From Paedo to Credo

Status
Not open for further replies.
What I think is interesting is the inordinate focus on children. What of the Jewish men and women who were excluded from the new covenant? "Those who had received his word were baptized." What of those that didn't? Well, to position it in Letham's words, they were also part of the mass excommunication.
The focus really isn't inordinate at all. Letham is pointing out that the children "went" with their parents in the old covenant; why not in the new? As for those parents (Jewish men and women) who didn't receive His word, they were, in fact, excluded from the covenant - together with their children.

Letham is not referring to the excommunication of adults, for they excommunicated themselves with their disbelief. Rather, he is referring exclusively to the children of those who did not excommunicate themselves (i.e., did believe) and marveling that they, unlike their old covenant forebears, might be essentially estranged from their believing parents.
 
As for those parents (Jewish men and women) who didn't receive His word, they were, in fact, excluded from the covenant - together with their children.
I would have ended the sentence before the dash as I don't think we know the accuracy of what follows it.

But regardless, yes, we disagree in how we view infant children of new covenant believers.
 
I think there are some illuminating and important parallels (and differences) between the Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern covenants even if - like many parallels - they can be misapplied and misused.

The concept of the divine covenant isn't modified based on the types of Near East treaties. It only generates confusion when Suzzerein Vassal and Royal Grant treaties are applied to the primary covenants in the Old Testament: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, or King David. My concern regarding this approach is that it is typically used to shape the covenant of works and grace. I believe this happens in 1689 Federalism along with Progressive Covenentalism Theological Frameworks.

My understanding of its application is that the Royal Grant becomes the Covenant of Grace & the Suzzerein Vassal Treaty becomes the Covenant of Works. The problem is that neither can be distinctly applied to the covenants found in the Old Testament for the following reasons:
  1. The primary covenants can be argued to be a Royal Grant and, at the same time, a Suzzerein Vassal. They typically include characteristics from both styles.
  2. The Covenants in the Old Testament are unique because they are between God and Man, not Man and Man.

I agree that God may have condescended and utilized familiar treaty forms. But the styles and application of those treaty forms shouldn't be used to reinterpret scripture. It's a helpful cliff note.

For example, the Mosaic Covenant is targeted by applying the Suzzerein Vassal treaty. This is one of the reasons that Progressive Covenentlists argue that the fourth commandment is no longer applicable since it's fulfilled in Christ. They also argue that the tripartite division of the law is not valid since all commands are moral commands in the Old Testament.

At its core, I believe it is ultimately what informs their hermeneutic. Here is a more clear example which is borrowed from Meredith Kline (which I recognize wasn't a baptist). 1689 Federalists repackage this into their own Covenant Theology along with the Progressive Covenentlists.

O Palmer Robinson says, "
The presence of provisions in the ancient Near Eastern treaty forms relating to succession arrangements does not provide adequate basis for imposing a “testamentary” idea on the biblical concept of covenant." Meaning that the application of SV and RG to each covenant cannot be used to generate a covenantal divide between testaments.

O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980), 13.

A subnote says:
...
In making his case for viewing Deut. as a testamentary document, Kline cites a particular Assyrian treaty in which the entire purpose of the document is to assure the security of Ashurbanipal’s regal authority over vassal nations after the death of Esarhaddon (see D. J. Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon (London, 1958), pp. i, ii; 4, 5ff.; 30ff.). It does not seem quite appropriate to employ this specialized document as a means for interpreting a single provision within the book of Deut. A provision for succession within a covenantal framework simply is not the same thing as a testamentary document.
Kline also attempts to interpret the difficult passage in Heb. 9:16, 17 by reference to this supposed testamentary disposition related to dynastic succession (p. 41). The subject of Heb. 9:15–20, however, is not dynastic succession but covenant inauguration. It is the blood associated with the covenant inauguration ceremony, not the blood of a testator’s death, that is in view in these verses. Heb. 9:16, 17 do not stand bracketed in a context of covenant inauguration as a “parenthetical allusion” to the dynastic testamentary aspect of the ancient suzerainty covenants. Instead, these verses rehearse vividly the principle that a “covenant” is “made firm” “over dead bodies,”

O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980).
 
The concept of the divine covenant isn't modified based on the types of Near East treaties. It only generates confusion when Suzzerein Vassal and Royal Grant treaties are applied to the primary covenants in the Old Testament: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, or King David. My concern regarding this approach is that it is typically used to shape the covenant of works and grace. I believe this happens in 1689 Federalism along with Progressive Covenentalism Theological Frameworks.

My understanding of its application is that the Royal Grant becomes the Covenant of Grace & the Suzzerein Vassal Treaty becomes the Covenant of Works. The problem is that neither can be distinctly applied to the covenants found in the Old Testament for the following reasons:
  1. The primary covenants can be argued to be a Royal Grant and, at the same time, a Suzzerein Vassal. They typically include characteristics from both styles.
  2. The Covenants in the Old Testament are unique because they are between God and Man, not Man and Man.

I agree that God may have condescended and utilized familiar treaty forms. But the styles and application of those treaty forms shouldn't be used to reinterpret scripture. It's a helpful cliff note.

For example, the Mosaic Covenant is targeted by applying the Suzzerein Vassal treaty. This is one of the reasons that Progressive Covenentlists argue that the fourth commandment is no longer applicable since it's fulfilled in Christ. They also argue that the tripartite division of the law is not valid since all commands are moral commands in the Old Testament.

At its core, I believe it is ultimately what informs their hermeneutic. Here is a more clear example which is borrowed from Meredith Kline (which I recognize wasn't a baptist). 1689 Federalists repackage this into their own Covenant Theology along with the Progressive Covenentlists.

O Palmer Robinson says, "
The presence of provisions in the ancient Near Eastern treaty forms relating to succession arrangements does not provide adequate basis for imposing a “testamentary” idea on the biblical concept of covenant." Meaning that the application of SV and RG to each covenant cannot be used to generate a covenantal divide between testaments.

O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980), 13.

A subnote says:
...
In making his case for viewing Deut. as a testamentary document, Kline cites a particular Assyrian treaty in which the entire purpose of the document is to assure the security of Ashurbanipal’s regal authority over vassal nations after the death of Esarhaddon (see D. J. Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon (London, 1958), pp. i, ii; 4, 5ff.; 30ff.). It does not seem quite appropriate to employ this specialized document as a means for interpreting a single provision within the book of Deut. A provision for succession within a covenantal framework simply is not the same thing as a testamentary document.
Kline also attempts to interpret the difficult passage in Heb. 9:16, 17 by reference to this supposed testamentary disposition related to dynastic succession (p. 41). The subject of Heb. 9:15–20, however, is not dynastic succession but covenant inauguration. It is the blood associated with the covenant inauguration ceremony, not the blood of a testator’s death, that is in view in these verses. Heb. 9:16, 17 do not stand bracketed in a context of covenant inauguration as a “parenthetical allusion” to the dynastic testamentary aspect of the ancient suzerainty covenants. Instead, these verses rehearse vividly the principle that a “covenant” is “made firm” “over dead bodies,”

O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980).
Robert
I think you are on to something here. One of our RPCI theologians Frederick S. Leahy made the case strongly in his little booket "The Theological Basis for Covenanting" that we ought not to think about biblical covenants in terms of ANE research - this would have been in the seventies as Kiline was developing his theology. Unfortunately I can't turn up the booklet at present, having just rearranged my study!
 
Robert
I think you are on to something here. One of our RPCI theologians Frederick S. Leahy made the case strongly in his little booket "The Theological Basis for Covenanting" that we ought not to think about biblical covenants in terms of ANE research - this would have been in the seventies as Kiline was developing his theology. Unfortunately I can't turn up the booklet at present, having just rearranged my study!
It is this kind of unguarded sweeping statement that I find problematic. To be sure, OT backgrounds must never control our understanding of Scripture: that would be to set up something other than Scripture as our ultimate standard - and that may have been what Rev Leahy was protesting. But to suggest that the original audience wouldn't have noticed some similarities and differences between God's covenants with them and the covenants with which they were already familiar from the surrounding world that might illuminate the meaning of those covenants seems to me shortsighted. Let me suggest three (hopefully non-controversial) areas where comparative studies into ancient covenants have helpfully illuminated the Bible:

1) the role of passing between the pieces of an animal as an enacted self-imprecatory oath - and the striking contrast that whereas in ancient Near Eastern covenants typically both parties passed between the pieces, in Genesis 15, only God passes between them, taking full responsibility for the success of the covenant.
2) The standard requirement for duplicate copies of the covenant document, which would typically be buried at the foot of the respective gods of the nations involved. In the OT, both copies of the Sinai covenant are deposited in the ark, the footstool of the Lord's throne.
3) The structure of the Book of Deuteronomy is more similar to Suzerain-vassal treaties of the second millennium BC than those of the first millennium, notably in having both blessings and curses attached, not merely curses. This provides helpful evidence for the antiquity of the Pentateuch.

Now none of these things is foundational to our faith, nor to our doctrine of the covenants, which should be based on Scripture and not on background research. Kline and Robertson would claim nothing else: they would want to be judged on the quality of their Biblical argument, not their reconstruction of ancient literary styles. I happen to think both of them overstate their cases, because of the distinct audiences they are trying to reach. Robertson makes perfect sense as a response to dispensationalists, stressing (perhaps overstressing) the continuity of the covenants; Kline makes perfect sense as a response to Theonomists and Federal Visionists, stressing the vital role of Christ's active obedience and (in my view) overstressing the discontinuity between the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants. But I would suggest that we can all learn with profit from comparative studies, if properly carried out, and to rule them out a priori is a mistake.
 
But I would suggest that we can all learn with profit from comparative studies, if properly carried out, and to rule them out a priori is a mistake.
Ian,

I don't think Prof. Leahy was doing that, and I'm not either - rather I think he was, and I am a bit underwhelmed with the additional understanding we gain from ANE.

For example I understood the self-imprecatory nature of Genesis 15 before I knew anything about ANE covenants, Jeremiah 34:18ff helps quite a bit.

It's just that the impression is given that we almost could not have understood some of the covenant apart from ANE, and that in spite of pleading for the sufficiency of Scripture. (that's a not a swipe at you by the way, but it does appear that way in others.)

So for example when you say, "To be sure, OT backgrounds must never control our understanding of Scripture: that would be to set up something other than Scripture as our ultimate standard" - in some of the literature it comes very close to that.

Also for record my phrase that Robert was onto something, was in relation to his suggestion of some errors and problematic developments in covenant theology that appear to be creeping in on the basis of what is an overemphasis on ANE discoveries.
 
Now none of these things is foundational to our faith, nor to our doctrine of the covenants, which should be based on Scripture and not on background research. Kline and Robertson would claim nothing else: they would want to be judged on the quality of their Biblical argument, not their reconstruction of ancient literary styles. I happen to think both of them overstate their cases, because of the distinct audiences they are trying to reach. Robertson makes perfect sense as a response to dispensationalists, stressing (perhaps overstressing) the continuity of the covenants; Kline makes perfect sense as a response to Theonomists and Federal Visionists, stressing the vital role of Christ's active obedience and (in my view) overstressing the discontinuity between the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants. But I would suggest that we can all learn with profit from comparative studies, if properly carried out, and to rule them out a priori is a mistake.
Thank you for the clarification on these positions Dr. Duguid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top