Hebrews 13:20

[JM]

Is Hebrews 13:20 in reference to the Covenant of Grace or the New Covenant? Found an old article in pdf and now I'm wondering if this passage is the C of G or NC?

The recently released New Geneva Study Bible, which champions the theological school of "covenantalism," proposes that "God . . .revealed His covenant of grace by promising a Savior (Gen. 3:15). . . .The covenant of Sinai . . . was a continuation of the covenant of grace (Ex. 3:15; Deut. 7:7, 8; 9:5, 6). . . . As Heb. 7-10 explains . . . God inaugurated a better version of His one eternal covenant with sinners (Heb. 13:20). . . ." But, does the phrase [greek wording that wouldn't cut and paste] ("eternal covenant") in Hebrews 13:20 actually refer to "one eternal covenant"?

Reformed commentators of another era—e.g., Gouge (1587-1653),1653), Henry (1662-1714), Owen (1616-1683), and Poole (1624-1679)—equated Hebrews 13:20 with the alleged "covenant of grace," as did theologian Dabny (1820-1898). In contrast, John Calvin (1509-1564) spoke of this text in conjunction with the New Covenant, although one might have guessed he would have linked this text to the covenant(s) of redemption/grace if pressed for a more thorough explanation.

More recent commentators uniformly relate Hebrews 13:20 to the New Covenant without mentioning the covenant of grace—e.g., Brown, Bruce, Cranfield, Ellingsworth, Hughes, Kistemaker,Lane, Morris, Pink, and Westcott, but most likely with silent covenantal overtones. Non-covenantalists such as Kent and MacArthur also relate Hebrews 13:20 to the New Covenant, but without assumptions in regard to any alleged covenant(s) of redemption/grace. A fresh look at the phrase "eternal covenant" in Hebrews 13:20 is appropriate in view of the less-than-unanimous conclusions put forth by commentators and theologians of various theological persuasions. Are there "covenantal" overtones in the verse that find their roots in a pre-creation, eternity-past covenant of redemption which may or may not have a connection with a supposed subsidiary or subsequent covenant of grace? Or, does Hebrews 13:20 refer exclusively to the New Covenant, which is the dominant theme of Hebrews, with no reference to or assumptions concerning the presupposed foundational elements of covenant theology?

 

[JM]

One more time?

 

[py3ak]

Isn't the answer to that question based on the answer to the further question: "According to what covenant was Jesus raised from the dead?"

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Short answer, JM: it has reference to the New Covenant as "finished product" if you will. It is eternal in any direction, because the blood of Christ avails as much for Adam and Eve as it does for any of us. But it is a bit absurd to speak of Adam and Eve as "members" of the New Covenant in any precise sense. Only as one sees the New Covenant as having reference to the whole of the covenant relation God-to-man. And that requires some sort of nominative, if we are to speak of it with clarity and coherence.

Now for a bit of longer-windedness:
Certainly, Jesus' blood is of the "new" covenant. And yet, that "new" covenant is apparently more than simply a new fact of history, it is accorded a further description/name here. "Eternal" implies endlessness, but one is justified in asking: is that endlessness merely forward? Is that the natural meaning of the term? Is it simply one that goes on and on without any advancements, as previous temporal covenant arrangements were? Or is there a "backwards" element there as well? After all, the human contingent of it had their names written in the Lamb's book before the world began (Rev. 13:8).

The "alleged" "supposed" language is a pretty transparent bias. People in Moses day, David's day, and Jesus' day had no problem seeing themselves as heirs to a covenant made with Abraham, despite the fact that they were living all of them under various permutations of covenant-arrangement. Furthermore, Paul in Galatians seems to be presuming the very same sort of continuity with a previous covenant (Abraham) for the NT believer as well, whether Jewish or Gentile, and all in the context of a polemic against Judaizing.

So, the question seems to me: does the Bible teach salvation by grace through faith from about page 3 (the fall) onward? And if so, on what basis is that salvation promised? Does God relate to man always through a Mediator? Is that the consistent teaching of Scripture? The coming to God by sacrifice--how was this effected or communicated? What did it signify? Do men need a God who reaches out, who makes promises and keeps them? These are the very elements of covenant, and it is just pointless to shut ones eyes, and wish them all away.

Who wishes to see the redemption covenant in the making? I invite you to start reading at Isaiah 40. God gives Isaiah a staggering series of revelations at the latter end of the book. He literally gives him nothing less than a replay of the conversation between Father and Son. It is the most incredible thing (to me) in the whole of Scripture. I know nothing like it.

Pay close attention to Servant passages, but in particular ch 49. LISTEN to the Son declare his intent! If God had not said it, it would not be believable. Then attend Isaiah 53, and see how the Father purposes to inflict the Son on behalf of sinners, and then reward his labor. And of course, God's people are the beneficiaries. Give it a name, call it something. If not Covenant of Redemption, what? Pactum Salutis? Counsel of Peace?

Dispensationalism can give us nothing unified. It doesn't even pretend to. It cleaves the Bible, and humanity, and the purposes of the Three, and consequently everything into a broken, jumbled series of dioramas. It is the apotheosis of Individualism in a Christian guise.

 

[JM]

Thanks, that was helpful.