Analysis of the Noahic Covenant

 

The first main historical covenant is the Noahic covenant, made in Genesis 6 and 9. It is sometimes also referred to as "the covenant of preservation" or "the covenant of common grace". Thus, it is more directed towards creation than redemption, but provides the obvious prerequisite for the progress of redemptive history, namely the continuance of the created world, which was an act of God's common grace towards humanity and the animal kingdom.

Biblical Exposition

Noah's birth is recorded in Genesis 5:28-29:

"When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands."

The language of verse 29 points back to Genesis 3:17, which says "And to Adam he said, 'Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life". 

The Hebrew words for "cursed", "ground", and "pain" are found in both verses. One interesting observation is that the order of the words in Gen. 3:17 is "pain", "ground", "cursed"; while the word order in Gen. 5:29 is "cursed", "ground", "pain"; this might reflect Lamech's hope that his son Noah will be the means God uses to reverse the curse of the fall. 

Genesis 6 gives us the background to the world in which the global flood and Noah's ark took place. It was filled with wickedness and all manner of immorality (6:4-5). This is set in contrast to Noah, "who found favor in the eyes of the Lord." (Genesis 6:8)

After commanding Noah to build the ark, we receive the foundational verse in the study of the Noahic covenant:

"But I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you." (Genesis 6:18)

Two questions arise: is this a completely distinct covenant from the one in Genesis 9, and is this a brand new covenant or one establishing a prior covenantal commitment and promise? 

For the first question, the following chart presents a comparison of these two covenants, showing while they are intimately related, there are distinct aspects to each covenant:

As to whether or not the Noahic covenant is a completely separate and distinct covenant with no relationship to former ones, we should take another look at Genesis 6:18 for the answer to this question, in particular the verb used for the making of the covenant, namely the Hiphil form of קוּם. Usually, when a new covenant is made, the verb כָּרַת is used ("to cut a covenant"; cf. Gen. 15:7-18). However, the Hiphil form of קוּם generally means "to confirm" or "to establish". For example, God "cut" a covenant with Abraham in Gen. 15, but in Genesis 17:7, God "confirms" (קוּם) this covenant, thus alluding back to Genesis 15. 

"And so, then, to what previous covenantal arrangement does the covenant of Genesis 6:18 refer? The best answer locates its antecedent in the redemptive judgment of Genesis 3:14–19, the historical inauguration of the covenant of grace and the institution of common grace. Recall that the naming of Noah back in Genesis 5:29 connects him to the redemptive curse of 3:17 with the mention of the cursed ground and the subsequent pain caused by working it. The explanation of Noah’s name suggests that God intends to move his plan of redemption forward through Noah, who is located genealogically in the line of Seth. Additionally, the covenant of 6:18 guarantees the survival of Noah and his offspring during the flood, when all other human life will be extinguished. This is significant in light of the promise of 3:15, that the offspring of the woman (a human) will in fact crush the serpent. With 6:18, God confirms that the covenantal arrangement of 3:15 still stands and will endure into the postflood world." (Miles D. Van Pelt, "The Noahic Covenant of the Covenant of Grace", in Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Perspectives, pg. 120)

The Restoration of Common Grace

In Genesis 8:21, God promises two things which constitute his act of common grace in the Noahic covenant: 1) God will never fully curse the ground again, and 2) God will never again strike down every thing.

The Essential Unity of the Covenant of Grace

 

One of the main tenets of traditional Reformed covenant theology is that behind all of the historical covenants, there is one overarching covenant of grace, in contrast to dispensationalism. There is one covenant of grace throughout history, but under different administrations, while the essence or core of each administration is the same. In this article, I will provide a few arguments for the unity of the covenant of grace throughout the Old and New Testaments.

A Brief Argument Against Dispensationalism

One of the main problems with dispensationalism and its heremeneutics is that it breaks the promise-fulfillment pattern when the New Testament cites the Old Testament. In 1 Peter 2:9, titles that are given of Israel are applied to the church. James teaches that the gathering in of the Gentiles prophesied in Amos is fulfilled in the Christian church (Acts 15:13-17). In Galatians 3:29, Paul says “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise."

Argument #1 - The Core Promise in Each Covenant is the Same

Throughout the historical covenants in the OT made Abraham, Israel, and David, one promise stands central in all of them, in which God says “I will be their God, and they shall be my people”.

In the Abrahamic covenant, God said “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you…..I will be their God.” (Genesis 17:7-8b) 

We find the same thing in the covenant made with Israel during the time of Moses: “I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God, and you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.” (Exodus 6:7). This is repeated again later in the same book: “I will dwell among the people of Israel and will be their God. And they shall know that I am the Lord their God, who brought them out of the land of Egypt that I might dwell among them. I am the Lord their God.” (Exodus 29:45-46)

The same essential idea is communicated in the Davidic covenant, but with slightly different terminology. Speaking of the royal seed of David, 2 Samuel 7:14 says “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” Later, in verse 24 we read “And you established for yourself your people Israel to be your people forever. And you, O LORD, became their God.” (2 Sam. 7:24)

One of the central pledges given by God in the new covenant is “I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jeremiah 31:33). Paul applies this promise to the church in 2 Corinthians 6:16. 

The meaning of God’s promise in all of the historical covenants and the new covenant is that he will count the people of Israel as His son, and they will be in close communion and union with Him (Exodus 4:5; Deuteronomy 14:1-2; 2 Samuel 7:14; John 1:12; Romans 8:14-16; Ephesians 1:4-5). 

Therefore, since the core promise throughout all of the historical covenants and the new covenant is the same, then this means that the essential core of each of them is the same, i.e. the one covenant of grace. 

The Organic Unity of the Historical Covenants

The interconnection between the historical covenants also shows their essential unity. Each covenant in redemptive history expands on the previous one and advances it promises.

[1]. The Law of Moses Advanced the Abrahamic Covenant - The Lord freed Israel from Egypt because “God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.” (Exodus 2:24). He presents Himself to Moses as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Exodus 3:15). Later, in Exodus 6:2-8, we see clear revelation from God that His redemption of Israel and gifting them with the promised Land was a part of His fulfillment of the covenant made with the patriarchs. This is also taught again in Deuteronomy 29:12-13. The apostle Paul also teaches in Galatians 3:17 that the Mosaic law did not cancel or replace the covenant with Abraham, but rather was a part of its fulfillment and advancement.  

[2]. The Davidic Covenant Advanced the Covenant made with Israel - There are quite a few allusions in 2 Samuel 7 to the previous covenant made with Israel. God gives rest to David and to Israel (2 Sam. 7:11), which is a fulfillment of what was promised to Israel (Exodus 33:14; Deuteronomy 3:20; 12:10). David had a “great name” (2 Sam. 7:9-10), one of the blessings promised to Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 15:18). When the temple had been built, Solomon said “Blessed be the Lord who as given rest to His people Israel, according to all that he promised. Not one word has failed of all his good promise, which he spoke by Moses his servant” (1 Kings 8:56).

[3]. The New Covenant Fulfills the Ancient Covenants -  The New covenant is no doubt superior to the Old covenant in its greater revelation of the fulfilling of God’s promises and redemption (Hebrew 8:6, 13). However, the New Covenant is also the fulfillment of the historical covenants in the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17). The blessed virgin Mary praised God for this reason: “He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy, as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to this offspring forever.” (Luke 1:54-55). Paul's entire argument in Galatians 3 is that the promises made to Abraham are fulfilled to Jewish and Gentile believers.

The State of Old Testament Believers

 

The classical view of confessional Reformed theology is that during the period of the Old Testament, believers then had assurance of salvation and forgiveness of sins through faith in the promised Redeemer, Jesus Christ. 

“...from the holy gospel, which God Himself first revealed in Paradise; and afterwards.” (Heidelberg Catechism, LD 7, Q. 19)

It is true that during the New Testament, believers had a more full view of the promised salvation than was had under the OT. Nonetheless, believers under both time periods had the same faith, the same gospel, and the same salvation.

The First Promise of Salvation

Right after man’s fall into sin, God promised the coming Redeemer: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” (Genesis 3:15)

Elements elsewhere in the book of Genesis show their faith in God, such as Eve’s trust in the promise of the seed (Gen. 4:1, 25). Adam and Eve raised their descendents to know the Lord. Abel was called a “righteous man” (Matthew 23:35; 1 John 3:12; Hebrews 11:4). During Seth’s lifetime, people began to “call upon the name of the Lord” (Genesis 4:26). 

OT believers also trusted in the coming Messiah through the types given to them through the animal sacrifices, which foreshadowed Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice and atonement for the sins of His people. These animal sacrifices were anticipated by God’s provision of clothing from animals to cover their shame (Genesis 3:21). It was clear that animal sacrifices were for atonement (Exodus 30:15; Leviticus 16; 17:11). 

Noah’s ark and the flood was also a type of Christ’s salvation. During that time, the ark was the only way of salvation and peace (Genesis 6:22; Isaiah 54:9).

Faith in Christ Amongst the Hebrew Patriarchs

The promises of God to Abraham are well-known. One such promise is that Abraham, i.e. his offspring, will inherit the promised Land (Genesis 12:1). Though Abraham died without actually coming into this land himself, the Lord was still faithful to His covenant promises (Genesis 26:24; 28:13), showing that this promise was not merely referring to land here on earth, but to a heavenly heritage (Hebrews 11:13-16). John Calvin rightly said ““They would have been more stupid than blocks of wood to keep on pursuing the promises when no hope of these appeared on earth, unless they expected them to be fulfilled elsewhere” (Institutes, 2.10.13).

The Lord promises to bless Abraham (Genesis 12:2), something which involved things other than material ones, since Abraham did not experience the direct and physical fulfillment of these promises during his lifetime. Joel Beeke says “The core of God’s blessing is the restoration of sinners to his favor and presence (Num. 6:22–27; Pss. 5:12; 67:1)”. Paul agrees when he views the Abrahamic blessings (Galatians 3:8-9, 14). 

The binding of Isaac on Mount Moriah (Genesis 22) demonstrated a couple of important things about Abraham. After God had provided the ram to be sacrificed in the place of Isaac, Abraham named the place “The Lord will provide” (Gen. 22:13-14). Abraham also believed in the hope of resurrection from the dead (Genesis 22:5; Hebrews 11:17-19). 

Faith in Christ under the Mosaic Law

Moses foretold the coming Christ as Prophet in Deuteronomy 18:15-19 (cf. Acts 3:22-23), adding that Israel’s salvation depended on whether or not they listened to Him.

Israel’s salvation, particularly from slavery in Egypt, wasn’t based on anything in them, but rather on God’s grace (Deuteronomy 9:6-7; Joshua 24:14). 

As was noted earlier, the sacrificial system was a type of Christ. Many Israelites understood that these animals could not give atonement beyond the external aspects (1 Samuel 15:22; Hebrews 10:1-4). Augustine said that they celebrated these sacrifices looking ahead to Christ, “the true Sacrifice” (Expositions on the Book of Psalms, 40.12).

The Suretyship of Christ Under the Old Testament

“But the common opinion of the orthodox (with whom we agree) is that the sponsion of Christ from the time it was made, had not only the relation of fidejussion (fidejussionis) but of expromission (expromissionis), by which for that very reason the fathers were truly freed from the punishments due to them.” (Francis Turretin)

Here are a few arguments that support this view:

[1]. Part of the nature of Christ’s suretyship is that it is the absolute and immutable will of Christ, thus it follows that there was a real transference of debt to Him. 

“In this he truly performed the office of an expromissor, who takes another's obligation upon himself so that the payment is demanded and expected from him alone, the original debtor no longer remaining bound. He so bound himself to the payment by his agreement that from him alone it could be demanded.” (Francis Turretin)

[2]. Isaiah 53:5-6 says this quite clearly, namely that God “laid on him the iniquity of us all, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.”

[3]. “The nature of the thing itself demands this, whether God (to whom the sponsion ought to be made) is considered or the surety (who was bound to make it) or the elect themselves (for whom he agreed) or the nature of the security itself is attended to. As to God, his justice demanded a true expromissor and not a mere fidejussor. As it could not look for payment from the first debtors, so it could only acquiesce in the absolute sponsion of the Son, nor was it agreeable to him that Christ at the same time with the elect should remain bound by the same decree, since for this very reason he was given as a surety to them that on this very account they might be set free.” (Francis Turretin)

Did OT Believers Enjoy the Full Forgiveness of Sins?

Some theologians have taught that during the Old Testament, believers did not enjoy full, true, and complete forgiveness of sins (aphesin), but rather their sins were merely “overlooked” or “passed-by” by God (paresin). The semantic distinction between the Greek words aphesin and paresin is a key part of this particular debate. 

Before we move further, we should note that the debate is not about the subjective sense of spiritual peace, consolation, and assurance which believers had in the Old Testament. It is granted that this was increased in the New Teestament period, and that the spirit of bondage and fear was present in the OT period. Rather, the issue is whether on this account it can be said that the OT believers were under the curse of the law and the wrath of God, and thus did not have a true remission of sins (aphesin), but rather a mere passing-over (paresin).

Psalm 32:5 uses the Hebrew term nasa when it speaks of David’s sin being forgiven - “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord, and you forgave (nasa) the iniquity of my sin”.

Paul cites this text in Romans 4:6-8 and translates “forgave” with aphienai. Thus, David (who is obviously an Old Testament believer) had aphesin.

John the Baptist preached “the baptism of repentance to the forgiveness (aphesin) of sins” (Mark 1:4). Prior to His death and resurrection, the Lord Jesus taught His disciples to pray “Forgive (aphes) us our debts” (Matthew 6:12).

These things show that such a sharp distinction between paresin and aphesin is without any solid foundation. 

The idea that the OT believers only had paresin, and not aphesin, is not consistent with the nature of the covenant of grace. Part of the covenant of grace is God’s bestowal of all spiritual blessing (cf. Eph. 1:3) on those who are in covenant with Him, which would include a true and real forgiveness of sins. If they only had paresin and not aphesin, then either they must have not been members of the covenant of grace, or justification and salvation are spiritual states which can coexist with the guilt of sin and the curse of the law, which is absurd. 

Isa Dawah's Childish Behavior + Formal Debate Challenge

 

There has been a tiny bit of controversy within the Muslim-Christian debate world online as of yesterday involving me and Isa Dawah, a Muslim apologist who is apart of the EADawah team (not to be confused with EFDawah). 

Basically, he and Khalil (who is much more respectful and learned than Isa Dawah, as was evident) invite Christians, atheists, and non-Muslims in general onto a livestream on Streamyard to debate theology and philosophy and related topics.

Yesterday (August 19, 2022), I went on this livestream (I am using the usual username I used: "Soli Deo Gloria Apologetics", hence my blog title) and asked them about the Islamic traditions from scholars like Ibn Mujahid and Ibn Taymiyyah which say that Muhammad sits on the throne of Allah (I covered these more in-depth in this article), and how this is consistent with traditional Islamic monotheism. Isa Dawah proceeded to act in an infantile manner by interrupting me over and over and then basically threw Ibn Taymiyyah, one of his greatest theologians in the history of their religion, under the bus. Its a shame a Christian has to come on and teach him about what is own scholars have taught throughout history.  Over and over, I provided Isa Dawah with the exact reference from Ibn Taymiyyah's works, but Isa refused to address it, dodging the issue. 

In a livestream just a few hours later for the purpose of damage control, Isa Dawah admitted he did not know the answer to my argument (at the 3:21 mark in the video, and later at the 4:43 mark; At the 5:59 mark he says he "fell for my trap" and admitted he would reject Ibn Taymiyyah if he did indeed say this. At one point he said that the belief that Muhammad sits on Allah's throne is shirk).

Eventually, it became clear that Isa and I were not getting anywhere with this discussion (this was on the earlier livestream), and so we moved on to another topic, namely the atonement. Isa kept claiming that since the OT condemns child sacrifice, therefore the doctrine of the atonement is false. As I pointed out the blatant category error he was making, he continued to interrupt.

Then, he read Romans 1 and basically waffled around as to what exactly his argument was. I thought he was trying to make an argument from verse 25 ("...served the creature rather than the creator") that this refutes the deity of Christ and His worship by Christians, but he claimed I was "mispresenting" him. Then, he waffled again and couldn't figure out what he was arguing. And, around that time, he proceeded to kick me off the livestream. 

However, I do not wish to end Isa and I's interaction here. Hence, I am issuing a formal challenge to Isa Dawah of EADawah (and he is also active on TikTok) to debate "Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?".

I propose the following format:

25 min opening statement - Me (Affirmative)

25 min opening statement - Isa Dawah (Denial)

15 Min rebuttal - Me 

15 min rebuttal- Isa Dawah

30 min - Open Discussion

10 min closing statement - Isa Dawah

10 min closing statement - me

Historical Perspectives on God's Covenants

 

The Early and Medieval Church

We see some brief teaching from the ancient fathers of the church concerning the issue of covenant theology, particularly the relationship between the Old and New Covenants. This was in reaction to the heresy of Marcion, who rejected the Old Testament entirely. 

"All things therefore are of one and the same substance, that is, from one and the same God;" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.9.1)

"For which [reasons the apostle] declared that this man was not only the prophet of faith, but also the father of those who from among the Gentiles believe in Jesus Christ, because his faith and ours are one and the same" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.21.1)

"For none, even of the just men of old, could find salvation apart from the faith of Christ; nor unless He had been known to them could their ministry have been used to convey prophecies concerning Him to us, some more plain, and some more obscure." (Augustine, The Enchiridion, chapter 118)

Thomas Aquinas appeared to believe in the classic law-gospel antithesis, and held similar views to St. Irenaeus:

"No man ever had the grace of the Holy Ghost except through faith in Christ either explicit or implicit: and by faith in Christ man belongs to the New Testament." (Summa Theologica, Part 2.1, Q. 106, Art. 1, Reply to Obj. 3)

Reformation Theologians

Martin Luther taught the following things concerning God's covenants:

- OT saints were justified by faith in Christ (Lectures on Galatians, 1535, in LW 26:85)

- The moral law of the Ten Commandments was still binding on Christians (The Book of Concord, 351-54)

Heinrich Bullinger wrote a treatise titled The One Eternal Testament or Covenant of God. Bullinger viewed the substance of God's covenants as that which was given to Abraham in Genesis 17. Bullinger taught that all children within the visible church ought to be baptized, which is the sign of the Covenant of Grace. 

John Calvin emphasized the unity of God's covenant of grace throughout redemptive history:

"All men adopted by God into the company of his people since the beginning of the world were covenanted to him by the same law and by the bond of the same doctrine as obtains among us" (Institutes, 2.10.1)

“The covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same. Yet they differ in the mode of dispensation.” (Institutes, 2.10.2)

Like most prior to him, Calvin taught the the new covenant does not nullify Christian's moral obligation to obey the Ten Commandments, that is, the moral law:

“We must now consider how the covenant is rightly kept . . . for as God binds himself to keep the promise he has given to us; so the consent of faith and of obedience is demanded of us.” (Calvin's Commentary on Gen. 17:9)

Reformed and Presbyterian Orthodoxy

The basic ideas of Reformed covenant theology continued in figures like Theodore Beza, Zacharias Ursinus, Caspar Olevianus, Robert Rollock, and William Perkins. 

Reformed covenant theology can especially be seen in systematic form in the writings of Thomas Boston. Boston taught that there were two covenants: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The former shows our sinful state, and the latter the hope of the gospel offered in Jesus Christ. 

Boston believed that the covenant of grace was established in eternity, in the counsel of the Trinity. 

“The covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace, are not two distinct covenants, but one and the same covenant. I know that many divines do express themselves otherwise in this matter; and that upon very different views, some of which are no ways injurious to the doctrine of free grace.” (The Works of Thomas Boston, 8:396-97)

"The writings of Reformed orthodox theologians such as Boston exhibit a peculiar tendency that is both a strength and a weakness: their treatment of the covenant revolved around the accomplishment and application of salvation, not the historical process of revelation. Reformed covenant theology generally focused on the gospel so much that it did not chart the unfolding of the covenant of grace in its progressive revelation over the course of history. That is the task of Reformed biblical theology." (Joel R. Beeke)

Particular Baptist Theologians

During the Puritan era of the 1600s, a number of Baptist theologians agreed with the majority of the principles of mainstream Reformed covenant theology, but did add some distinctions and nuances to their doctrine of the covenants that suited their view of the church in the New Testament. This view is expressed in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith:

"This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15), and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament (Heb. 1:1); and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect (2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2); and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and a blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency (Heb. 11:6, 13; Rom. 4:1– 2ff.; Acts 4:12; John 8:56)." (1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, 7.3)

While there are many similarities to the teaching of Reformed Presbyterianism (such as the affirmation that saints under both the OT and NT were saved in the same way, i.e. justification by faith alone), there is a very key difference: the Baptist confession does not state that the old covenant and the new covenant are two administrations of the one covenant of grace, but instead it views the progressive revelation of the gospel that is consummated in the new covenant, leaving the relationship between the two covenants undefined.

There were some different nuances amongst early Baptist theologians regarding covenant theology. While figures like Nehemiah Coxe and Benjamin Keach subscribed to what we might call "1689 Federalism" (the view of the London Baptist confession described above), there were others who nuanced it differently.

John Bunyan (The Works of John Bunyan, 1:524) and John Gill affirmed the classic Reformed view that the one covenant of grace had different administrations throughout history. 

Dispensationalism

John Nelson Darby, a member of the Plymouth Brethren, is known for shaping a defining the theological system known as Dispensationalism. He likely had influence from the Roman Catholic priest and theologian Manuel Lacunza. 

The key aspect of dispensationalism is that it emphasizes a sharp distinction between Israel and the Christian Church as two separate peoples of God. Rather than the promises made to Israel being fulfilled in the church, Israel exists separately and God has His own plan for it.

Dispensationalism also emphasizes the distinction between the Old and New Covenant. It recognizes seven different "dispensations" throughout redemptive history: (1) innocence; (2) conscience; (3) human government; (4) promise; (5) law; (6) grace; and (7) kingdom. It also affirms a pre-tribulation rapture.

New Covenant Theology

Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel affirm a theological system known as "New Covenant Theology" (NCT). While they acknowledge a "unity of God's purpose throughout the ages", they think it would be wrong to refer to this as the "covenant of grace", as Reformed theology does. "The implication for ethics is that no command of the Old Testament can inform us of our duty before God unless the same command is explicitly taught in the New Testament" (Joel R. Beeke) 

Progressive Covenantalism

Recently, Stephen Wellum and Peter Gentry wrote a book titled Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. They try to find a middle-ground between dispensationalism and Reformed covenant theology. 

They do affirm the covenant of works, and that the OT promises given to Israel are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. In this regard, they agree with Reformed covenant theology.

However, they teach that the church participates in this reality only by faith and union with Christ, and thus the essence of the New Covenant is not the same as that of the Old Covenant. 

"Furthermore, progressive covenantalists argue that the Ten Commandments must be interpreted in their covenantal context and applied to us today as they are fulfilled in Christ. A major consequence of this approach is that the Sabbath is not seen as a universal moral law, but a foreshadowing of the Christian’s spiritual rest in Christ. However, progressive covenantalism does promote a practice of the Lord’s Day that is often similar to that of people believing that the fourth commandment mandates the Christian Sabbath" (Joel R. Beeke)

Introduction to the Covenant of Grace (Basic Notes)

 

The Meaning of the Word "Covenant"

"A covenant may be defined as a solemn promise that functions as a legal instrument to define a relationship of loyalty" (Joel Beeke)

In the original languages of Scripture, the key words are berith (Hebrew) and diatheke (Greek), both which are translated as "covenant".

Berith is used in distinct ways in the Hebrew Bible:

1) An immutable ordinance (Numbers 18:19; Jeremiah 33:20). 

2) A sure and stable promise, though not being mutual (Exodus 34:10; Isaiah 59:21).

3) A precept/covenant; the giving of a precept or precepts (Genesis 14:13; 26:28-29; 1 Samuel 18:2; Jeremiah 34:13-14). 

Basic Tenents of Reformed Covenant Theology

1) The Perpetual Continuity of God's Gospel - Reformed covenant theology teaches that people in both the Old and the New Testaments have been saved and justified in the exact same way, that is, through faith alone. No human being in history has ever been saved by their own works, including the patriarchs of the Old Testament. This is Paul's clear argument concerning Abraham in both Romans 4 and in Galatians 3. The gospel of the New Testament is the same as that under the Old Testament. 

2) The Covenant of Works - "Paul associates the covenant of works with Mount Sinai and the slave Hagar (Gal. 4:24–25). God magnified the law in the Mosaic covenant revealed at Sinai in order to give Israel a deeper experience of its bondage to sin and guilt before Christ came (3:22–24). The law, considered as moral precepts engraved on tablets of stone and not as living principles written by the Spirit on the heart, can only kill and condemn (2 Cor. 3:3, 6–7). The ceremonies of the law were but shadows of Christ (Col. 2:16–17). However, just as Abraham and Sarah wrongfully involved Hagar to pursue an heir by the “flesh” instead of by faith in the “promise” (Gal. 4:28–29), so unbelievers abused the law of Moses to pursue righteousness by their own works instead of by faith in God’s promise. Thus, Hagar corresponds to “Jerusalem which now is” (v. 25), where the unbelieving Jews and Judaizers in the church twisted God’s law into an opportunity for hypocritical, legalistic self-righteousness (Matt. 23:2–4; Gal. 2:12)" (Joel R. Beeke)

3) The Covenant with God's Son and those in Union with Him - "Covenant theology teaches us to regard the covenant of grace as first and foremost a covenant between God the Father and God the Son. As we will see later in this book, this implies that the covenant of grace is rooted in the eternal counsel of the triune God. Christ is not only the Mediator of the covenant, but also the heir of the covenant blessings. He dispenses to God’s people the blessings that he himself received from God. This comforts God’s people, who know that they are unworthy of receiving God’s covenantal blessing." (Joel R. Beeke)

4) The Diverse Administrations of God's Covenant of Grace - Though the essential core of the covenant of grace has remained the same throughout history, God administers it differently throughout history (Galatians 3:17-24). The Mosaic law was a "schoolmaster" or "guardian" (paidagogos) for the people of Israel (Gal. 3:24-25).  

5) The Essential Unity of God's Covenant of Grace - Joel Beeke says "Though diverse in administration, God's covenant with his people has an essential core that remains the same through all the ages." Paul and Abraham thus believed in the same gospel (Gal. 3:6). God still kept His covenant with Abraham during the time of the Mosaic Law (Gal. 3:17-19). "Covenant theology teaches us to regard the covenant of grace as first and foremost a covenant between God the Father and God the Son. As we will see later in this book, this implies that the covenant of grace is rooted in the eternal counsel of the triune God. Christ is not only the Mediator of the covenant, but also the heir of the covenant blessings. He dispenses to God’s people the blessings that he himself received from God. This comforts God’s people, who know that they are unworthy of receiving God’s covenantal blessing." (Joel R. Beeke) 

"All things therefore are of one and the same substance, that is, from one and the same God;" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.9.1)

6) The Abiding Duty to Obey God's Moral Law - In Galatians 5, Paul very clearly teaches that the moral law (referring to the Ten Commandments) are still binding on Christians today (Gal. 5:13-14, cf. Romans 13:8-10). "The grace of the Holy Spirit does not replace the moral law, but gives us the will and strength to keep it." (Joel Beeke) 

Luke's Order and the Sermon on the Mount

 

 (The following notes are based on Mark Goodacre’s book The Case Against Q)

Perhaps the most significant, and for many the most convincing argument against Luke’s use of Matthew would be his arrange of the material in the double tradition, in particular the Sermon on the Mount/Plain material. 

Matthew’s “five blocks” of teaching material are generally marked off by the phrase “When Jesus had finished…” (Matthew 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). However, in Luke, this material is often scattered all over the place. Since Matthew was more “neat” in his writing, and if Luke was using Matthew, why would he arrange his common material in such a different way than Matthew did in his gospel?

Goodacre spends the chapter noting that it appears to be a common literary practice of Luke to arrange the material in this way, not just in Matthew, but also in Luke’s use of Mark:

“First, the observation concerning Luke's use of Mark is overstated, for there are several Markan incidents that are transposed by Luke. 22 While most of the incidents related in the earlier "Galilee" section of Luke, in 4:14-6:16 and 8:4- 9:50, broadly follow Mark's order, there is a good deal of material that is out of sequence.: Jesus' Rejection at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30) comes much earlier on ( cf. Mark 6:1-6); the Call of the Disciples (Luke 5: 1-11 ) comes later (cf. Mark 1:16-20); the Naming of the Twelve (Luke 6:12- 16) and the Ministering to Multitudes (Luke 6:17-19) are invened (cf. Mark 3:13-19 and 3:7-12); the Anointing is brought forward (Luke 7:36-50; cf. Mark 14:3-9); and the Mother and Brothers pericope is kept for later (Luke 8:19-21; cf. Mark 3:31-35). On nearly all of these occasions, Matthew's order is closer to Mark's. Moreover, it is wellknown that Luke's Passion Narrative makes significant depanures from Mark whereas Matthew's is much more faithful to Mark.” (Goodacre, pg. 87) 

Another example of this would be how Luke handles the parables-material in Mark 4:

As Michael Goulder notes:

“[Luke] has indeed embodied part of it [the Sermon on the Mount] in his own Sermon on the Plain, scattered part, and omitted part; but his action has not been wanton, nor to the four winds, and the question of what moved him is not beyond resolution if it is taken seriously .... Luke treats it just as he treats long discourses in Mark. He regularly likes teaching pericopes of about twelve to twenty verses, which he regards as the amount a congregation (or reader) can assimilate at one time; and he sets them apart with a proper introduction apiece.” (Goulder, Luke: A New Paradigm, pg. 93)

Thus many of the Farrer theorists have come to the conclusion that Luke had a desire for brevity in his writing and did not like long discourses. Christopher Tuckett, a proponent of the Two-Source hypothesis, responds by appealing to the long speeches in Acts, the speech of Stephen in Acts 7 in particular and the story of Cornelius’ conversion in Acts 10. 

“It is actually Tuckett's objections, however, that do not convince. Neither Luke 12:22-53 (32 verses), nor Luke 15:3-32 (30 verses), nor Luke 21:5-36 (31 verses), nor Acts 2:14- 36 (23 verses) is substantially longer than the twelve to twenty or so verses that Goulder suggests as a rule of thumb for Luke. And Acts 10, the story of Cornelius's conversion, features at most ten verses of direct speech at a rime (10:34-43).” (Goodacre, pg. 94) 

Regarding Stephen’s lengthy speech in Acts 7, Goodacre responds by noting that it is such a speech that could not be broken up. In the context of the storyline of the book of Acts, it wouldn’t have been fitting to omit and redestribute the material of Acts 7. 

Further Response to Dave Armstrong on Iconography and the Bible

 

Dave Armstrong has written a further response to me regarding iconography, this time in rebuttal to my article answering the common arguments brought from Scripture for the practice of the veneration of icons. 

First, I want to deal with the issue of the bronze serpent, particularly in the episode in 2 Kings 18 where it was destroyed by King Hezekiah. DA responded to this by saying:

"Exactly. Offering incense to it is idolatrous blasphemy, because it was not according to its proper use, as described by God to Moses. It was a corruption of the intended use. But a corruption of a thing is not the equivalent of the thing. Because some people fornicate, it doesn’t follow that all sexual intercourse is immoral. Within a valid marriage, it’s not only not wrong, but a great gift from God and the means of procreation: pour assistance in helping to create new human beings and eternal souls. King Hezekiah “broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made” because “the people of Israel had burned incense to it” (2 Ki 18:4). That no more makes the serpent (image) intrinsically bad than Moses smashing the original tablets with the Ten Commandments (Ex 31:19) made them bad. In both cases, it was because the Jews had not properly followed God’s instructions. As explained in the previous section, the serpent was never intended to be venerated, let alone worshiped: which is reserved only for God in the Bible, Judaism, Catholicism, and larger Christianity. So using the serpent as an argument against veneration of images or icons is a non sequitur, since that was never its purpose."

I never claimed that the "corruption of thing is the equivalent of a thing." Since DA already knows I would agree with his analogy of sexual activity in a valid marriage (one man and one woman), there is no need to pursue this analogy any further.

It is interesting that DA concedes that the bronze serpent was never meant to receive veneration. If this is the case (which it is, as demonstrated from the case of King Hezekiah), then it can only be used for the Lutheran view on icons at best, and won't prove the Roman Catholic view (which includes veneration, something DA admits is not present in the case of the bronze serpent). 

DA then objects to my use of the term "Romanist", saying that is a pejorative. I did not use it in this sense. Rather, I use the term because the word "Catholic" is too broad (katholikos means "universal", as everyone knows) and I prefer to use either "Romanist" or "Roman Catholic". 

Next, we move on to the issue of the cherubim. DA claims my response to the typical iconophile argument is "missing the point". However, it seems that DA was the one who misunderstood me, since he goes down a rabbit trail about how a bunch of other things "represent" God the Father. Here, DA contradicts himself. In this article, he claims that it is okay to depict God the Father. However, in his previous article that he wrote yesterday in response to me, he says (concerning Augustine's view of images) "This one is self-refuting, in terms of Matt’s purpose to establish St. Augustine as an iconoclast. His point is not to oppose veneration of all images whatsoever, but rather, images of God the Father in particular, other than Jesus, “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15, RSV)". 

DA responds to my claim that "The issue is not with all images absolutely and whatsoever" by quoting a passage from Calvin's Institutes where he says "Moreover, all men of sound judgment acknowledge that the Cherubim in question belonged to the old tutelage of the law. It is absurd, therefore, to bring them forward as an example for our age. For that period of puerility, if I may so express it, to which such rudiments were adapted, has passed away" (1.11.3).  However, Calvin clearly says that the cherubim had no relevance to "our age", i.e. the 16th century. We do not deny that the cherubim relevance to the NT period. They were a type of Christ's body in the grave before His glorious resurrection (John 20:12).

DA then cites a source describing the acts of some iconoclasts at the time of the Reformation, where they describe people doing all sorts of drastic measures, including throwing manure on certain Roman Catholic statues and images. I would note that Calvin himself did not agree with these actions. He believed it was the role of the magistrate to remove such images in a more orderly fashion (https://web.archive.org/web/20080829121943/http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/louthan/images.html). This reflects the practice of the good kings of Israel/Judah during the OT period (cf. 2 Kings 23:24).

Next, we move on to the issue of the pillar of fire. My argument was that this the way God represented Himself (and since He is sovereign, He has the right to whatever He wants to do in terms of theophanies). This is different from humans coming up with their own representations of God. DA responds by saying "If God can do it Himself, certainly we can, too. Nothing He does can be wrong." 

If God has no problem with us using means of worship that He has clearly sanctioned in Scripture, then why did he kill Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10? They offered up "strange fire" (one might see this as parallel to the pillar of fire itself) in an attempt to worship God, and yet they were struck dead. This proves the Reformed concept of the regulative principle of worship, namely that we cannot worship God in whatever we want (which is why I am opposed to many mega-churches, including many Evangelical ones, which have things like smoke machines and strobe lights everywhere, making it look more like an EDM concert rather than a service for the divine worship of God and the preaching of the Word, and administration of the sacraments), but only in the means which He has ordained for us. 

Regarding the 2nd commandment, many EOs and RCs say that this is only in reference to pagan gods, and not images of the true God. I responded by noting situations in the OT where the Israelites did try and make images of the true God, and yet they were punished and condemned for doing so, thus showing that the 2nd commandment is slightly broader in its scope of prohibitions regarding idolatry. 

DA defines idolatry as merely the worship of false Gods or attempting to make a graven image, and then viewing such an image as God Himself. However, Exodus 20:4 forbids the making of "any likeness [תְּמוּנָ֡֔ה] in heaven or earth", thus having a more general scope than DA would allow. This would obviously include the true God, since He is enthroned in heaven (cf. Psalm 2:4).  

DA then has a couple paragraphs dedicated to demonstrating that the type of idolatry condemned by the 2nd commandment (and in the golden calf episode, Judges, etc.) is when a person makes an idol/image and claims that the image is literally God. This seems to imply that if someone made an image of a cow and said it merely represents God and is meant as an aid in worship, it would not be idolatry. I will let DA answer that question himself.