CHAPTER EIGHT
THE COVENANT PRINCIPLE, PART Two:
STRUCTURES AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF Biblical Covenantalism

If just human relationships are to model and hence glorify the divine inter-relationship, it would be logical to ask what the revealed structure of a divine-human covenant-bond might be. What elements, if any, are included in that structure and what parts of Scripture are especially relevant in discovering this model?

There is a growing consensus that the biblical concept of covenant, especially the Deuteronomic materials, were similar in structure to the suzerainty treaties of the middle of the second millennium before Christ. One basic question, however, needs to be asked at this point before the discussion proceeds. Were the covenant structures of the biblical documents such as Deuteronomy derived from surrounding culture? Or did those surrounding cultures perhaps derive their covenantal ideas from the primal memory, passed on through Noah and his descendants, of various covenants the covenant making God had previously made?

This dissertation will assume that the second is most consistent with the Sola Scriptura Principle premise that infallibility equals inerrancy. It is imminently logical, then, built upon this premise, that the biblical covenant model preceded in time the suzerainty treaties of the ancient Near East and was "not a copy of them" (Sutton 1987, 16).

According to Meredith Klein, at least the Deuteronomic covenant form has five parts instead of the six or seven parts of the secular structure (Kline 1972; Sutton 1987).

O. Palmer Robertson gives the following structural elements of the biblical covenant in his definition. A covenant is a "bond in blood sovereignly administered" (Robertson 1980, 4). Robertson claims that the "result of a covenant commitment is the establishment of a "relationship ‘in connection with,’ ‘with,’ or ‘between’ people" (Robertson 1980, 6).

This is an adequate introductory definition. It correctly emphasizes (1) the sovereignty of the initiator of the covenant ("I am Yahweh your God, the Creator and owner of all the earth"), (2) the guaranteed relationship ("bond") that results ("You shall be My people and I shall be your God"), and (3) the necessity that blood, that is a death, must occur to ratify the covenant. Robertson, however, misses several very important aspects of the covenant which others emphasize, especially (4) human responsibility to live befitting to ethical standards of the covenantal relationship ("If you obey my voice and keep my covenant").

Cornelius van der Waal, late Dutch-South African theologian, similarly summarizes the covenant structure as "Command plus promise and threat":

While this includes the aspect of responsibility and sanctions, missed by Robertson, Van der Waal fails to make more explicit several factors he implies exist within biblical covenants. For example, the command-stipulations must be from a sovereign, the Suzerain of the covenant-treaty. The promise (blessings; see Eph 6:1-3) and curses are also intimately interconnected with the covenant vassal’s descendants. The covenant-treaty thus binds a man or community and his/their "seed."

Summary Acrostic as Social Analysis Tool

Taking all of this together, this chapter’s neo-Puritan perspective will use the following acrostic outline. This is then used to judge socio-cultural, political, economic, and ecclesiastical institutions for their faithfulness to a biblical covenantal model. The acrostic, KALOS, gives a theological summary of the essential elements of a biblical covenant’s structure.

This five-point outline reduces to five diagnostic questions when analyzing a social theology, theory, or philosophy:

In sum, this outline of the covenant and its five diagnostic questions provide a biblical "social analysis" without having to import extra-biblical sociological or anthropological theories into Scripture. This is what, for example, Marxian influenced liberation theology and Functionalist influenced "Missionary Anthropology," tend to do.

Moral and Case Law Bound Together in Covenant Structure

Within this five-point structure of Deuteronomy is an interesting connection, linking yet distinguishing, the moral and judicial laws (note similar connection: Ex 20 with 21-23).

As discussed previously, within the ancient treaty literary form, the Sovereign King, revealed in the prologue, sets out the ethical standards and stipulations which would satisfy his royal justice. Then follows a series of threatened punishments and blessings for obeying the terms of the treaty and an oath of obedience.

Deuteronomy closely follows this form with some modifications (Kline 1963, 1972, Vonk 1966, Craigie 1976). The legal section extends from the Decalogue (Dt 5) to the beginning of the oath-ratification section of the treaty form (about Dt 27:1ff). Furthermore, this legal section is composed of two sub-sections: (1) the summary of the law (Dt 5), and (2) the exposition and application of the summary to daily life, in the order of the Decalogue (Dt 5-25).

Conclusion to Covenant Structure

Therefore, in contrast to the idea that Deuteronomy is a book of ad hoc legalistic regulations, the structure of Deuteronomy shows that it is designed to apply the universal morality behind each of Ten Commandments to the major spheres of life. This is the social transformation role of covenant norms.

All of the law is important to life of covenant keeping, Kingdom citizens. The Universal Equity Principle (chapters 11-12) discuss this more completely.

Kaiser sums up the structural connection of the Decalogue and the rest of the commandments:

Most recent Reformed scholarship recognizes the covenantal character of the original relationship between Yahweh and Adam (e.g., Robertson 1980, Dumbrell 1984, Sutton 1987, Van der Waal 1990, Kline 1993). This is standard fare for classic Reformed theology with its two or bi-covenant scheme: the Covenant of Works, and a new Covenant of Grace after the Fall (see WCF, 19). Both, however, shared the Decalogue as a legal standard.

However, some have recognized that the loose neo-Puritan Movement leans toward a mono-covenantal perspective: One covenant of grace with one law-standard, progressively revealed in applicative detail through time. This is especially true of the Theonomy sub-branch of this loose movement (Gordon 1994; Duncan 1996). This author follows an approach integrating the two alternatives.

Covenant in Eden Connected to the New Covenant via Abraham

The New Testament clearly sets the relationship between Adam and Christ in covenantal terms (Ro 5:12-21; 1Co 15:21-27, 45-49). In the case of the first Adam and the second Adam (Christ), thus, there were the following characteristics of the covenant acrostic outline: (1) sovereignty-kingship of Yahweh as the Father; (2) administrative representation (i.e., both the first and second Adam represented the whole of mankind in their actions); (3) legal commands to obey (both the command to not eat from the one tree and the cultural mandate or dominion covenant); (4) negative sanctions for disobedience (wrath now and at the End) and promissory sanctions for obedience (blessings of the tree of life); and (5) seed-succession: all mankind descends from Adam and all mankind, in turn, is organically related to Christ in the corpus Christi (see also the enigmatic: "He will see his seed, he will prolong his days: Isa 53:10).

Furthermore, the First Epistle to the Corinthians (1Co 15:21-27) cites from Psalm 8 which in turn is a very specific reference to the original Edenic task-command of dominion over the earth. Paul and the author of Hebrews (Heb 2; Eph 1:19-23) likewise make a definite connection between the person and work of Christ and the Edenic dominion covenant via reference to the eighth Psalm. The author of Hebrews (Heb 2:5-9) cites the eighth Psalm, stating that mankind (vs. 8) does "not yet see all things subjected to him[self]" but we "see Him (i.e., Christ) made a little lower than the angels [like Adam] but now crowned with glory and honor" (Ps 8:5).

In this humiliation and exaltation to the position of Dominion, he had partaken of the flesh and blood of the children of his Father (Heb 2:14, 11-13), who are his brothers. In doing so and through his completed work, the second Adam destroys the death-power which the devil has over man (i.e., Satan’s legal right gained in Eden; see Eph 2:1-2). By this work, then, Christ "gives help to the seed of Abraham" (Heb 2:16), thus connecting the Abrahamic and Edenic covenants with the Person of Christ and the new covenant.

Ephesians One is very similar. King Jesus’ has been raised from the dead, has ascended, and presently is seated in courtly session ("seated at his right hand" refers to Ps 110, Eph 1:20-21). In the process, the Father has stripped off the weapons of rule from anti-Christ human and demonic forces, giving King Jesus a position above every earthly and demonic power (see also Eph 2:1-2; Col 2:15). He has subjected "all things" under his feet."

The Father did this "for the benefit of the Church which is his body." These are the elect members of the commonwealth of enlarged Israel, including both former Gentiles and ethnic Jews. All are now partakers of the covenants of promise (see Eph 2:12, 19). In other words, what Christ as the second Adam did was destroy Satan’s Edenic right to death of the elect sons of Adam so that they would share with Him again the Adamic covenantal headship over creation (Heb 2:5-18). As seen, this the author of Hebrews calls giving "help" to Abraham’s seed, a reference to the Abrahamic covenant (Heb 2:16).

Thus the Edenic, Abrahamic, and new covenants are all intimately connected as one covenant.

Yahweh’s Covenant with Adam

The problem with the very first use of "berît" in Scripture (Ge 6:18) is that conventional terms for covenant establishment or entry are missing. The terms "cutting of a covenant," the customary oath and witnesses and associated signs are missing (Dumbrell 1984, 20). Dumbrell shows that the decision whether "the beginning of a new covenant arrangement is being referred to, or whether in each case the continuation of some prior understanding is in mind" turns on the meaning of the word heqîm with berît in the context.

After carefully reviewing the contextual meaning of this two word combination, W. J. Dumbrell’s work, Covenant and Creation, makes the following observation. It is

After carefully examining all the biblical and lexical evidence concerning this question, Dumbrell concludes:

Van der Waal also confirms this insight after carefully examining the lexical evidence. "So there is every reason in Gen. 6:18 to replace the translation ‘to establish’ by ‘to confirm’ or ‘to ratify’" (Van der Waal 1990, 26). He explains this further, in a manner similar to Dumbrell.

Dumbrell here makes a carefully grounded assumption:

The question some would ask at this point is whether the Old Testament Scripture itself mentions the Edenic relationship using explicit covenant terminology. One key Old Testament passage in this respect is found in Hosea (6:7): "Like Adam, they have broken the covenant — they were unfaithful to me there" (NIV), or possibly, "but they like men have transgressed the covenant: they have they dealt treacherously against me" (KJV).

Does this passage involve a tacit admission that Israel had broken the covenant of God given through Moses just as either Adam (or perhaps "mankind") had broken a covenant. Robertson examines the three possible meanings of this verse. He rejects the first (i.e., "Adam" means a place name) because it involves a non-warranted textual emendation. Robertson then concludes that the other two possibilities ("like mankind," and "like Adam") both "appear to apply covenantal terminology to the relation of God to man established by creation" (Robertson 1980, 24; emphasis added).

He also claims that both Jeremiah (33:20-25) and Hosea (6:7) "apparently refer to God’s original creational relationship in covenantal terms" (Robertson 1980, 24; Isa 24:5; Jer 31:35-37).

In sum, then, as noted, all the elements of a covenant were already in existence in the biblical account of the time before Noah (see "The covenant of creation" [Kline 1993]). God thus had a covenantal relationship with Adam through creation. This covenant is similar to Yahweh’s covenant with David. It was itself not originally termed a covenant, but was "covenantal in substance." It, like the Adamic, creational covenant, was only termed a covenant ex post facto in later passages (e.g., 2Sa 23:5; Ps 89:3).

Dumbrell and Robertson agree at this point

Noahic and Adamic Covenants Connected

The covenant "cutting" terminology is thus made when the Creator makes fresh initiatives within the original covenant. These initiatives are made with clearly identifiable historical partners such as Abraham, Israel, and David. The assumption of the first use of the word berît, then, assumed an already existing relationship as Genesis (9:1-2) clearly implies. That passage connects the dominion task of the man and his seed-children with the same task in the Cultural Mandate (Ge 1:28). The post—flood covenant "cutting" (Ge 9) is a renewal of the original Creation Covenant. It is not a totally new covenant relationship (see Dumbrell 1984, 32-33).

Dumbrell shows throughout his volume that the restoration of Eden is a constant theme in every one of the covenant renewals. The prophets constantly emphasize this (see e.g., Eze 36:35-36; Isa 51:3). Revelation, especially, returns to the Edenic theme over and over especially in the last two chapters (see Restorative Eschatology Principle).

Connections between the Mosaic and New Covenants

The prophets foresaw the day that the tôrâh of Yahweh-Jesus would be written on every heart of his covenant bound people (Jer 31:33-34). They will follow his laws and decrees (Eze 37:24). Classic Reformed theology assumes continuity between the moral law of the first and that of the second covenant (see WCF, 19; BC, 25; HC, questions 92-115).

The items of continuity between Covenants are (1) the same God of the covenant, (2) the same standard, "My torah" (note, not a different one than Sinai), (3) the same fellowship between God and his people, (4) the same people and seed, and (5) the "same forgiveness" (Kaiser 1978, 233). After extensively discussing the Hebrew word "new" and its Akkadian and Ugaritic cognates, Kaiser writes: "We conclude then that this covenant was the old Abrahamic-Davidic promise renewed and enlarged" (Kaiser 1978, 234).

The old covenant was faulty (Heb 8:7), not because of the law nor the covenant God. The people "broke" the covenant. Secondly, the old covenant had "a deliberately built-in planned obsolescence." The new covenant’s "superiority came from the progress of revelation and not from the errors or deliberate misinformation of the former covenants" (Kaiser 1978, 268).

"Jeremiah [31:33] unmistakably shows [the new covenant’s] continuity with the provisions of the old law" (Waltke 1988, 136). Commenting on Jeremiah’s promise that the law will be engrafted into the minds of new covenant believers, Waltke further states:

O. Palmer Robertson, though not agreeing with several conclusions of this dissertation (see Robertson n.d.), concurs:

Noting that Romans 8:1-4 gives the sense of Jeremiah 31:31-34, F. F. Bruce writes:

Many believe that the Puritan two covenant schema should be abandoned. Several scholars, especially from Afrikaner and Dutch, Reformed churches are convinced it is not Scriptural.

Van der Waal’s discussion is helpful:

Hanko’s objections are similar to those of his colleague, H. Hoeksema (see Hanko 1988; Hoeksema 1966, 214-226):

1. The Genesis record "makes no mention of a covenant" of works. "The covenant cannot anywhere in the Scriptures be construed as an agreement; it is rather a relationship of friendship and fellowship with God" (Hanko 1988, 30).

2. The Genesis account makes no mention of the promise of eternal life on the condition of obedience. Such life is "not merited through goods works and obedience but is merited only through the perfect work of our Savior" (Hanko 1988, 30).

3. The covenant of works

Indeed we live, move and have our being in Him who made all things and from whom we receive all things (see Ac 17:25, 28).

4. The covenant of works view "becomes a sort of addition to Adam’s original state." In other words, instead of Adam being created in a covenant-like relationship with God, "the whole covenant, if a covenant of works, was added to Adam’s existence." When he was created, thus, Adam "lacked an important ingredient to his full blessedness" — the covenant, thus contradicting the Genesis 1:31 which states that everything was very good except that Adam did not have a bride-helper. (Hanko 1988, 31-32).

It is clear that Scripture connects the new covenant with the Creation covenant. After the Fall, God renews the original covenant with a redemptive element, giving a super-added gracious character to the covenant.

The Creation covenant thus is connected through a redemptive renewal with Noah. The Abrahamic covenant is interconnected with the Mosaic, the Davidic, and the new covenant (see Gal 3:14ff). Dominion Man of the Mosaic covenant is connected with the Creation covenant (Ps 8). The Mosaic covenant is clearly connected with the New (Jer 31; Heb 8; 2Co 3).

All the covenants are inseparably intertwined strands of one Covenant from the beginning, but with a double edged sanction section and a perfection demanding legal section. Life comes through a faith-filled obedience to the covenant. That one covenant therefore always had the stipulation that life comes with perfect obedience (Rom 2). "The soul that sins shall surely die" and "It is not the hearers but the doers of the law, that are justified" are truisms throughout all of history.

Secondly, this implies that all administrations of the one covenant are probationary and obligatory. This is the double-edged aspect of the covenant. Disobedience brings a curse. This means thus that the law of the new covenant is also probationary. All men enter the world under the obligation to the Gospel’s law (Ro 2:12-16; 1Ti 1:10b-11). Yet at the same time all have failed that probationary obligation because Adam, their covenant head, failed the covenantal probation (Rom 5:12ff) and they also fail it. Thus all men are prohibited from the "tree of life."

When the original covenant was broken by Adam, he lost all life and true righteousness due to the curse of death. Only a perfectly obedient descendant of Adam could obey the original law and then permanently overcome the curse of death (Ge 3:15). The Godhead would have gained perfect glory for his justice if he had chosen the punishment of hell then for the first pair. He chose instead to send a Redeemer under the covenant sanctions and terms to demonstrate his grace. The result was that God is both the gracious justifier of rebels and perfectly just, demanding propitiation and absolute obedience (Ro 3:9-30).

Therefore, only the second Adam who began without the reckoned curse of the first Adam has the ability to meet the probationary challenge. He obeyed the law by faith and then ate of the tree of life for his people, for us! Adam was created with life but with the ability to fall. Christ was born with life but possessed no ability to fall. Thus Adam could only gain more perfection in covenantal union with the second Adam, the Son.

To conclude, then, a true Gospel declaration includes proclamation of the perfect law of liberty (Ro 2:12-16; 1Ti 1:8-11). Law is part of the Gospel. Therefore, since there is one covenant, there is only one law throughout time because there is only one covenant making and inspiring God (Rom 3:19-30; Fuller 1980). The creation law (a.k.a. "natural law") is the same law as that found in all aspects of God’s covenant. This includes all the basic principles of the judicial law. Each covenant progressively brought more specific revelation on the definition of sin and righteousness, both as a guide to the righteous and a progressively tightening, prosecutor’s argument against the rebels.

Covenant of Works not Foundation of Social Order

Weir claims that a prelapsarian, "Covenant of Works" concept lies underneath the Genevan and Puritan Reformation’s vision of a Christian socio-political order (Weir 1990, 5). This is not exactly accurate. The Westminster standards are but the consensual summary of the classic English Puritan perspective. According to them, it is not the Covenant of Works itself that provides moral-legal standards for all men in society. It was instead, "the abiding validity of the [moral] law [and the "marrow and substance" of the judicials]," that did. That law, not the Covenant of Works, has "jurisdiction over all men, believer and non-believer alike." This law is that "which in Puritan theology provides the moral basis for the state" (Perks 1993, 27). The magistrate was obligated to "all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed" including those offenses against the first tablet of the law (WCF, 23.3; see BC, 25, 36).

Whole Social Order Built on New Covenant

Now, however, if the above analysis of the covenant is correct, understanding a complicated two covenant schema is no longer necessary (see Fuller 1980). The moral-legal basis of the whole socio-cultural order comes from an integrated, mono-covenant perspective with its two edged sanction section (see Sutton 1987). Faith-obedience leads to the fulfillment of the promised blessing and visa versa.

Thus a second implication of this modified view of the covenant of grace is that the whole socio-political, ecclesial, and familial order can be explicitly founded on the King and his covenant. As shall be seen in the Universal Equity Principle, the Israelite Commonwealth was a contextualized paradigm for all nations which will also covenant with Yahweh in the future. His covenantal law thus invokes divine blessings (promises) and curses (negative sanctions) as a powerful incentive beyond the sword power of the state to enforce at least external law-keeping.

Lastly, the head of this total covenant social order is Christ, the Universal King. He reigns through his covenant keeping sons and their covenant-keeping seed (see Ps(s) 2, 110, 149; Rev 1:5). The "seed" of the covenant-keepers are those who through blood-descent and true confession of faith make at least external conformity to the principles of a God-fearing life. This is all that Calvinists expect. If one swears faith-filled allegiance to the confession and stays within the boundaries of God’s law-order, he cannot come under the sanction of ecclesial or civil courts. Only God knows man’s heart (see Balke 1981).

Biblical Federalism and Western Liberties

A third implication this dissertation will assert but cannot prove due to space limitations is that the foundation of modern Western liberty came from the covenantal or federalist tradition. Freedom does not spring from the Radical Reformation’s divorcing of the Kingship of Christ and his law from the state, nor does it come from a Christian alliance with individualistic liberalism (called Whiggism, Classic Liberalism, Libertarianism, or "the American way," by some; see Alvarado n.d., 1994).

The covenant brought a theological justification for the representation principle into Western jurisprudence and constitutional theory. Humans are not just an abstracted, groupless individual (as in Marxism, Classic Liberalism, and Libertarianism).

This is contrary to individualistic democracy which both the modern descendants of the Radical Reformers and humanists praise.

The basic Christian, covenantal socio-political and ecclesiastical order is founded upon, first the family. This results in a franchise system of one vote for each covenant-confessing family-group, historically administered by the male covenant family head. These families then covenant together on the local level (municipality or county) and elect representatives. These representatives then can covenant with larger units with the approval of their constituencies. This was the method of the founding of the federal (i.e., covenantal) American Republic and that of Reformed denominations (see The Politics of Johannes Althusius [Carney 1964]; Breed 1876/1993; Smyth 1908).

It is important to note, therefore, that the one overarching covenant in Scripture includes the Suzerain’s authority over all spheres of life. This is clearly seen in the Book of the Covenant (Ex 22-23), the Holiness Code (Lev 18-20) and Deuteronomy. Within the one overarching covenant, the creation institutions of the civil-magisterial order, family, and church should model within their structures a biblical covenantal form. This covenantal structure along with the covenantal law, then, become the canon against which to judge whether a social structure (e.g., family, church, state, economy) is just or oppressive.