We ought to know that a peculiar significance attaches to the term "covenant." This is because, in the abstract, the term "covenant" can refer a business deal, or to a relationship that involves calculation of what the two parties to the covenant owe each other.
It's clear, then, that the term "covenant" can be used very legalistically. In fact, one could clearly say that the Medievalism in theology against which the Reformation rebelled was a form of "covenant theology" which was zealous to describe the relationship between God and Man in terms of "calculations of merit" which involved internal and external attitudes and good works. You obey the rules and you get salvation. This is also seen in the "neonomianism" of the (post)-Puritan era, which, though ostensibly evangelical, makes faith a work. It also reappears again in some of the "exegesis" of the "New Perspective on Paul."
Even in orthodox Reformed Theology it has often been the case that the gospel is presented in covenantal terms borrowed from "calculation." God the Father provides us salvation in Christ. To get it we "owe" him faith. Now our system certainly does not consider faith to be a work, but one ought to ask whether describing the gospel in this manner is the best tactic for representing the Scripture truth that our doctrinal standards really do teach. Faith, after all, is a gift of God, not a work we give to God.
A. A. Hodge will even describe the "plan of salvation" as a "Law." The Moral Law requires works for blessing, and the Gospel requires faith for blessing. The gospel is presented as a Law. One thinks of the "Four Spiritual Laws," which were used in my own conversion.
But to preach the gospel is to offer the gift of Christ. It is an invitation to believe -- to receive. And, yes, it is a command, but the whole tenor of the command and invitation to believe is at root entirely other than the threat that comes from the Law. "Turn or burn" is true, but the invitation to faith is still that.
These observations ought to draw us back to Scripture, to try to see what God meant by "keeping covenant." There must be more to a divine covenant than a legal contract.
This is why it is entirely appropriate, in my opinion, to see writings in the current scene which probe the idea of using "covenant" as a word to describe aspects of mystical union with Christ, or even aspects of the eternal relationship between the Divine Persons. In the latter case, if use of the term "covenant" is appropriate at all, then it cannot refer to a relationship contingent on behavior, but to an eternal and essential relationship.
Some may feel that the word "covenant" is itself inappropriate for describing intra-Trinitarian relationships. Certainly this would be the case if "covenant" refers to a relationship contingent on behavior -- a deal. But, if "covenant" can legitimately be used to refer to the essential intra-Trinitarian relationships, then the "covenant," as used between God and Man, also takes on a new and different lustre from any legalistic conception of its meaning.
One thinks of the marriage covenant, and the spiritual implications of it.
Reviewed and retained.
ReplyDelete