# Proposed studies on "covenant"



## biblelighthouse (Jan 26, 2006)

This is a thought-provoking article:

http://www.reformationtomorrow.blogspot.com/


As brought up in the article, can anyone recommend some good resources focusing on the word "covenant" as it was used specifically between the time of the ancient near-east, and medieval times?


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 26, 2006)

Though it's not what you're asking for I'm just finishing Peter Golding's _Covenant Theology_ and highly recommend it. It may not get into the subject your link talks of too deeply, but as a general historical analysis of Covenant Theology it is really very good. He also has an understanding of the classical formulation - biblical formulation - of covenant theology, which is rare in these kinds of books lately...

Anyway, how is covenant used in Scripture? God doesn't borrow from ANE culture -- He _created_ ANE culture. (And just because there may be even one person who doesn't know what ANE stands - like me a few months back - for I'll say it stands for Ancient Near East.) 

Golding, in his quick overview way in the aforementioned book, does go into the subject, by the way, perhaps more than I've let on (I just don't know to what degree of monstrous academic treatise you are looking for).


----------



## VanVos (Jan 26, 2006)

Here is Klines insights on the ancient near-east covenants:

Near Eastern suzerainty treaties

These Suzerain/Vassal treaties open with two sections: 1) The identification of the Suzerain by his name and titles; 2) The historical survey of the Suzerain's dealings with the vassal. The purpose is to illustrate to the vassal how much the Suzerain has done to protect and establish the vassal who therefore owes submission and allegiance to the Suzerain. These two sections are referred to as the "Preamble." 
1. The next section of these treaties list the "stipulations." What the vassal is required to do is spelled out in principal and detail. This section is often concluded with the requirement that the vassal deposit his copy of the treaty in his temple, where he is to occasionally read and study it to refresh his memory concerning his duties. 
The last section of these treaties contains the blessings and curses of the Suzerain. If the stipulations are met by the vassal, he will receive the Suzerain's blessings, which are listed. If the vassal fails to meet the stipulations, he will receive the Suzerain's curses, which are also listed. 
The Suzerain would keep one copy of the treaty and the vassal would keep one copy of the treaty. A number of ratifying ceremonies were used depending upon the era and culture. But the most widely used rite was that of cutting the bodies of animals in halves and placing them in two rows with enough space between for the two parties of the treaty to walk side by side. As they walked between the pieces, they were vowing to each other, "May what has happened to these animals, happen to me if I break this covenant with you." 

Covenant Documents of the Bible Patterned After Suzerain Treaties: 
Exodus 20 
(1-2)"Yahweh" is the Suzerain who delivered this Preamble to Moses, the vassal-lord who represents the people under the authority of the Suzerain. 
names & titles = "I am the Lord, your God." 
historical prologue = "Who brought you out of Egypt..." 
(3-17) Stipulations with selected blessings and curses. 
stipulations = the 10 commandments; 
blessings and curses = (5b-6); (7b); (12b). 
Deuteronomy 
(This entire book of Moses is saturated with Suzerain Treaty language and structure. It is not properly the treaty document itself, but it is based upon such a treaty, making reference to it often. Below are some examples.) 
(4:32-40) Historical Prologue language and structure; 
(4:44 - 5:21) Stipulations; 
(6:4-25) Blessings and Curses; 
(8) Reflects all the sections of a suzerain treaty; 
(11) " " " 
(17:14-20) Reflects the relationship of a vassal king to the Suzerain; 
(20) Reflects the language and structure of war-time arrangements between a Suzerain and his people; 
(27-28) Curses and Blessings; 
(29) Covenant Renewal; 
(30:11-19) Classic presentation of Ancient Near East Treaties! 

Here's an article that look at how covenant theology was understood in the medieval times, it might be helpful http://www.upper-register.com/ct_gospel/redefining_merit.html

Here's another article by Kline on what is a covenant?
http://www.upper-register.com/intro/what_is_covenant.html 

Hope it helps.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 26, 2006)

Thank you for the above links . . . but . . .

I am not looking for ANE covenant info. Nor am I looking for medieval and post-medieval covenant info.

Rather, the article above talks about the usage of the word "covenant *in between* 1500 B.C. and 1300 A.D. It's not the ends that are problematic . . . it's the gap in between. In other words, how did a translator of the Septuagint (circa 250 B.C.) understand the word "covenant"? How did a 5th-century Eastern church father understand the word "covenant"? etc.

I thought the article posed an interesting question.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 26, 2006)

Herman Witsius just emailed me:

"So all my work to elucidate and describe definitively Covenant Theology for all Christians is just passed over like it's nothing? Have these people so concerned about what Covenant Theology is _read_ my book (Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man)? Geerhardus Vos, the greatest theologian of the 20th century, by common consensus up here (Calvin was first to greet him, something that didn't go unnoticed) added some good things, but notice he directed you all back to _theologians like myself_! Just learn it! It's there for you to learn! Life is short! Get it into your basic understanding and then act on it. Yes, yes, yes..._biblical the-ol-o-gy_, like we didn't know about that! We knew it. Practiced it. Vos is unique because he was able to be orthodox and hardcore in his BT discipline. Some of those others down there...they are vain monkeys! Read my book! Hm. Witsius."

[Edited on 1-26-2006 by TimeRedeemer]


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Thank you for the above links . . . but . . .
> 
> I am not looking for ANE covenant info. Nor am I looking for medieval and post-medieval covenant info.
> ...



Whatever else might be said of his work, Peter Lillback summarizes postmedieval covenant theology in _The Binding of God_


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 26, 2006)

Lighthouse, I find your question irrelevant. And petulant. And goalpost-moving-y. (I'm joking, I'm joking, I'm joking...)

The LXX translators just had to decide between diatheke and suntheke, but they made the right choice and obviously had enough to go on to make the right choice. The current at the time legal meaning made the choice difficult, but the etymological meaning was preserved in the word itself, so they knew what it meant.

Anyway, Covenant Theology wasn't meant to be known until the Reformation and beyond. It appeared like the Works of Shakespeare. It just began to appear. Arthur Golding translated Calvin's Sermons on Deuteronomy and why? Why that work? Because it is in that work that Calvin makes the most references to covenant issues. Arthur Golding was the uncle of the Earl of Oxford who many active cranks think wrote the plays ascribed to Shakespeare. Are you following? Covenant Theology elucidates the mysteries of Scripture. We know what it is. Oliver Cromwell has CT in his DNA (I read a letter he wrote that gives this away). By the time the 17th century guys began to forumulate it in what is now known as its classical definition they'd been around the block with it all and more. In the gutter, on the roofs, in and out of the houses of ill-repute, cleaned off, into the houses of not-so-ill repute, back to the street, fist fights, hockey stick fights, back into their studies and wrote it all down. Now we have it. But it got abandoned for whatever reason, but not completely. Now PhDs, looking for any new angle to impress, want to maul it all up again...


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by TimeRedeemer_
> Herman Witsius just emailed me:
> 
> "So all my work to elucidate and describe definitively Covenant Theology for all Christians is just passed over like it's nothing? Have these people so concerned about what Covenant Theology is _read_ my book (Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man)? Geerhardus Vos, the greatest theologian of the 20th century, by common consensus up here (Calvin was first to greet him, something that didn't go unnoticed) added some good things, but notice he directed you all back to _theologians like myself_! Just learn it! It's there for you to learn! Life is short! Get it into your basic understanding and then act on it. Yes, yes, yes..._biblical the-ol-o-gy_, like we didn't know about that! We knew it. Practiced it. Vos is unique because he was able to be orthodox and hardcore in his BT discipline. Some of those others down there...they are vain monkeys! Read my book! Hm. Witsius."





I already have Witsius' book on the Divine Economy of the Covenants between God and Man. And I love it. It's a great book. I have learned a great deal from it.

But what does Witsius have to do with the understanding of the word "covenant" between the years 1500 B.C. and 1300 A.D.?

If I remember correctly, Witsius was a 17th century Dutch theologian . . . far outside the time frame to which I am referring.




[Edited on 1-26-2006 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 26, 2006)

When was Genesis written? What does the Bible suggest covenant means? 

What sources or people other than the Word of God thought it meant is irrelevant because Covenant understanding of Scripture didn't emerge (fully into the light as it did) in the history of redemption until the Reformation. 

God said: you've broken free from the bondage and darkness of the Roman beast; now here: see Scripture whole; see the doctrines of grace as parts of a whole. Then the Holy Spirit began to sow Covenant Theology understanding into the world. Switzerland first, but then quickly the Elizabethans picked up on it. It is 'school of Christ' knowledge. Not given by God promiscously. A reward for the effort and sacrifice to free the Word of God from the dominion of the Beast...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 26, 2006)

I recommend getting a hold of Ligon Duncan's dissertation, "The Covenant Idea in Ante-Nicene Theology." You can probably get it through inter-library loan or through contacting Frist Pres in Jackson, www.fpcjackson.org


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 26, 2006)

> Golding, in his quick overview way in the aforementioned book, does go into the subject, by the way, perhaps more than I've let on (I just don't know to what degree of monstrous academic treatise you are looking for).



There is an interesting review of Golding's book, with which I agree, in the most recent number of the Mid-America Journal of Theology. 

Golding's book is interesting but it is not as well grounded in 16th and 17th century Reformed sources as it might have been. It is quite wedded to 20th century formulations, most of which have not helped us make real progress in our understanding and expression of covenant theology.

rsc


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 26, 2006)

> There is an interesting review of Golding's book, with which I agree, in the most recent number of the Mid-America Journal of Theology.
> 
> Golding's book is interesting but it is not as well grounded in 16th and 17th century Reformed sources as it might have been. It is quite wedded to 20th century formulations, most of which have not helped us make real progress in our understanding and expression of covenant theology.
> 
> rsc



I think I know what you're saying. I have to say I was having the same thoughts as I read the book. I found I was mocking him as I read like: "O, well, if _O. Palmer Robertson_ says that" or "Well, _that_ settles it; John Murray isn't _happy_! 

Yet, as I continued to read I became more and more impressed with Golding because he really does see classical covenant theology (as it's for instance presented on your website), and he always comes down on the on-the-mark side of things (eventually, if your read to the end of each section). 

I have to say, too, that, though I maybe don't know what you are getting at exactly regarding his being grounded in 16th and 17th century sources, he seems to me to give those guys the preeminent place in all of it. I mean, he spends alot of time defending the 16th and 17th century big names, and lesser known names, from some of the not-so-knowledgable as well as maybe propagandistic statements made about them by 20th century people. 

There are also great quotes strewn through the book (for those who havn't read this complete thread I'm referring to Peter Golding's _Covenant Theology_). I was particularly struck by the Oliver Cromwell letter he quotes that shows just how much covenant theology understanding was in the DNA of Calvinists in those days...


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jan 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I recommend getting a hold of Ligon Duncan's dissertation, "The Covenant Idea in Ante-Nicene Theology." You can probably get it through inter-library loan or through contacting Frist Pres in Jackson, www.fpcjackson.org





Now that sounds like an interesting resource! Thank you for the recommendation.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 26, 2006)

I think if a reviewer has maybe skimmed some sections of Golding's book (even skimmed them thoroughly) he can miss things. Golding spends alot of time giving time to critics of the classical formulation of covenant theology over the centuries, and in the 20th century, but he always ends up concluding on the side of light (the side I agree with!). I could put it in shorthand and say he agrees with Berkhof's general take pretty much down the line. But I mean, in all the little 'knots' of controversy and debate (conditional/unconditional...covenant of works/no covenant of works...is the covenant of redemption biblical, etc., etc.) he 'sees' what a Witsius sees rather than what a Murray or Robertson would 'caution' people against and all that kind of thing. He's very good also on Calvin and how for instance the Covenant of Works is implied in Calvin's complete approach, things like that. He uses Geerhardus Vos' wisdom as his guide alot along the way, for instance in describing how terminology usually isn't used at the beginning of an era like it is at the end, yet that doesn't mean the thing itself is not present (Calvin and the Covenant of Works being a good example). 

I actually am very impressed with the book. 

An aside: somewhere on this forum, in another thread, a person quoted Golding's book to make a point that Calvin said a passage in Hosea (I think) was 'man' and not 'Adam' (the famous passage) and implied that Golding was saying Calvin didn't see a Covenant of Works in Scripture, but this is a good example of how a skim of Golding's book can throw you off because Golding very firmly and convincingly shows that Calvin very much based his entire theology on a Covenant of Works with Adam.


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 26, 2006)

Here's a quote from Geerhardus Vos (from Golding's book) that gets at the sweep of history described by Covenant Theology:

'In his _Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke_, Geerhardus
Vos writes:

"The epistle does not content itself with dividing the history of
revelation into two Diatheke from a purely soteriological
point of view: it brings the covenant idea into connection with
eschatology and by doing this introduces into it
the breadth and absolutenmess that pertains to the eschatological
outlook... [when] eschatology posits an absolute goal at the end of
the redemptive process corresponding to an absolute beginning of the
world in creation...then no longer a segment but the whole sweep of
history is drawn into one great perspective, and the mind is impelled
to view every part in relation to the whole."

This is what Covenant Theology give you when you learn it. A view of
the entire sweep of history between the two poles of eternity and you can see the parts, such as the doctrines of grace, in relation to the whole. 

Vos' focus on eschatolgy regarding covenant theology is his particular contribution, and it's big, because it is here where Covenant Theology meets practice. For instance, separation from the world, in the moment, when you can do that, is an eschatological act. Prayer even is. Vos' insights on faith too get into all this: 

Faith is the great spiritualizing principle, for faith is the state of
mind that keeps us in touch with the higher world. - Geerhardus Vos

[commenting on Heb. 11] Faith is here but another name for other-
worldliness or heavenly-mindedness. - Geerhardus Vos

Faith annihilates the distance of time as much as of space and deals
with heaven as it exists. - Geerhardus Vos

[commenting on Heb. 11] Through faith the powers of the higher world
were placed at the disposal of those whom this world threatened to
overwhelm, and so the miracle resulted that from weakness they were
made strong. - Geerhardus Vos

Faith is the organ for apprehension of unseen and future realities,
giving access to and contact with another world. It is the hand
stretched out through the vast distances of space and time, whereby
the Christian draws to himself the things far beyond, so that they
become actual to him. - Geerhardus Vos


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 26, 2006)

What you're really asking is, "what was the medieval soteriology?" To ask, what was the medieval understanding of covenant is a little anachronistic. It imposes our categories on them. 

I give a very brief summary of how the medievals tended to speak about the covenants here:
and there is a condensed version coming out in October in _Tabletalk_. 

The medievals did have a covenant theology, but they tended to talk about _foedus_ and _pactum_ in the light of their assumptions about the nature of divine/human relations. 

They thought of the biblical covenants in terms of old law and new law. 

Word usage is interesting, but not necessarily definitive. In this case, the medievals all assumed that God says what he says about us because we are what we are (either because he could do no other (Thomas) or because he willed to do (Ockham)). Thus, the meaning of the key terms in this discussion were determined by prior assumptions, chiefly, God cannot or has not simply declared us just. 

All covenants, in medieval theology, are both gracious and legal at the same time. Gracious in that God initiates them and gives grace to obey them. Hmm, that sound familiar! All those "just following the Bible" FV and NPP fellows are re-treading familiar medieval ground. 

I'm glad folk are asking about medieval theology. Perhaps that will help us prevent a repetition of the assumptions that dominated the church before the Reformation.

Hence the brilliance of the Reformation re-casting of covenant theology in terms of law and grace. The Reformation and post-Reformation theologians said what they did about the covenants because of their broader understanding of Scripture and its theological implications.

Covenant theology became a way of expressing prior commitments.

There are studies of medieval covenant theology. The most important is probably William J. Courtenay. Covenant and Causality..."Necessity and Freedom in Anselm's Conception of God." "Die "Wirkungeschicte Anselms von Canterbury:" Akten der ersten Internationalen Anselm-Tagung, Bad Wimpfen, September 1970. Analectia Anselmiana 4.2. Frankfurt/Main, 1975.

See also: Francis Oakley, Omnipotence, Covenant and Order (Ithaca, 1984) 

Heiko Oberman's H. A. Oberman, "˜Wir Sein Pettler, Hoc Est Verum´, The Reformation: Roots and Ramifications, trans. A. A. Gow (Edinburgh, 1995) is brilliant and suggestive.

Lig Duncan's thesis is well done. There are other studies of the patristic handling of the biblical covenants too (e.g., E F Ferguson calls Irenaeus a "covenant theologian" somewhere), but none is as extensive as Lig's the literature regarding patristic and medieval covenant theology is not immense. 

rsc


----------



## TimeRedeemer (Jan 27, 2006)

I found this quote from Barnabas quoted by Golding in his book interesting:

"In the first part of the second century (but possibly even earlier between 70 and 79), Barnabas carefully distinguished the covenant of works from the covenant of grace. He wrote: 'Moses understood [the meaning of God], and cast the two tables out of his hands; and their covenant was broken, in order that the covenant of the beloved Jesus might be sealed upon our heart, in the hope that flows from believing in him.'"


----------

