# The Meaning of Covenant and Michael Williams



## Covenant Joel (Jul 8, 2011)

Some time ago (probably a couple of years at this point), I recommended _Far as the Curse is Found_ by Michael Williams as a helpful book on covenant theology as I really enjoyed reading it during college. Several on that thread suggested that it had numerous problems, one of which being that he defined covenant as relationship instead of pact/agreement. I mulled over that, wrote a paper on his view of the covenant of works in comparison to Berkhof and Robertson, but recently, as I've begun studying for licensure and ordination, I've been coming back to the question. I was also reminded of the importance of the Covenant of Works some months ago as I fairly extensively researched N.T. Wright's views on justification for a paper, so that reminded me of the question regarding Williams' views again.

So...if you go to The Meaning of Covenant on my blog, you'll see a little table with definitions of covenant from various authors (beginning with Witsius and ending with Williams). So here's my question, which I'm hoping some of you can help me think through somewhat.

Both Horton, Frame, and Williams use "relationship" to define covenant (though, technically, Williams says we can't quite achieve an exact definition, so he describes it instead). However, I have never (though this could simply be due to ignorance) heard anyone express a problem with Horton's basic definition of covenant, whereas some seem quite concerned about Williams' definition/description. In fact, it seems like Horton and Williams have quite a bit of similarity in their definitions. Can anyone explain why/why not each one is acceptable? 

Lastly, I get that not all covenants are between God and man. But many of the definitions seem to directly be referring to the definition of _covenant_ within the context of God's covenant with man, rather than covenants between man and man, or covenants with one's eyes, etc. So I'd prefer that the comments be restricted to discussing the validity of the definitions with regard to the covenant between God and man (unless you feel the need to explain further why it is significant to define it in a way that applies to man-man and God-man covenants).

It would be particularly helpful to me to hear from those of you that have read both Horton and Williams. 

Lastly, just to be clear, I'm not asking this to bait anyone. I'm genuinely trying to understand all of these things well, and I'd genuinely appreciate any insight that you al might like to share on this.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 8, 2011)

My bigger problem with Michael Williams is that he is mono-covenantal, functionally, if not explicitly, denying the covenant of works/covenant of grace distinction. But with regard to the other question, the difference between Horton and Williams is that Horton's definition of covenant is undoubtedly *also* contractual, whereas Williams undermines the contractual nature of the covenant.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jul 8, 2011)

I agree with Lane. Covenant is definitely a relationship, but it is more than a relationship. It is also a compact or contract. Horton is very clear on that, given his Klinean bent.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Jul 8, 2011)

greenbaggins said:


> My bigger problem with Michael Williams is that he is mono-covenantal, functionally, if not explicitly, denying the covenant of works/covenant of grace distinction.



Thanks for your thoughts, Lane. When I first read through the book years ago, I had no eye for that part of the discussion at all. It was your comment, I believe, that got me to start thinking about it, so I re-read through the book some months ago, looking for this issue.

So I understand your point that he does seem to be mono-covenantal at points. However, I'm not sure if that's quite what he's saying. Here's a few quotes:

"In affirming this distinction [between the covenant before the Fall and God's covenant after the Fall], however, it is important that we describe it carefully, noting accurately what changed in the covenantal relationship between God and man and what remained the same." (70)

"...there is also much to commend the Westminster distinction. First, it appropriately recognizes that Adam and Eve lived within a covenant with God before the fall. Second, it rightly acknowledges the mediatorial role of Adam in the covenant, something which Paul makes much of in Romans 5:12-19. Finally, the distinction affirms that the fall so affects man's relationship to God that, in order for it to be restored, God must redeem man from sin." (71)

These quotes make me think that he is affirming the two covenants, even that there is a fundamental difference in the nature of the two covenants. But then he says:

"The biblical drama displays the fundamental, unfolding continuity of a personal relationship. We may view covenant history not as a series of disconnected installments but as a single line. Each new covenant presupposes and renews what went before. Specifically, God's redemptive acts do not oppose or deny his creative intent, but come as restorative promises in relation to creation." (58)

That seems to be exactly what you're talking about regarding the mono-covenantal view. But he seems to be saying both things. Thus, it seems like he is mosts just unclear (and granted, this is probably not something you want to be unclear on). It seems to boil down further to the question of Adamic merit, which is probably a whole separate discussion. 

Given the above (and the rest of his book which you're obviously familiar with), do you consider his views unconfessional, or simply a little confused/having semantic difficulties?



> But with regard to the other question, the difference between Horton and Williams is that Horton's definition of covenant is undoubtedly *also* contractual, whereas Williams undermines the contractual nature of the covenant.





fredtgreco said:


> I agree with Lane. Covenant is definitely a relationship, but it is more than a relationship. It is also a compact or contract. Horton is very clear on that, given his Klinean bent.



For my own understanding, here are the two definitions:

Horton: ” …a covenant is a relationship of ‘oaths and bonds’ and involves mutual though not necessarily equal, commitments…” (God of Promise, 10)
Williams: ”Broadly described, a covenant is a relationship between persons, begun by the sovereign determination of the greater party, in which the greater commits himself to the lesser in the context of mutual loyalty, and in which mutual obligations serve as illustrations of that loyalty.” (Far as the Curse is Found, 45-46)

Again, I have no reason to defend Williams here, I'm just seeking understanding. But it seems like "mutual though not necessarily equal, commitments" and "mutual loyalty" and "mutual obligations" are pretty close to being parallel. That is, it seems like williams is saying there is a contract/agreement/commitment inherent in the nature of the relationship, which seems like the precise thing that Horton is saying. What am I missing here? Do you see the problem more in the fact that Williams indicates that grace (though not redemptive grace) was operative in the CoW?


----------

