Discussing Covenant: Covenant Defined

[MarrowMan]

This thread is intended to be the first in a series to provide a clear, simple, progressive conversation concerning infant baptism. I’ve noted that many of these conversations produce threads with multiple arguments/discussions occurring simultaneously and, ultimately, result in confusion and frustration. My personal desire is for those who follow threads like these to have their own questions answered as they wrestle with their own determination of their position without having to try to follow multiple lines of discussion in the same thread.

To that end, given that both Reformed and Reformed Baptist start with a covenantal framework, it seems suitable that this discussion begin with defining covenant itself. What is a covenant?

 

[MarrowMan]

I should probably go first, lol. I follow a more traditional Reformed view that at base a covenantal is a legal, binding agreement between parties. This agreement establishes and governs the terms of relationship between the parties engaged, complete with promised blessing for faithful fulfillment of those terms and curses for failure to meet them.

 

[YeshuaFan]

This thread is intended to be the first in a series to provide a clear, simple, progressive conversation concerning infant baptism. I’ve noted that many of these conversations produce threads with multiple arguments/discussions occurring simultaneously and, ultimately, result in confusion and frustration. My personal desire is for those who follow threads like these to have their own questions answered as they wrestle with their own determination of their position without having to try to follow multiple lines of discussion in the same thread.

To that end, given that both Reformed and Reformed Baptist start with a covenantal framework, it seems suitable that this discussion begin with defining covenant itself. What is a covenant?

Think even more basic question would be were there any grace in OT covenants for salvation being administered, or has it only been through the new Covenant itself?

 

[MarrowMan]

Think even more basic question would be were there any grace in OT covenants for salvation being administered, or has it only been through the new Covenant itself?

I don't think that's more basic than defining what a covenant actually is. It's kind of hard to discuss the above elements without understanding what a covenant is in the first place.

 

[YeshuaFan]

I don't think that's more basic than defining what a covenant actually is. It's kind of hard to discuss the above elements without understanding what a covenant is in the first place.

That sounds right, guess did "jump the gun" a bit

 

[EvanF]

I should probably go first, lol. I follow a more traditional Reformed view that at base a covenantal is a legal, binding agreement between parties. This agreement establishes and governs the terms of relationship between the parties engaged, complete with promised blessing for faithful fulfillment of those terms and curses for failure to meet them.

I think blessings or cursings are not inherent to the idea of covenants, but are terms of specific covenants. For example, in the postdiluvian covenant (Gen 9:8-17), God covenanted never again to wash away all life from the earth with flood waters, yet there were no blessings dependent on faithfulness or cursings in case of unfaithfulness.

 

[MW]

I think blessings or cursings are not inherent to the idea of covenants, but are terms of specific covenants. For example, in the postdiluvian covenant (Gen 9:8-17), God covenanted never again to wash away all life from the earth with flood waters, yet there were no blessings dependent on faithfulness or cursings in case of unfaithfulness.

Within the traditional covenant model there are two parts of a covenant -- promise and condition. Threatening is included in a promise. In Genesis 9 there are blessings and a curse. The chapter has laid down the conditions for life in the renewed world: reverence for life, respect for the image of God, proper family order, and accountability for bloodshed. Ham's violation was a breach of that order. The curse on Canaan is the covenantal sanction that flows from it.

 

[EvanF]

Within the traditional covenant model there are two parts of a covenant -- promise and condition. Threatening is included in a promise. In Genesis 9 there are blessings and a curse. The chapter has laid down the conditions for life in the renewed world: reverence for life, respect for the image of God, proper family order, and accountability for bloodshed. Ham's violation was a breach of that order. The curse on Canaan is the covenantal sanction that flows from it.

Even if we decide that the parts of the chapter before and after the passage containing God's declared covenant are directly related to that covenant in an unstated way, where do we see blessings dependent on faithfulness and cursings in penalty of unfaithfulness in the chapter? Which part of God's covenant did Ham breech that Noah's curse upon his posterity should be viewed as a function of that covenant?

Are all subsequent moral transgressions then to be seen as violations of the Noahic covenant specifically, and does that mean that God's promise never to repeat the deluge is actually dependent on covenant faithfulness - which promise was made not only to men but moreover to all flesh?

 

[MW]

Even if we decide that the parts of the chapter before and after the passage containing God's declared covenant are directly related to that covenant in an unstated way, where do we see blessings dependent on faithfulness and cursings in penalty of unfaithfulness in the chapter? Which part of God's covenant did Ham breech that Noah's curse upon his posterity should be viewed as a function of that covenant?

It is not a question of deciding on that. It is fundamental to the narrative and its development. Without the covenant everything would have been destroyed. With the establishment of a new creation the covenant now undergirds all of life. I think your original idea is picking up on that "foundational" reality, which exists on one level as "unconditional," and is used as such to teach the nature of God's covenant to His elect. But the conditions of temporal life were also administered covenantally and these conditions are necessary for understanding what unfolds.

Gen. 9 is a re‑creation scene. Noah is a new Adam; his sons are the new humanity. The covenant assumes a proper ordering of the household, just as Genesis 1-2 did. Ham's sin is a rebellion against that order. It is an anti‑covenantal act in the new world. As the covenant stresses human dignity and the sacredness of the body, so Ham's act is a violation of that dignity as he exposed his father's nakedness.

Noah's curse is not a personal vendetta. It is a judicial pronouncement by the covenant head of the family about the trajectory of Ham's line. Why is the curse on Canaan rather than Ham? The sin was committed by a son to a father. Hence it falls on the son of the father. This shows the covenants are corporate, not merely individual. Cursed Canaan is constitutive of the nations that Israel will later dispossess.

 

[MarrowMan]

Given my interest in wanting to hone in on a definition that is agreeable to both positions, I'm willing to pare down my definition further, though I agree with Rev. Winzer here. I'm happy to work out blessings and threatenings in the Biblical Theological discussion of the Covenants themselves.

A covenant is a legally binding agreement that establishes the terms of relationship between the engaged parties. Is this a definition that can be agreed upon?

 

[chuckd]

Given my interest in wanting to hone in on a definition that is agreeable to both positions, I'm willing to pare down my definition further, though I agree with Rev. Winzer here. I'm happy to work out blessings and threatenings in the Biblical Theological discussion of the Covenants themselves.

A covenant is a legally binding agreement that establishes the terms of relationship between the engaged parties. Is this a definition that can be agreed upon?

I'm wondering if it's really an agreement. Adam or Noah never agreed to it.

 

[MarrowMan]

I'm wondering if it's really an agreement. Adam or Noah never agreed to it.

Imposition doesn't mean there is no agreement. As sovereign, it is God's right to impose upon His creatures and their obligation is to consent to his terms. It is precisely their failure to agree that makes them covenant breakers.

 

[DNM300]

Arrangement perhaps a better term? God arranges it and humans respond/agree how they will

 

[tanstaafl72555]

Think even more basic question would be were there any grace in OT covenants for salvation being administered, or has it only been through the new Covenant itself?

The issue that lies behind this question is whether there is ONE covenant of grace, spanning both "testaments" (covenants), or, stated another way, are there multiple covenants with a common thread (grace/faith, etc) uniting them.

The trad reformed view is that there is ONE covenant with various administrations or exhibitions. Paedobaptists glom onto this model. Credobaptists tend to lean towards the latter.

Again, this is precisely the root issue which caused the Acts 15 synod. It was concerned with another manifestation (OT legal codes and circumcision) but was at the core the very same issue... How much of a difference and how much the same? There are other issues, for sure, but this seems to be the core of it to me.

The sign of the covenant (circumcision).... was it primarily familial, or familial and tribal (the basic unit of political/governmental structure of the day)? Lots of heat has been generated over the answer(s) to this question.

I am not sure there is a definitive answer spelled out in Scripture.
[automerge]1770390385[/automerge]
I would contend that God does not just "arrange" it but in fact imposes it, and commands those under it to obey the terms and conditions. That is just a For what it's worth comment.

 

[YeshuaFan]

The issue that lies behind this question is whether there is ONE covenant of grace, spanning both "testaments" (covenants), or, stated another way, are there multiple covenants with a common thread (grace/faith, etc) uniting them.

The trad reformed view is that there is ONE covenant with various administrations or exhibitions. Paedobaptists glom onto this model. Credobaptists tend to lean towards the latter.

Again, this is precisely the root issue which caused the Acts 15 synod. It was concerned with another manifestation (OT legal codes and circumcision) but was at the core the very same issue... How much of a difference and how much the same? There are other issues, for sure, but this seems to be the core of it to me.

The sign of the covenant (circumcision).... was it primarily familial, or familial and tribal (the basic unit of political/governmental structure of the day)? Lots of heat has been generated over the answer(s) to this question.

I am not sure there is a definitive answer spelled out in Scripture.
[automerge]1770390385[/automerge]
I would contend that God does not just "arrange" it but in fact imposes it, and commands those under it to obey the terms and conditions. That is just a For what it's worth comment.

Good summary, as the basic disagreement seems to be 'just how new is the New Covenant?"

 

[MarrowMan]

Just a reminder, I'd really like this thread to maintain its focus on just coming to a common understanding of covenant at its base. I'll certainly be creating threads dealing with the OC and the NC, but we aren't there. I get that it is slow and may be drudgery for some, but good things come to those who wait.

 

[tanstaafl72555]

Just a reminder, I'd really like this thread to maintain its focus on just coming to a common understanding of covenant at its base. I'll certainly be creating threads dealing with the OC and the NC, but we aren't there. I get that it is slow and may be drudgery for some, but good things come to those who wait.

Thank you and I did not mean to derail. I have a question: How normative are the models of "covenant" in the contemp culture (especially Abram) the biblical authors? I hear people say "no, we must treat the Canaanite/Hittite/alltherestofthepagans as DEVIANT and stick to a model of covenant in the bible alone" and I am certainly in sympathy with this for a number of reasons..... but then the question is "how much of a delineated model of covenant IS there in the bible?

We certainly can see the basic.....
I am
You are
I have done this
You are my vassal
You owe me this
I demand this
You must obey on fear of .......
I promise to continue doing......
This is what will happen on breaking the covenant I am now imposing
Ceremony to acknowledge

What have I missed?

 

[MW]

I'm wondering if it's really an agreement. Adam or Noah never agreed to it.

"Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement," Isaiah 28:15. They are clearly synonymous ideas. In the case of a sovereignly imposed covenant tacit agreement suffices, which is evident in both cases.

 

[tanstaafl72555]

I'm wondering if it's really an agreement. Adam or Noah never agreed to it.

They certainly did. Adam named Hawwah "the living one" or more to the point "the source of life" in a response to the covenant laid down earlier. Moreover he accepted the skin coverings God provided. To do so he had to lay aside the garments he had made for himself. The whole chapter is full of covenant symbology, proffered and accepted.

Noah clearly agreed to the covenant in offering sacrifice, after God re-iterated the basis of the terms of much of the Adamic covenant (dominion, multiply, etc). God further iterated provisions of the (re)newed covenant by adding a particular promise of never again destroying the world through water.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Just a reminder, I'd really like this thread to maintain its focus on just coming to a common understanding of covenant at its base. I'll certainly be creating threads dealing with the OC and the NC, but we aren't there. I get that it is slow and may be drudgery for some, but good things come to those who wait.

Sorry, was not trying to derail anything

 

[MarrowMan]

Well due to the lack of engagement at the basic level, I don't think that moving forward is all that meaningful. Off to the dustbin with the concept.

 

[DNM300]

Off to the dustbin with the concept.

I wish it were not so!

 

[jwright82]

Well due to the lack of engagement at the basic level, I don't think that moving forward is all that meaningful. Off to the dustbin with the concept.

I thought the basic definition was already given? Sure there's some disagreement out there but basically a covenant is a covenant.

 

[MarrowMan]

I thought the basic definition was already given? Sure there's some disagreement out there but basically a covenant is a covenant.

Perhaps I'll give it another shot and create a thread to that end and see how it develops.

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

Here's my article on the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals' Place for Truth endeavoring to explore this topic (in a 4-part series on "covenant" reflecting my teaching through the WCF 7 in our church's membership class):

https://placefortruth.org/covenant-clarified/

It reflects what I think is one of the best articles on this topic I've seen by Dr. Richard Phillips also for the Alliance. I see that link is now not available and I couldn't find it with a quick search, but I did find his sermon by the same title, "Covenant Confusion," here: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermons/61710154844

UPDATE: found Richards' article here: https://reformation21.org/covenant-confusion/

 

[MarrowMan]

If we have agreement for the purposes of this discussion, I'd like to introduce a topic that may provide the first point of disagreement. That topic is "administration". This is germane to Biblical Theology of Covenant moving forward into covenant history.

1. What is covenant administration? How do we define administration/administered, etc...?
2. Are God's covenants administered? This is not a question about HOW, but whether or not they are.

 

[EvanF]

If we have agreement for the purposes of this discussion, I'd like to introduce a topic that may provide the first point of disagreement. That topic is "administration". This is germane to Biblical Theology of Covenant moving forward into covenant history.

1. What is covenant administration? How do we define administration/administered, etc...?
2. Are God's covenants administered? This is not a question about HOW, but whether or not they are.

I would say that administrations are the execution of the covenant by the parties thereto, and by that definition, God's covenants are administered.

 

[MW]

If we have agreement for the purposes of this discussion, I'd like to introduce a topic that may provide the first point of disagreement. That topic is "administration". This is germane to Biblical Theology of Covenant moving forward into covenant history.

1. What is covenant administration? How do we define administration/administered, etc...?
2. Are God's covenants administered? This is not a question about HOW, but whether or not they are.

The "oikonomia," or divine economy, is the ordering and management of God's household. It refers to the external, historical arrangement by which God establishes, communicates, and maintains His covenantal relationship with His people in a given epoch. It includes the outward features of the covenant: its signs and seals, its ceremonies and institutions, its mediators, laws, and visible structures.

All divine covenants are administered, because a covenant is not an abstract idea but a concrete, enacted relationship. In Eden, the covenant of works was administered through Adam as federal head, with a probationary command and the tree of life as a sacramental sign. The covenant of grace likewise came to man as a promise that was given in time and had its outward form in sacrifice and worship; but it was progressively administered through successive historical epochs marked by distinct covenants made with particular individuals. The outward form varied, but the inward substance, the promise of salvation by grace through faith in Christ to come, remained the same. With Christ's coming, the divine economy reaches its telos. The "new covenant," which is new because of its testamentary nature and the death of the testator, is therefore the full and final administration.

Administration is not something added to a covenant; it is the covenant's mode of historical existence. There is no such thing as a non‑administered covenant, because God's covenants always take concrete, historical form.

 

[MarrowMan]

I’ve no objections to the above, but would provide this very short definition:

“An administration is the outward ordering of the covenant—its ordinances, promises, signs, and structure—as revealed in a given period of redemptive history.”

If one wants a little more meat, I’d offer: “the historical form, outward structure, and means by which a covenant is expressed, governed, and applied.”

 

[EvanF]

I’ve no objections to the above, but would provide this very short definition:

“An administration is the outward ordering of the covenant—its ordinances, promises, signs, and structure—as revealed in a given period of redemptive history.”

If one wants a little more meat, I’d offer: “the historical form, outward structure, and means by which a covenant is expressed, governed, and applied.”

Aren't there inward administrations as well as outward?