded on the covenant of redemption while

those who reject the covenant of redemption obviously do not.23

Regardless of its grounding, it is

plain by what is said above that the covenant of grace is conceived to be a covenant that

establishes the culmination of redemptive history. This covenant is then the subject of all of

Scripture discussed and viewed from various historical contexts and perspectives. A great

difference here exists in that some see the covenant of grace as ultimately satisfying the demands

of the covenant of works; while others, who reject the covenant of works, see it as simply a

covenant that God chose to implement out of pure grace in his relationship with man. Under this

20John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, 4 vols (Edinburgh, PA: The Banner of TruthTrust,

1982), 4:223.

21William Hendrickson, The Covenant of Grace(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1932), 18.

22WCF, VII/v.

23One area of confusion that can crop up here is that sometimes those who reject the notion of an

intertrinitarian covenant of redemption are wont to call the covenant of grace by the name, covenant of redemption.


9/33

7

scheme it still serves to alleviate the damage of sin and effect redemption, but the connection

with the prelapsarian economy is more general and undefined rather than explicit.

The Origins of Covenant Theology

Though CT did not fully bloom until the late 16th

century, the lines of thought that lead to

its formation can be traced back to the early church. In this sense, CT is a construct of various

streams of thought that came together in the milieu of 16th

century Europe. The two broadest

categories that one could group these various streams of thought into are hermeneutics and

polemical theology. The following discussion will explore these two categories and show how

they led to the creation of CT. Remarkably, when it comes to tracing the rise and development

of covenant (or federal) theology24

McGowan could say as late as 1997, There is, infact, no

complete study of this nature. Most of our information must meanwhile be drawn from the

standard historical work and from unpublished theses.25

Hermeneutics

It would be difficult to overstate the importance of the part that hermeneutics plays in

understanding Scripture. A hermeneutic is most simply defined is a set of principles one employs

to interpret a particular writing. For Christians, hermeneutics is the branch of philosophy that

involves formulating principles to properly interpret Scripture. I say it is a branch of philosophy

rather than a branch of theology because ones theology (whichever branch) should flow from

Scripture rightly interpreted, not the other way around (though there will obviously be interplay

24ATB McGowan, The Federal Theology of Thomas Boston (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Publishing, 1997),

1.

25Ibid., 16. N.B. endnote 1. The only circumstance that has changed as of the writing of this paper is that

some of the theses have been published.


10/33

8

between them). I may be accused of, so to speak, slicing the pie fairly thin in this caution, but if

ones hermeneutic is simply a construct of ones theology then one will simply find in Scripture

whatever one is looking for. It is also important to understand the affect that the cultural milieu

that an individual or group is situated in has on the hermeneutic they espouse. The various

cultural forces of a given age may exert a powerful influence upon how Christians of that age

interpret Scripture. The affect of ones cultural milieu upon the principles of interpretation that

one formulates may never be entirely eliminated: as absolute objectivity is an impossibility for

man. However, if one is aware of that affect, the influence upon ones hermeneutic may be

circumscribed to a certain degree.

The crux of CTs hermeneutic is typology. However, typological hermeneutics are much

older than CT. Modern interpreters are not the inventors of typology; indeed, the fact that it is

part of the warp and woof of Scripture is what gives this whole method its significance.26

It was

Christian interpreters of the Bible shortly after the close of the apostolic era that pioneered

typological interpretation. One of [post-apostolic Christians] most pressing tasks was to

demonstrate the underlying agreement and continuity between the Old Testament, properly

understood, and Christianity and its claims27

Gundry argues that typology became popular in

order to give validity to Christianitys claims via establishing continuity with the OT. However,

he argues, But there was a danger inherent within this approach, and it is easily discoverable to

anyone who will read early Christian writings. That danger is that whenever typology is used to

show the Christocentric unity of the Bible, it is all too easy to impose an artificial unity (even

26Stanley N. Gundry, Typology as a Means of Interpretation: Past and Present, JETS12, No. 4 (Fall

1969): 234.

27Ibid.


11/33

9

assuming that there is a valid use of the basic method).28

The imposition of artificial unity

happens when, types come to be created rather than discovered, and the drift into allegorism

comes all too easily. In fact, it is often difficult to distinguish typology from allegory.29

However, it may be noted that typology is an effort to understand the unity of the Bible from

the standpoint of history rather than allegory.30

In reality, the history of typological/allegorical interpretation pushes farther back than

this, and it might be legitimate to say that the hermeneutical method that post-apostolic

Christians picked up on in order to show the Christological unity of the Old and New Testaments

was simply in the air. A likely source of this method of interpretation in Christian circles was

Philo. Philo of Alexandria(b. about 20 B.C.; d. about 42 A.D.) stands as the leading exponent

of the Jewish-Alexandrine religious philosophy, and in its influence upon the literature of the

Christian Church its foremost representative.31

The influences upon Philos employment of

typology/allegory can be traced back even further. He knew all the important Greek

philosophers, from whom he cited freely; but first for him was Plato, from whom he derived his

philosophical content, while in his method of extravagant allegorizing he imitated the Stoics.32

It was primarily the Stoics who allegorized the Greek myths in the effort to philosophize the

multiple forms of popular religion and reduce them to simple fundamental principles; so did

28Ibid., 235.

29Ibid.

30Ibid., 234.

31Samuel Macauley Jackson, ed., Philo of Alexandria, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of

Religious Knowledge, 15 vols (repr; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), 9:38.

32Ibid., 9:39.


12/33

10

Philo in dealing with the Biblical and legal forms and cultic prescriptions of the Jews, in the

interest, however, of monotheism.33

It is noted that, The allegorizing of Philo is said to have

gathered up into a mighty basin all the streams of Alexandrian hermeneutics from the past and

discharged them again into multiple streams and rivulets of the later exegesis of Judaism and

Christianity.34

In Alexandria was one of the great libraries of the ancient world. In the Museum was the

equivalent of a university, famous throughout the Grco-Roman world. Before the end of the

second century Christianity was represented by vigorous but divided communities.35

There was

founded in Alexandria a catechetical school theprimary purpose of which was the intstruction

of candidates for Church membership in the principles of the Christian faith.36

One of the heads

of this school who exerted tremendous influence on succeeding generations of Bible interpreters

was Origen. Origen believed that the Scriptures were the word of God and that nothing in them

was to be believed that was unworthy of God.37

For Origen, the way around anything he

deemed unworthy of God was found through discerning three levels of meaning in the text:

first, the common or historical sense which is on the surface for even the simple-minded;

second, the soul of the Scriptures which edifies those who perceive it; and third, for the perfect, a

meaning hidden under what superficially is repugnant to the conscience or the intellect but

33Ibid.

34Ibid.

35Kenneth Scott Latourette,A History of Christianity, 2 vols (1953; repr, Peabody, MA: Prince Press,

1997), 1:14647.

36Ibid., 147.

37Ibid., 14950.


13/33

11

which, discerned, can be expressed by allegory.38

The influence of Origen on later interpreters

should not be underestimated. Most of the Greek fathers of the third and fourth centuries stood

more or less under the influence of the spirit and works of Origen, without adopting all his

speculative views.39

There were of course rival schools of thought in the early church; of which, the

Antiochian school is one example. The Antiochian School was not a regularinstitution with a

continuous succession of teachers, like the Catechetical School of Alexandria, but a theological

tendency, more particularly a peculiar type of hermeneutics and exegesis which had its centre in

Antioch.

40

Concerning this peculiar type of hermeneutics and exegesis, according to Schaff,

The characteristic features are attention to the revision of the text, a close adherence to the

plain, natural meaning according to the use of language and the condition of the writer, and

justice to the human factor.41

However, despite this the Antiochian school was not entirely free

from allegorizing when it was expedient: as can be easily seen in a perusal of the writings of the

prince of commentators among the church fathers, John Chrysostom. In fact, Though there

was diversity of opinion between the Alexandrian and Antiochene exegetes as to the importance

of literal exegesis, they were united on the importance of the witness of all scripture to Christ,

and typological exegesis of scripture was one means of seeing that unity and witness.42

Further,

38Ibid., 150.

39Philip Schaff,History of the Christian Church, 8 vols (1910; repr, Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 1985), 2:797.

40Ibid, 2:816.

41Ibid.

42Gundry, Typology as a Means of Interpretation, 234.


14/33

12

Those exegetes influenced by the Antiochene school placed more emphasis on the historical

and literal, though they were not immune to the allegorizing tendency themselves. Jerome, who

was profoundly influenced by the Antiochene viewpoint, had sound exegetical principles, but in

practice he was an allegorist, even to the point of allegorizing the New Testament.43

Typological exegesis continuously found fresh impetus for its use because of its

convenience in polemical settings. It was found to be useful by Irenaeus in his contest with

Marcion, who posited a radical discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. Typology

was also the tack taken by Justin in his dialogues with Trypho as he attempted to show how the

Old Testament found fulfillment in Christ. Typological/allegorical hermeneutics were also a

weapon often used against chiliasts, whose conceptions of the millennium were considered too

carnal by their opponents.44

With the work of Augustine, allegorism became the most dominant

interpretative method in the West. He had been driven to it in his reaction to the letterism of the

Manichaens.45

This continued through the Middle Ages and became an integral part of the

scholasticshermeneutics. Typological/allegorical hermeneutics continued to be used down to

the time of the Reformation.

With Luther, Calvin, and others there was a conscientious turning away from allegory

toward historical-grammatical hermeneutics. This however was not a complete jettisoning of

typological or even allegorical interpretation. Gundry explains,

Calvin and Luther brought about a new epoch in the typological interpretation of

scripture with their return to the literal sense and methodical exegesis of scripture. With

43Ibid., 235.

44For an excellent treatment of the millennial controversy in the early church see, Martin Erdman, The

Millennial Controversy in the Early Church(Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005).



15/33

13

this renewed concern for the grammatico-historical sense came a new appreciation of

typology. A typology grounded in an appreciation of the historical verities precipitated a

distinction once more between the typological and allegorical, though neither Calvin norLuther worked out a system of typology of his own. But through them typology had

gained a new lease on life.46

There came at the time of the reformation a separating out of typology and allegory.

Typology is not necessarily antithetical to a historical-grammatical hermeneutic since typology is

largely concerned with discovering the unity of the Bible from a historical standpoint. In fact, the

literal interpretation of a passage becomes quite important since the antitype would be rendered

meaningless if the type had never actually existed.

The long history of typological hermeneutics has great importance for the formation of

CT because what early federalists did was essentially develop a unique framework of history

along covenantal lines by which they could make typological applications between the Old and

New Testaments. Karlberg explains,

The sixteenth-century federalists were responsible for establishing the redemptive-

historical structure of biblical revelation, and the covenant structure was the

distinguishing mark of Reformed theological interpretation. Beginning as a termdescriptive of the era of redemption the covenant concept was broadened, in the interests

of further systematic and historical reflection, to include the preredemptive period of

biblical history. The entire development of the covenant idea was controlled and elicitedby the Reformers understanding of justification by faith, in the forensic sense, and the

coordinate law-gospel distinction.47

As the reformers sought to find intertestamental unity centered on the person of Christ,

the undoubtedly biblical concept of covenant came to the fore as a convenient framework by

which to categorize and understand all of divine revelation. The covenant concept that was easily

developed from the covenants explicitly revealed in Scripture, which centered upon Christ and

46Ibid., 236.

47Karlberg, Covenant Theology, 20.


16/33

14

his kingdom, was, so to speak, extracted from its native soil and transplanted as an overarching

framework. This framework facilitated the drawing of typological lines between the testaments

and blurred the intricacies and nuance of the biblical covenants in favor of a flattened out single

covenant (the covenant of grace) that had as its parties God and men and as its substance

justification by faith alone in Christ alone. The concept of a prelapsarian covenant (the covenant

of works) came to capture the imagination of later reformers in the midst of the fires of the

theological controversies of the latter part of the 16th

century, to which we now turn.

Polemical Theology

If typological hermeneutics served to develop a unifying framework for divine revelation

along covenantal lines, the theological battles of the Reformation and post-Reformation eras

tended to harden that framework. The transition from a loose covenantal framework in the early

period of the Reformation, that focused almost exclusively on the idea of a covenant of grace, to

a more hardened system comprised of a prelapsarian covenant of works and postlapsarian

covenant of grace that is administered under various dispensations is difficult to trace. What is

known is that, Whereas John Calvin (150964), in hisInstitutes of the Christian Religion, spoke

of an Old Covenant which extended after the fall to Christ and then a New Covenant which

extended from Christ to the Day of Judgment, the Westminster Confession of Faith, written

eighty years later, spoke of a covenant of works and a covenant of grace.48

Weir notes that,

Calvin makes no mention in any of his works of a prelapsarian covenant with Adam. However,

there is evidence that, at least to a certain degree, Calvin considered the Edenic relationship

48D. A. Weir, The Origins of the Federal Theology in Sixteenth-Century Reformation Thought(Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press, 1990), 1.


17/33


18/33

16

1531) taught a covenant of works before the fall and a covenant of grace after the fall.54

However, Weir notes that Schrenk55

traces the history of the idea of the covenant from Zwingli

up to Ursinus and Olevianus, but he realizes that the true federal theology consists of a

prelapsarian covenant with Adam and then a postlapsarian covenant of grace...Schrenk correctly

identifies Ursinus as the first person to utilize this idea in any systematic manner.56

Weir surmises that one motivation for forming the concept of a prelapsarian covenant of

works was that, The federal theology potentially provided an adequate base for the

reconstruction of northern European society and culture. With the loss of the traditional

institutions of the Church and its sacraments, and the demise of canon law, European society was

searching for an adequate base for its social ethic.57

The question would have been, How could

men be forced to live a Christian life-style when you were not sure they were under the covenant

of grace and that their hearts were turned unto the Lord?58

A prelapsarian covenant of works

provided just such a base. For, in federalist thinking, The covenant of works reflects the fact

that the most fundamental obligation of man the creature to his God his Creator always has been,

is now, and always will be obedience to the will of the Creator.59This means that man is

always ultimately related to God on a legal(covenantal) basis. Accordingly, while the covenant

54R. Scott Clark,A Brief History of Covenant Theology, Westminster Seminary California,

http://clark.wscal.edu/briefhistorycovtheol.php(accessed April 10, 2011).

55Cf., Gottlob Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund im lteren Protestantismus, vornehmlich bei Johannes

Cocceius(BFCh Th.M 5; Gtersloh, 1923). Due to my ignorance of German I am unable to verify Weirs findings.

56Weir, Origins of the Federal Theology, 24.

577.

5878.

59Robert L. Raymond,A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nded. rev. and updated

(Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1998), 439.
http://clark.wscal.edu/briefhistorycovtheol.phphttp://clark.wscal.edu/briefhistorycovtheol.phphttp://clark.wscal.edu/briefhistorycovtheol.php


19/33

17

of works is no longer in force as a probationary framework for mankind, it is still normative60

As such, the prelapsarian framework could be used to force all men to live a Christian life-style

whether they identified with Christ or not because the stipulations of the covenant of works were

in force upon all men of all times. After the Fall men were simply not in a probationary status

under the covenant whereby they could merit eternal life for themselves by their works.

The primary controversy agitating the Reformed world that Weir sees as serving as the

backdrop for the development of a prelapsarian covenant with Adam was the problem of

reconciling Gods providential sovereignty and the Fall of Adam.61

Weir explains, The

doctrine of afoeduswith Adam developed in response to this problem as a milder orthodox

elaboration and explanation of the seemingly harsh decretal doctrines of Theodore Beza.62

Weir

traces this development to the feet of Ursinus who Weir claims is the theologian who first

utilized the idea of a prelapsarin covenant to any great extent in the sixteenth century.63

Weir

goes on to claim, It seems that the prelapsarian covenant emerged in Ursinuss thought as a

means of articulating the problem of theodicy.64

Though Weir does not describe exactly how a

prelapsarin covenant would resolve the problem of theodicy in Eden, it would apparently remove

the Fall from being simply a necessity by decree. Instead, it could be claimed that Adam was

placed in a covenantal situation where there was the real possibility for him to succeed in

60Ibid.

61Weir, Origins of the Federal Theology, 63.

62Ibid.

63Ibid., 101.

64Ibid., 107.


20/33

18

fulfilling the terms of that covenant. It was by an act of Adams free will that brought the Fall

and ended any possibility of man thereafter to fulfill the terms of the covenant on his own.

Karlberg argues that Weir has erroneously made a distinction between CT and

federalism,65

but Weir seems to have in mind labeling stages of development, not stark division.

Karlberg, however, does point out that it was not just the doctrine of predestination that served as

a catalyst for the creation of a prelapsarian covenant, but also there was the question of the

relationship between the two testamentsa subject urged upon the Reformers by the

AnabaptistsThe issues of infant baptism and civil magistracy sparked debates among these

early disputants.

66

Karlberg is certainly correct, but his comment only serves to show the nature

of the development of CT. It was not a calmly constructed theology based on sound exegesis of

Scripture. It was a theology forged in the fires of the controversies of the Reformation. To be

sure, the ideas which lay behind CT are not unbiblicalper se, but the framework that was

developed seems to have been hastily put together by extrapolating various biblical concepts in a

direction that proved expedient in the midst of the various controversies. As such, it is unlikely

that anyone will ever be able to find the father of CT in the annals of church history.

Critique of Covenant Theology

Typological Hermeneutics

Kline claims that there is old and new orders revealed in the Old and New Testaments

and that, According to the divine design the old is provisional and preparatory for the new, and

65Karlberg, Covenant Theology, 11213.

66Ibid., 113.


21/33

19

by divine predisclosure the new is prophetically anticipated in the old.67

He then explains how

this was done, External event and institution in the old order were divinely fashioned to form a

systematic representation of the realities of the coming new order, so producing a type-antitype

correlativity between the two covenants in which their unity is instructively articulated.68

LaRondelles hermeneutical method(which is also decidedly typological), though he is a

Seventh Day Adventist, has received a warm welcome in CT circles.69

LaRondelle takes matters

a step further than Kline. He makes the bold claim that, Valid hermeneutical rules of Scripture

must be inspired principles which are legitimately and systematically derived from the

Scriptures themselves.

70

This is an astounding claim, and actually rather self-serving. How does

one get at the inspired principles in the first place? What hermeneutic based on uninspired

principles must be employed to draw out of the text the inspired principles to then build ones

(presumably) inspired hermeneutic? This is a vicious circle. One will find the inspired

principles one is looking for and then be in possession of nothing more than ones

presuppositions dressed as inspired principles.

Regardless of how the validity of the typological hermeneutic is argued for the net yield

for the proponent of it is usually the narrative that, The nation[of Israel] was the people of God

in the old covenant. Now in the new covenant the believing church is the people of GodWe

67Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 1972), 98.

68Ibid.

69This is even more surprising since LaRondelle ascribes to the Calvin vs the Calvinists theory that was

popularized by Rolston. See, Hans K. LaRondelle, Our Creator Redeemer: An Introduction to Biblical Covenant

Theology(Berrien Springs, MO: Andrews University Press, 2005), xi.

70Hans K. LaRondelle, The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation(Berrien

Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1983), 7.


22/33

20

Christians are the Israel of God, Abrahams seed, and heirs of the promises, only because by

faith we are united to him who is alone the true Israel, Abrahams oneseed.71

By use of a

typological hermeneutic nothing in the Old Testament is what it seems. The type-antitype

relationship between the testaments that has been supposedly divinely revealed turns out to

mean that the Old Testament is ultimately not just interpreted by the New Testament writers, but

often reinterpretedto mean something other than what it ostensibly meant in its original context.

The obvious objection to such an approach is that, NT antitypes neither explicitly nor implicitly

cancel the meaning of OT types. Thinking they do so misunderstands typology.72

There is also

the ever present danger mentioned earlier that, Types come to be created rather than discovered,

and the drift into allegorism comes all too easily. In fact, it is often difficult to distinguish

typology from allegory.73

Another objection may be lodged against CTs hermeneutic. The presupposition that the

New Testament authoritatively interprets the Old Testament with a typological hermeneutic,

such that it results in the historical-grammatical hermeneutic being invalid for the Old Testament

passage in question, is highly suspect. If the onlyauthoritative interpretation of Scripture that

exists (i.e., the New interpreting the Old) employs a non-historical-grammatical hermeneutic,

then what justification does the Bible interpreter have for employing a historical-grammatical

hermeneutic when interpreting the New Testament to begin with? Is it a valid way of proceeding

to argue that the interpretation of one portion of Scripture, using the historical-grammatical

71Robert B. Strimple, Amillennialism, in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond(Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1999), 89

72John S. Feinberg, Systems of Discontinuity, in Continuity Discontinuity: Perspectives on the

relationship between the Old and New Testaments(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 79.



23/33

21

hermeneutic, invalidates the use of that same hermeneutic in another portion of Scripture? The

net result would ostensibly be the invalidation of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic for all

of Scripture, since the application of it in one portion of Scripture would destroy its credentials

for applying it to the other.

Given the above presupposition, the analogy of Scripture becomes nothing more than a

principle that undermines the credibility of the very hermeneutic that gives rise to it in the first

place. I would suggest that a better presupposition is that the New Testament interprets the Old

Testament using the same historical-grammatical hermeneutic that should be employed when

interpreting the New Testament. The net result here would be the same for any portion of

Scripture; there is one correct interpretation and many possible applications. If the historical-

grammatical hermeneutic is valid for any portion of Scripture, then understanding how the New

Testament uses the Old Testament is simply a matter of using that hermeneutic on the New

Testament passage in question to discover the application of the Old Testament passage that the

New Testament writer is making of the one correct interpretation of that Old Testament passage;

which is discovered by using the same hermeneutic on the Old Testament passage. Interestingly

enough, all attempts to object to such a presupposition would have to be made while employing a

similar presupposition in another sphere; otherwise, how would anyone be able to understand the

objection being lodged against it?

Logic vs. Revelation

CT teaches that there was a covenant between God and Adam before the Fall whereby he

was appointed the representative head of mankind under the stipulations of that covenant. Also,

according to the dictates of this covenant he was to stand for an undefined period of time in a

probationary status, rendering perfect obedience to God (presumably obeying the law written on


24/33


25/33

23

covenant of works during his life. He satisfied Gods wrath justly due to the elect by his death,

thus satisfying the punishment demanded by the covenant of works. Thus, he merited for himself

and all that were chosen to partake of the covenant of grace in eternity past the inheritance

originally promised to Adam if he would have succeeded during his undefined probationary

period under the covenant of works.

The above synopsis is representative of CTs general framework. As mentioned earlier,

proponents of CT are not all in agreement and there are competing narratives when it comes to

formulating the general framework by which all of divine revelation is to be categorized and

understood. The greatest problem with the above framework and its various competitors within

CT is that none of them are actually taught in Scripture. CTs covenantal framework is the

foundation for theologizing and interpreting Scripture, yet it is itself artificially constructed from

the idle speculations of men. The Bible nowhere teaches that God made a covenant with Adam

under the stipulations of which he would stand as a covenant head of mankind for and undefined

probationary period. There is not a trace in Scripture of the idea that under the stipulations of this

supposed covenant Adam was to walk in perfect obedience for this undefined probationary

period and that if he was successful he would have merited by pure self-righteousness everlasting

life along with all his future progeny. The whole framework that CT posits is nothing more than

speculations about what Scripture is silent on that are loosely connected to selective biblical data.

These speculations are then extrapolated backwards to fill in the blanks of divine revelation.

What is filled into the blanks is then allowed to control how what has been revealed by God is to

be categorized and interpreted. In light of this procedure there are several questions that must be

put to the proponents of CT. What gives them leave to speak for God where God has chosen to

be silent? What credentials do they possess that enables them to fill in the white spaces of


26/33

24

Scripture with their own logical inferences and then build a theology upon those inferences as if

those inferences are themselves divine revelation? Which version of the framework constructed

by CT is divinely revealed; the three covenant, two covenant, or one covenant version; the one

where Adam was to earn eternal life purely by his own merit or the one where grace was to be

given, or was at least necessary for success?

It would not be so unfortunate if CT merely contented itself with speculations about

which Scripture says nothing, but because it then goes on to build its theology from the

framework derived from these speculations CT ends up with faulty understandings of several key

doctrines. The only two that are touched upon below are CTs faulty understandings of

mankinds relationship to Adams sinand the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers.

Faulty Understanding Mankinds Relationship to Adams Sin

As mentioned earlier, CT teaches that the first sin of Adam was imputed (according to the

stipulations of the covenant of works) to all of his progeny. When it comes to the discussion of

the imputation of Adams sinthere are two views, immediate and mediate imputation.

Immediate imputation may also be called the federal theory. This view holds that Adam is

both the natural and the federal head of the human race. The federal or representative headship is

the specific ground of the imputation of Adams sin. When Adam sinned.God imputed the

guilt of the first sin to.the entire human race.74

Mediate imputation holds that a corrupt nature

is inherited through natural generation from Adam and that this is what then becomes the ground

74Henry Clarence Thiessen,Lectures in Systematic Theology, revised by Vernon D. Doerksen (Grand

Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979), 18889.


27/33

25

for God imputing the guilt of Adam to his posterity. The imputation is mediated through

inherited corruption which is the consequence, not punishment, of Adams sin.75

Whichever view is taken of imputation the idea expressed is that the guilt of Adams sin

is justly put upon all who are descendants of him in the ordinary way (Jesus was a descendant in

an extraordinary way and so is excepted). The only real reason usually given for the ground of

this imputation of guilt is the stipulations of some supposed covenant God made with Adam.

There is of course discussion about natural and federal headship, but these are but aspects of the

covenant of works. Every reason given devolves to some requirement of the covenant of works.76

Even when the covenant of works is nominally denied what ends up being expressed looks an

awful lot like arguing that the guilt of Adams sin is imputed to his progeny according to

covenantal stipulations.77

75Ibid., 18788.

76Cf. Turretin,Elenctic Theology, 61329.

77Ralph Allan Smith, Interpreting the Covenant of Works, Berith.org,

http://www.berith.org/essays/cov_works/(accessed February 15, 2011). N.B., pp. 56. Smith includes a discussion

of what this looks like in John Murrays and othersthinking,

John Murray, one of the most distinguished proponents of Reformed doctrine in the 20th century and a

recognized defender of the Reformed view of justification by faith, quite clearly denied the Covenant of

Works. He was not alone. Not only among those influenced by Murray, but also among the Dutch

Reformed in Europe, there are more than a few theologians and pastors who no longer hold to the Covenant

of Works.In Murrays view, it is essential to the argument of the apostle Paul that Adam and Christ be

conceived of as two representative heads of two different humanities. The old human race in Adam is

condemned in their head. The new human race in Christ is justified and accepted because of His

righteousness. Jesus obeyed the covenant and fulfilled its terms perfectly. His righteousness is imputed to

those who believe in Him. In this simple exposition, all of the essential elements of the Reformed view are

included, but it is stated in terms that avoid the notion of a Covenant of Works. However, it seems thatwhat Murray does, in fact, is to verbally deny a covenant relationship with Adam since for Murray the

word covenant implies redemptive arrangement and then important all the elements of a covenant into

his Adamic Administration. Although Murray would, like most Reformed writers, emphasize the

graciousness of the original arrangement, in substance he affirms a Covenant of Works or something very

close to one.
http://www.berith.org/essays/cov_works/http://www.berith.org/essays/cov_works/http://www.berith.org/essays/cov_works/


28/33


29/33

27

was discussed above, CT views the demands of the covenant of works as binding upon all men

of all times. As such, it was not enough for Christ to simply die in the place of sinners as a

substitute and bear the wrath of God on their behalf. If that were all that happened then man

would be no better than being placed back into a probationary state similar to Adams before the

Fall. Men would still need to merit their own righteousness by works in order to be rewarded

with eternal life. In this scheme salvation by grace alone has a strange twist to it. Sprouls

sentiments are typical of proponents of CT,

Ultimately the only way one can be justified is by works. We are indeed justified by

works, but the works that justify us are the works of the second Adam. To be justified by

faith means to be justified by faith in the works of Christ. Our faith is not the ground ofour justification. Faith serves as the instrument by which we receive the benefits of the

works of Christ, the sole ground of our justification.82

Salvation is only by grace in that it is by grace that believers take part in a works based

salvation. Salvation here is by the works of the law (the law contained in the covenant of works).

The caveat is simply that it is not the individuals works of the law, but Christs, which merit this

works based salvation. There is an obvious objection based on what Paul teaches in Scripture.

Paul repeatedly makes the categorical statement that justification comes apartfrom()

Law-works. Since he does not qualify this statement by specifying whoseworks are excluded, he

seems to be saying that justificationper seis not based on worksnot only works done by man,

but works quaworks.83

Or, put another way, Where Paul seems to be saying that justification

is by definition not earn-able by works, covenant theology adds the important qualifier,

82R. C. Sproule, Getting the Gospel Right: The Tie that Binds Evangelicals Together(Grand Rapids: Baker

Books, a division of Baker Book House Company, 1999), 160.

83Andrew V. Snider, Justification and the Active Obedience of Christ: Toward a Biblical Understanding

of Imputed Righteousness (ThM thesis, Masters Seminary, 2002), 85.


30/33

28

performed by mankind. Since it seems to stray from Pauls own description of justification, the

vicarious active obedience teaching must be viewed as suspect.84

There is perhaps no clearer

example of this than comparing Sprouls comments with Galatians 3:21 in which Paul says, If a

law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been

based on law. Apparently Paul was unaware of the logic of CT; for, according to CT, there was

a law given that was able to impart life: the law of the covenant of works fulfilled by Christ.

Righteousness, for CT, is indeed based on the law: the law of the covenant of works fulfilled by

Christ.

Conclusion

The preceding discussion has surveyed the two broadest categories that one could group

the various streams of thought which led to the development of CT: hermeneutics and polemical

theology. A critique of CT has also been offered along these lines with the addition of two

specific areas of theology where CT, because of its basic assumptions, proposes errant beliefs. It

has been shown that CT is an artificial framework that was constructed from biblical concepts

that were extrapolated in order to fill in the white spaces of Scripture. This framework then

served as a means for categorizing and interpreting all of Scripture by creating a basis of

Christological unity between the testaments along the lines of a type-antitype relationship. This

framework was a theological contrivance driven by suspect hermeneutics and polemical theology

hastily constructed amidst the fires of controversy during the Reformation.

Though much has been said in this paper that is critical of CT, it should be noted that I do

not consider CT to be damnable heresy. What seems to rescue CT from itself is that the

84Ibid., 101.


31/33


32/33

30

Bibliography

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets. Calvins Commentaries, 22 vols.

Trans. by John Owen. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2003.

.Institutes of the Christian Religion. In 2 vols, Library of Christian Classics vol. XXI.

Trans. by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977.

Clark, R. Scott.A Brief History of Covenant Theology. Westminster Seminary California.

http://clark.wscal.edu/briefhistorycovtheol.php.

Erdman, Martin. The Millennial Controversy in the Early Church. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock

Publishers, 2005.

Feinberg, John S. Systems of Discontinuity. In, Continuity Discontinuity: Perspectives on therelationship between the Old and New Testaments. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1988.

6386.

Gundry, Stanley N. Typology as a Means of Interpretation:Past and Present,JETS12, No. 4

(Fall 1969): 23340.

Hendrickson, William. The Covenant of Grace. Revised ed. 2nd

printing. Grand Rapids: Baker

Book House, 1982.

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. 3 Volumes. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 1940.

Hoekema, Anthony A. Created in Gods Image. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 1986.

Jackson, Samuel Macauley. Ed. Philo of Alexandria. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia ofReligious Knowledge, 15 vols. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977.

Kaiser, Walt C. The Promise Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testament.Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.

Karlberg, Mark W. Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective: Collected Essays and BookReviews in Historical, Biblical, and Systematic Theology. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock

Publishers, 2000.

Kline, Meredith G.By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of

Circumcision and Baptism. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,1968.

. The Structure of Biblical Authority. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: William B. EerdmansPublishing Company, 1972.
http://clark.wscal.edu/briefhistorycovtheol.phphttp://clark.wscal.edu/briefhistorycovtheol.phphttp://clark.wscal.edu/briefhistorycovtheol.php


33/33

31

LaRondelle, Hans K. Our Creator Redeemer: An Introduction to Biblical Covenant Theology.

Berrien Springs, MO: Andrews University Press, 2005

. The Israel of God in Prophecy: Principles of Prophetic Interpretation. Berrien Springs,

MI: Andrews University Press, 1983.

Latourette, Kenneth Scott.A History of Christianity. 2 vols. 1953; Reprint. Peabody, MA:

Prince Press, 1997.

Lillback, Peter A. The Binding of God: Calvins Role in the Development of Covenant Theology.

Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Book House Company, 2001.

McGowan, ATB. The Federal Theology of Thomas Boston. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Publishing,

1997.

Murray, John. Collected Writings of John Murray. 4 vols. Edinburgh, PA: The Banner ofTruthTrust, 1982.

. The Imputation of Adams Sin. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1959.

Raymond, Robert L.A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. 2nd

ed. Revised andUpdated. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1998.

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsberg, NJ: Presbyterian and ReformedPublishing Co., 1980.

Schaff, Philip.History of the Christian Church. 8 vols. 1910; Reprint. Grand Rapids: Wm B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985.

Smith, Ralph Allan. Interpreting the Covenant of Works. Berith.org.http://www.berith.org/essays/cov_works/.

Snider, Andrew V. Justification and the Active Obedience of Christ: Toward a Biblical

Understanding of Imputed Righteousness. ThM thesis, Masters Seminary, 2002.

Sproul, R. C. Getting the Gospel Right: The Tie that Binds Evangelicals Together. Grand Rapids:

Baker Books, a division of Baker Book House Company, 1999.

Strimple, Robert B. Amillennialism. In, Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond. Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 1999. 83129.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence.Lectures in Systematic Theology. Revised by Vernon D. Doerksen.Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979.

Weir, D. A. The Origins of The Federal Theology in Sixteenth-Century Reformation Thought.New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
http://www.berith.org/essays/cov_works/http://www.berith.org/essays/cov_works/http://www.berith.org/essays/cov_works/

an examination of the origins of covenant theology and critique of it's basic tenants - stiles,...

Documents