Confused by intro of Christ of the Covenants

[Dachaser]

Thank you, as this is a concept I am trying to understand more fully from the Reformed perspective!

 

[MW]

what are some CT books that i can read alongside O Palmer Robertson? I do want to take a look back at Reymond / Berkhof/ Brakel STs which covers CT

The work of a Brakel is helpful. He has a chapter on the covenant of grace in which he shows the difference between covenant and testament; and he also has an appendix which traces the covenant of grace through the history of redemption. Witsius' Economy of the Covenants has the same historical treatment. So both can be easily used in connection with O Palmer Robertson's work, who treats of the covenants in chronological order.

 

[MW]

Rev. Winzer gives a good example of answering those questions from one's theology, from...

In contrast we can also look at specific covenants...

What do you mean to say here? Are you suggesting I am answering the questions from my system of theology but by contrast you are looking at the text of Scripture? By speaking of "specific covenants" and isolating the covenant with Noah you are expressing a theological system of your own. The words used in Genesis 6-9 indicate the existence of God's covenant before it was established with Noah and his seed. This means the covenant with Noah should not be isolated on its own. The previous chapter (Genesis 5) draws a clear line of redemptive-historical continuity from Adam to Noah.

 

[KeithW]

What do you mean to say here? Are you suggesting I am answering the questions from my system of theology but by contrast you are looking at the text of Scripture? By speaking of "specific covenants" and isolating the covenant with Noah you are expressing a theological system of your own. The words used in Genesis 6-9 indicate the existence of God's covenant before it was established with Noah and his seed. This means the covenant with Noah should not be isolated on its own. The previous chapter (Genesis 5) draws a clear line of redemptive-historical continuity from Adam to Noah.

With respect to your question and statement, I am trying to demonstrate that the concept of covenants, and the content of them, can be found directly in the text of Scripture -- where God makes or establishes His covenants. Scripture directly describes the concept and content by example. There is a beauty in the simplicity of the concept of covenants, and in why God chose this concept to make His promises with men.

The original post of this thread was not about existence of covenants or content of covenants but about confusing terminology. Understanding the terminology of covenants must start with understanding the concept, which is mostly foreign to the Gentile mind, especially mine. To understand the concept of covenants as used in the Bible, covenant theology sometimes does a poor job describing the concept, even to the point that some reformed authors define the concept in a way that does not work in the Scriptural examples where God makes covenants with men.

I have been speaking all along about the concept of covenants and how to go about learning the concept from Scripture. (See post #23.) Forgive me that I did not previously provide a definition. I will now correct that oversight. Based on how the word covenant is used in the Bible, the simple definition is,

a covenant is a binding arrangement between two parties which contains one or more promises.

The word arrangement is used in this definition instead of agreement, because an agreement typically implies mutually agreed upon or negotiated conditions. While covenants between men can be of this form, it is never the form of covenant God makes with men.

Covenants can have the following characteristics:
• they can be between God and men
• they can be between men and God
• they can be between men and men
• they can be unilateral
• they can be mutually agreed upon
• they can be between equals or not
• they can include conditions which must be met by the second party
• they can be put into effect (ratified) simply by saying so
• they can be put into effect (ratified) by a covenant-sacrifice

The words used in Genesis 6-9 indicate the existence of God's covenant before it was established with Noah and his seed.

I can tell you understand the difference between "existence" and "established", but before I learned about covenants your statement would have been confusing. To help people having difficulty with covenant terminology the difference needs to be explained. While God is eternal and all that He does He purposed from eternity past, "Act 15:18 (KJV) Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world", the promise of this covenant was not established, was not put into effect, was not ratified, until after the flood.

 

[MW]

a covenant is a binding arrangement between two parties which contains one or more promises.

If it is an "arrangement" it must contain a testamentary aspect. But "agreement" must also be present because God requires faith and obedience in each and every instance. By faith Noah became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

the promise of this covenant was not established, was not put into effect, was not ratified, until after the flood.

Gen. 6:8, "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." Gen. 6:18, "But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark...." By faith Noah prepared an ark to the saving of his house. The covenant as established with Noah was in effectual operation before and through the flood.

 

[KeithW]

If it is an "arrangement" it must contain a testamentary aspect.

This is incorrect.

But "agreement" must also be present because God requires faith and obedience in each and every instance.

You are confusing the difference between the covenant promise God established with Noah and (living creates) in Genesis 6 with the covenant promise God established with all men and all living creatures in Genesis 9. The one in Genesis 9 is not an "agreement" because God does not require faith and obedience in this instance.

By faith Noah became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

This is a good point and must not be lost in the confusion.

Heb. 11:7 (KJV) By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.​

This is referring to the covenant promise God established in Genesis 6, not Genesis 9. The texts here are clear, and I include them below.

The covenant as established with Noah was in effectual operation before and through the flood.

This point needs to be examined. Covenants contain promises, and contain who those promises are made to. Let us return to Scripture because we now need to be careful to examine the content of a covenant in the light of the concept of a covenant.

Before the flood:

Gen. 6:17-20 (KJV) 17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. 18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.​

After the flood:

Gen 9:9-11 (KJV) 9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. 11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.​

We cannot simply say God established a covenant "with Noah" which was in effect before, through, and after the flood without considering the concept of what a covenant is and what the contents are. Covenants contain one or more promises, who those promises are made to, and if there are conditions to those promises. With respect to Noah, there was one promise established with one group before the flood, and a different promise established with an different (expanded) group after the flood.

 

[MW]

This is incorrect.

If it is incorrect how did he become "heir" of the righteousness which is by faith? Your view strips the arrangement of the inheritance.

You are confusing the difference between the covenant promise God established with Noah and (living creates) in Genesis 6 with the covenant promise God established with all men and all living creatures in Genesis 9.

You raised the covenant made with Noah. I responded accordingly. That covenant includes conditions. Gen. 6:14, "Make thee an ark..." Verse 18, "and thou shalt come into the ark..." Verse 22, "Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he."

Genesis 9:9, after the flood, "I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you." It is the same covenant, only now it explicitly takes in "the seed."

The one in Genesis 9 is not an "agreement" because God does not require faith and obedience in this instance.

As noted, it is the same covenant, and its re-establishment with the inclusion of the seed is founded on the sacrifice of Noah in 8:20ff. "And the Lord smelled a sweet savour...," verse 21. What respects the earth is annexed to this covenant to show that there is an unconditional administration of providence which will preserve the earth in subservience to the covenant of grace.

Heb. 11:7 (KJV) By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.​

This is referring to the covenant promise God established in Genesis 6, not Genesis 9. The texts here are clear, and I include them below.

Noah blessed Shem. It clearly refers equally to the covenant established with Noah before the flood and the extension of it to the "seed."

 

[MW]

To see the significance of heirship after the flood consider the following insightful remarks from Patrick Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture, 1:333-334:

"The second point to be noticed here, is the heirship given of this new world to Noah and his seed — given to them expressly as the children of faith.

Adam, at his creation, was constituted the lord of this world, and had kingly power and authority given him to subdue it and rule over it. But on the occasion of his fall, this grant, though not formally recalled, suffered a capital abridgment; since he was sent forth from Eden as a discrowned monarch, to do the part simply of a labourer on the surface of the earth, and with the discouraging assurance that it should reluctantly yield to him of its fruitfulness. Nor, when he afterwards so distinctly identified himself with God's promise and purpose of grace, by appearing as the head only of that portion of his seed who had faith in God, did there seem any alleviation of the evil: the curse that rested on the ground, rested on it still, even for the seed of blessing; and not they, but the ungodly Cainites, acquired in it the ascendancy of physical force and political dominion.

A change, however, appears in the relative position of things, when the flood had swept with its purifying waters over the earth. Man now rises, in the person of Noah, to a higher place in the world; yet not simply as man, but as a child of God, standing in faith. His faith had saved him amid the general wreck of the old world, to become in the new a second head of mankind, and an inheritor of earth's domain, as now purged and rescued from the pollution of evil. 'He is made heir,' as it is written in Hebrews, 'of the righteousness which is by faith,' — heir, that is, of all that properly belongs to such righteousness, not merely of the righteousness itself, but also of the world, which in the divine purpose it was destined to possess and occupy. Hence, as if there had been a new creation, and a new head brought in to exercise over it the right of sovereignty, the original blessing and grant to Adam are substantially renewed to Noah and his family: 'And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you, and the dread of you, shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hand are they delivered.' Here, then, the righteousness of faith received direct from the grace of God the dowry that had been originally bestowed upon the righteousness of nature — not a blessing merely, but a blessing coupled with the heirship and dominion of the world."

 

[KeithW]

As noted, it is the same covenant,...

As noted previously, it is not the same promise as can clearly be seen in those Scriptures already provided. The concept of "covenant" is pointless if it excludes the Biblical concept of the one or more promises of a covenant.

It clearly refers equally to the covenant established with Noah before the flood and the extension of it to the "seed."

Yes, the group the promise before the flood was made to is included in the group the promise after the flood was made to. But again, what are the promises? I previously pointed out in those Scripture that the promises before and after the flood are different. The Scriptures here are plain and obvious. So let us again look at Scripture about the "promise" after the flood.

Gen. 9:11 (KJV) And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.​

Notice the word "by". Never again will God destroy the earth by flood. This promise must also be looked at in the context of the Bible.

2 Peter 3:10 (KJV) But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.​

Before the flood God said He would destroy the world by flood. God also specifically promised to a small group that He would preserve them from this destruction. But it required conditions -- faith and action on the part of Noah.

After the flood God promised to all men and all creatures that He would no longer destroy the world by flood. God placed no conditions on men about this promise. This promise is not about who will be preserved from future destruction, which appears to be unlike what you said.

God promises that the next time He destroys the earth it will be fire. Elsewhere God does promise how the people He chooses will be preserved from this future destruction that He will bring about.

 

[KeithW]

If it is incorrect how did he become "heir" of the righteousness which is by faith? Your view strips the arrangement of the inheritance.

There are places throughout Scripture which can explain heir and inheritance and receiving of promises without change the meaning of covenant. But you have already predecided against this. Let me instead provide another quote. After this I am withdrawing myself from the rest of this conversation. The system called covenant theology, depending on who you read, has a fault with understanding the concept of a covenant. This has been clearly demonstrated in this thread in that this flaw forces mistakes to be made with Scriptures were God makes or establishes covenants with men.

(Apologies to the people for the length.)

"Hebrews 9:16", Vincent's Word Studies [1]

• 
  For where a testament is (ὅπου γὰρ διαθήκη)
  
  "The English Version has involved this passage in hopeless obscurity by introducing the idea of a testament and a testator." This statement of Rendall (Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 159 [2]) is none too strong. That interpretation, however, is maintained by a very strong array of modern expositors. It is based upon κληρονομία inheritance; it being claimed that this word changes the whole current of thought. Hence it is said that the new covenant established by Christ is here represented as a testamentary disposition on his part, which could become operative in putting the heirs in possession of the inheritance only through the death of Christ. See Additional Note at the end of this chapter.
  
  There must also of necessity be the death of the testator (θάνατου ἀνάγκη φέρεσθαι τοῦ διαθεμένου)
  
  Rend. it is necessary that the death of the institutor (of the covenant) should be borne. With the rendering testament, φέρεσθαι is well-nigh inexplicable. If covenant the meaning is not difficult. If he had meant to say it is necessary that the institutor die, he might better have used γένεσθαι: "it is necessary that the death of the institutor take place"; but he meant to say that it was necessary that the institutor die representatively; that death should be borne for him by an animal victim. If we render testament, it follows that the death of the testator himself is referred to, for which θάνατου φέρεσθαι is a very unusual and awkward expression.
  
  Additional Note on Heb 9:16
  
  Against the rendering testament for διαθήκη, and in favor of retaining covenant, are the following considerations:
  
  (a) The abruptness of the change, and its interruption of the line of reasoning. It is introduced into the middle of a continuous argument, in which the new covenant is compared and contrasted with the Mosaic covenant (8:6-10:18).
  
  (b) The turning-point, both of the analogy and of the contrast, is that both covenants were inaugurated and ratified by death: not ordinary, natural death, but sacrificial, violent death, accompanied with bloodshedding as an essential feature. Such a death is plainly indicated in Heb 9:15. If διαθήκη signifies testament, θάνατον death in Heb 9:16 must mean natural death without bloodshed.
  
  (c) The figure of a testament would not appeal to Hebrews in connection with an inheritance. On the contrary, the idea of the κληρονομία was always associated in the Hebrew mind with the inheritance of Canaan, and that inheritance with the idea of a covenant. See Deu 4:20-23; Ch1 16:15-18; Psa 105:8-11.
  
  (d) In lxx, from which our writer habitually quotes, διαθήκη has universally the meaning of covenant. It occurs about 350 times, mostly representing בְּרִית, covenant. In the Apocryphal books it has the same sense, except in Sir. 38:33, where it signifies disposition or arrangement. Διατιθέσθαι to dispose or arrange represents כָּרַֽת, to cut off, hew, divide. The phrase כָּרַֽת בְּרִֽת, to cut (i.e., make) a covenant, is very common. The verb marks a disposing by the divine will, to which man becomes a party by assent; while συντιθέσθαι indicates an arrangement between two equal parties. There is not a trace of the meaning testament in the Greek O.T. In the classics διαθήκη is usually testament. Philo uses the word in the sense of covenant, but also shows how it acquired that of testament (De Mutatione Nominum, 6 ff.). The Vulgate has testamentum, even where the sense of covenant is indisputable. See Exo 30:26; Num 14:44; Kg2 6:15; Jer 3:16; Mal 3:1; Luk 1:72, Act 3:25; Act 7:8. Also in N.T. quotations from the O.T., where, in its translation of the O.T., it uses foedus. See Jer 31:31, cit. Heb 8:8. For διατιθέσθαι of making a covenant, see Heb 8:10; Act 3:25; Heb 10:16.
  
  (e) The ratification of a covenant by the sacrifice of a victim is attested by Gen 15:10; Psa 1:5; Jer 34:18. This is suggested also by the phrase כָּרַֽת בְּרִֽת, to cut a covenant, which finds abundant analogy in both Greek and Latin. Thus we have ὅρκια τάμνειν to cut oaths, that is, to sacrifice a victim in attestation (Hom. Il. ii. 124; Od. xxiv. 483: Hdt. vii. 132). Similarly, σπονδὰς let us cut (make) a league (Eurip. Hel. 1235): φίλια τέμνεσθαι to cement friendship by sacrificing a victim; lit. to cut friendship (Eurip. Suppl. 375). In Latin, foedus ferire to strike a league foedus ictum a ratified league, ratified by a blow (ictus).
  
  (f) If testament is the correct translation in Heb 9:16, Heb 9:17, the writer is fairly chargeable with a rhetorical blunder; for Heb 9:18 ff. is plainly intended as a historical illustration of the propositions in Heb 9:16, Heb 9:17, and the illustration turns on a point entirely different from the matter illustrated. The writer is made to say, "A will is of no force until after the testator's death; therefore the first covenant was ratified with the blood of victims.
  
  1. Vincent, Marvin R. "Hebrews Chapter 9". Vincent's Word Studies. 1887.
  Internet Sacred Text Archive. Accessed August 2, 2011.
  <http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/vws/heb009.htm>
  
  2. This quotation is attributed to the wrong source. It should be Theology of the Hebrew Christians, not Epistle to the Hebrews.

 

[MW]

The concept of "covenant" is pointless if it excludes the Biblical concept of the one or more promises of a covenant.

I cannot see where I have excluded any promise from the covenant. I have merely pointed out that the promise relating to the preservation of the earth is subordinate to the covenant established with Noah and his seed, and that this covenant was established before the flood with Noah and extended to the seed after it. The promises relating to preservation are still part of the covenant but subordinated to the purpose of grace.

Let us look at your plain Scripture reference.

Gen. 9:11, "And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth."

The adverb וְלֹֽא contains the conjunction וְ, which indicates an added element. It is translated "neither." The words as plainly read indicate that the promise relating to the earth is not the covenant per se, but an added element. Before the flood God established His covenant with Noah and destroyed the earth by water. After the flood He establishes the covenant with Noah and His seed and promises He will not any more destroy the earth by water.

It would be a categorical error to collapse the covenant into this one promise. The covenant was established with Noah and his seed, and it included a number of promises. A single unconditional promise does not constitute an unconditional covenant. The promise relating to the earth is given after Noah's sacrifice without any reference to the establishing of the covenant. It is clearly added in relation to the covenant so as to show the way it will serve the purpose of grace in the line of Noah. Immediately afterwards we find that Noah cursed one of his children, and within a few generations the earth is divided. This should make it plain that there were conditions to the covenant.

 

[MW]

Let me instead provide another quote. After this I am withdrawing myself from the rest of this conversation. The system called covenant theology, depending on who you read, has a fault with understanding the concept of a covenant. This has been clearly demonstrated in this thread in that this flaw forces mistakes to be made with Scriptures were God makes or establishes covenants with men.

You have demonstrated in this thread that you impose your own system of covenant theology on the teaching of holy Scripture, and then expect everyone to accept this as the "plain" meaning of the Scripture and to allow the Scripture to speak for itself in your words.

And now you choose to make one final assault by means of a quotation and then excuse yourself from the conversation before a response can be made.

The quotation is of the same kind with those that were presented before. It was previously shown that there are interpreters on the other side of the debate, and that a bare quotation of commentators is to no purpose. Notwithstanding, you have gone ahead and made a bare quotation from a commentator, and then proceeded to announce you are quitting the conversation.