Covenant and the Unity of Scripture
by John M. Frame
Prof. of Apologetics and Systematic
Theology
Reformed
theologians have commonly found in the covenant motif a helpful way to
show forth the unity of the Bible. Traditionally, these writers have found
in Scripture two major covenants, sometimes called the covenant of works
and the covenant of grace. The former embraces the pre-fall period. In
it God offers an eternal life of blessedness (symbolized by the tree of
life) to Adam and Eve on the condition that they abstain from the fruit of
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. After the fall into sin, God
sets forth the covenant of grace: a promise of redemption through the
divine messiah received through faith alone.
The
covenant of grace, in turn, encompasses, on the traditional view, all the
post-fall historical covenants including those with Adam, Noah, Abraham,
Moses, David, and the "New Covenant" effected by the blood of
Jesus himself, of which the earlier covenants are but anticipations.
On
this understanding, the whole Bible, diverse in content as it may appear
at first sight, can be seen as a story of God making covenants and man
responding to them. The books of law show what God expects of his covenant
people. The books of history indicate man's actual response. The Psalms
contain the praise, the laments, the questionings, the blessings and
cursings which should be on the lips of a covenant people. The
wisdom books contain applications of the covenant law to human
problems. The prophets bring God's covenant lawsuit against the
covenant breakers while at the same time promising covenant renewal.
The Gospels and Acts present the history of the New Covenant,
which is applied to believers and to world history in the epistles
and Revelation.
Recently,
Meredith G. Kline has made some significant additions to our knowledge of
the nature of biblical covenants. In his Treaty of the Great King
[1]
and especially in his The Structure of
Biblical Authority
[2]
he has noted some important relations between covenants and the nature
of the Bible.
His
view is that "covenant" in Scripture often refers to a specific
literary form common in the ancient near east, of which a number of
extra-biblical examples (especially from the Hittite culture) are extant.
Covenants between Yahweh and
A.
Name of the Great King
B.
Historical Prologue
C.
Stipulations (Laws)
1.
Exclusive loyalty (=love)
2.
Specific requirements
D.
Sanctions (Blessings and Curses)
E.
Administration
Kline
finds this literary form in the decalogue (Ex. 20:1-17), and he identifies
the Book of Deuteronomy as a whole as a suzerainty treaty between Yahweh
and
Section
A makes clear that the great king, not the vassal, is the author of the document,
and that its provisions are his own will. So Yahweh in Ex. 20:2 announces,
"I am Yahweh your God." Note also the emphasis on the divine
authorship (even divine publication!) of the document in Ex. 24:12, 31:18,
32:15f, 34:1, 27f, 32, Deut. 4:13, 9:10f, 10:2-4.
Section
B indicates the previous benefits conferred upon the vassal by the
suzerain: "who brought you out of
Section
C shows how the suzerain expects the vassal to respond to these benefits:
"You shall have no other gods before me," etc. The First of the
Ten Commandments is a love commandment; for "love" was the term
used for the kind of exclusive covenant loyalty required in the covenant
law. This is followed by various specific commandments spelling out how
one should behave if he is exclusively loyal to Yahweh.
Section
D indicates the consequences of obedience (blessing) or disobedience
(curse). In the decalogue, these are not put into a separate section
(although they are in Deuteronomy: see chapters 27, 28), but are found in
and with other commandments, curses in the Second and Third, blessings
in the Fifth. Note that one's good standing in the covenant
relation depends on his obedience or disobedience to the written covenant document.
Section
E indicates how the covenant is to be administered. Copies of the covenant
document are to be placed in the religious sanctuaries of suzerain and
vassal (cf. Deut. 31:26), there is provision for periodic public reading
(31:9-13), there are rules of dynastic succession (31:1-8). The
covenant document stands as a witness: not man's fallible
witness concerning God, but God's infallible witness against his disobedient people (31:26). Again, the emphasis is
on the divine authority of the document.
Here
we find the first clear scriptural references to a written document
divinely authored, which because of its divine authorship bears full
divine authority. Not surprisingly, Kline finds here the origin of the
idea of an authoritative canon. Seen in this way, the concept of an
authoritative written word of God does not begin with twentieth century
fundamentalism, nor seventeenth century orthodoxy, nor medieval
scholasticism, nor post-apostolic defensiveness, nor late Jewish legalism.
Rather, it is embedded in the original constitution of the people of
God and is assumed throughout Scripture.
Kline
holds that the original covenant document, the Ten Commandments, written
by the finger of God (Ex. 31:18, 32:16) on two tables of stone, is the
seed of the biblical canon. Additional writings were added to the covenant
document as history progressed (see Josh. 24:25f). These described
the history of Israel's response to the covenant (Gen.- Esther), the
covenant servant's praises, laments, questions (Psalms), covenantal wisdom
(Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs). The prophetic books
describe, as we saw earlier, God's covenant lawsuit and promises of
covenant renewal. Kline offers a similar analysis of the New Testament
which, nevertheless, he regards as a new and separate canon directing a
"new" covenant.
This
covenantal model of canonicity is enormously helpful in dealing with
questions concerning biblical authority, infallibility and inerrancy. On
this model, God is the ultimate author of Scripture,
[3]
and we vassals have no right to find fault with that document; rather we
are to be subject to it in all our thought and life.
What
I would like to do now is to show that Kline's thesis is also helpful to
our understanding of the unity of Scripture. Let us assume for now that Kline's model is
correct; those who have doubts may pursue his arguments for
themselves. And then let us ask what that model implies with regard to
the unity of the biblical text.
The
treaty form, as described above, is certainly a diversity-in-unity. It is
a single document, with a single purpose, to govern a vassal people in the
name of a Great King. Yet to accomplish this single purpose, five
different sections are necessary, as we have seen. These five sections
define five types of revelation found within Scripture:
A.
Revelation of the name of God
B.
Revelation of God's mighty acts in history
C.
Revelation of God's law
1.
Love
2.
Specific requirements
D.
Revelation of God's continuing presence to
bless
and curse
E.
Revelation of God's institutional provisions:
Scripture,
church, sacraments, discipline,
etc.
Name-revelation
(A) is an important form of revelation in Scripture. In a narrow sense, we
may think of God's names as the various words used to designate him: Yahweh, Elohim, Adon, Theos, etc. Those names are an important
aspect of scriptural revelation. Dramatically, God appears to Abram and
says "I am God Almighty El Shaddai; walk before me and be
blameless" (Gen. 17:1). Inaugurating another era of revelation, God
comes to Moses in the burning bush and declares his name to be "I am
that I am" (Ex. 3:14) and Yahweh (verse 15, evidently related in some fashion to the verb "to
be;" cf. Chapter 6:1-3). God performs his mighty acts "that they
may know that I am Yahweh," Ex. 14:18, I Kings 8:43, Psm. 9:10,
83:18, 91:14, Isa. 43:3, 52:6, Jer. 16:21, 33:2, Amos 5:8. As El Shaddai marked God's covenant
relation with Abraham, so Yahweh marks the covenant relation between God and the nation
God's
names also have meaning. Yahweh, for
instance, connotes God's sovereign control over the world, his
ultimate authority to determine standards for intelligent beings, and
his covenant solidarity and presence with his people.
[4]
When God reveals himself as Yahweh,
he stresses those elements of his character.
In
a still broader sense, God's "name" (shem or onoma,
without a proper name) is a way of referring to God himself in all his
self-revelation; cf. Josh. 7:9, Ezek. 20:9. In this respect it is a near
synonym of the "word of God." To praise the name of God is to
praise him; to dishonor the name is to dishonor him. Note the unity
between the name of God and God himself in passages such as Ex. 33:19, 34:6f,
Psm. 7:17, 9:10, 18:49, 68:4, 74:18, 86:12, 92:11, Isa. 25:1, 26:8, 56:6,
Zech. 14:9, Mal. 3:16.
The
second form of revelation (B) is also prominent in Scripture. Scripture
may be called the story of God's mighty deeds performed for the salvation
of his people. Whether called "signs," "wonders," or
"mighty acts," God does amazing works to accomplish the
redemption of his people and the judgment of the wicked, from the flood of
Genesis 6-9 to the final judgment. In the biblical history, especially
important roles are given to the deliverance of
Law-revelation
(C) is also important within Scripture. The torah is the heart of the Old Covenant, giving instruction in
God's standards, which are invoked throughout the Old Testament.
Throughout the historical, poetic, wisdom and prophetic books, God calls
his people back to obey his commandments. The written torah is that law in which the righteous man meditates day and
night (Psm. 1:2); it is the law which is "perfect, restoring the
soul" (Psm. 19:7). It is the word of God to which praises are sung in
Psm. 56:4, 10, 119:161f, etc.
Jesus
also comes bringing commandments which his disciples are to obey. Though
rejecting the attempt to save oneself by keeping the law, the New
Testament nevertheless stresses our obligation to keep the commandments of
Jesus: Matt. 7:21ff, 28f, Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26ff, 8:21, John 8:47,
12:47ff, 14:15, 21, 23f, 15:7, 10, 14, 17:6, 17, I Tim. 6:3, I John
2:3-5, 3:22, 5:2f, II John 6, Rev. 12:17, 14:12.
Sanction
revelation (D) can also be found throughout Scripture. God's covenants are
two-edged. Those who are faithful to the covenant receive blessings; those
who are not faithful receive curse. Many in
Finally,
Scripture is also concerned with the continuing life of God's people, with
those arrangements (E) by which the word of God is preserved and applied
to each generation. The original covenant document was placed by the ark
of the covenant, the holiest place among the people of God. It was, as we
have seen, to be read publicly from time to time. God
established prophet, priest and king to rule his people according to
his word. In the New Covenant, Jesus fulfills these offices; but
he too is concerned that his church be built on a firm
foundation (Matt. 16:18ff). He appoints the apostles to remember his
words (John 14:26) and to convey new truth from the spirit (John
15:26, 16:13). The apostles, in turn, establish the offices of elder
and deacon (Acts 6:1ff, I Tim. 3:1ff, etc.)
Therefore,
even if we have reservations about Kline's thesis that the Scripture
historically developed from the original covenant document, we must admit
that the five major elements of the covenant form each represent an
important aspect of biblical revelation.
Now
we ask our main question: How do these covenant elements testify to the
unity of Scripture? My threefold answer: by their pervasiveness, their
mutual complementarity, and their perspectival relationship. Let me
expound each of these in turn.
1. Pervasiveness
First,
each of these covenantal themes is fundamental to all parts of Scripture,
as should be evident from the above survey. The five forms of covenantal
revelation are equally at home in Old and New Testaments, in books of
history and books of prophecy, in gospels and epistles, in apocalyptic.
The
one area where a question might arise is the wisdom literature. Certainly
the "name" (A) and the "mighty acts" (B) of God are
not common themes of these books, at least in so many words. However, the
fundamental premise of the Book of Proverbs is that "the fear of the
Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (1:7; cf. 9:10, Psm. 111:10,
112:1). The wisdom to be gained in Proverbs begins with covenant
faithfulness to the Lord. Thus this literature presupposes, though it does
not verbally emphasize, the covenant relationship. Certainly its teaching
can be seen to spring from the covenant law (C). Ecclesiastes concludes
that to fear God and keep his commandments is the whole duty of
man (12:13f), thus echoing the connection between keeping the law
and wisdom found in Deut. 4:6. The consequences of obedience and disobedience
(D) are well illustrated in the wisdom books, and these books are
themselves part of the structure (E) by which the covenant law is passed
down and applied from generation to generation (cf. Prov. 1:8).
[5]
Thus
the covenant consciousness pervades the Scriptures. Each of the five
themes ties Scripture together, as each part of the Bible seeks to advance
that theme. Despite Scripture's diversity of authorship, style, and
specific interest, all parts of it are united by its strong covenant
interest.
2. Complementarity
The
pervasiveness of these covenant themes, however, would not be conducive to
the unity of Scripture if the themes themselves were inconsistent with one
another. Are the five elements of the covenant complementary, or do they
present to us different concepts of God, of his works, of salvation, of
the believer's life?
Within
the covenant model, there is no evident tension. The name of the Lord (A)
is the name of the one who performs the mighty works (B), lays down the
law (C), executes the sanctions (D), establishes the institutions (E). The
mighty works of the historical prologue present a strong motivation for
the loyalty demanded in the law and a reason for the severity of
the sanctions. The law itself must have teeth; thus it requires sanctions.
And a people cannot truly be "under" law unless there are
institutional ways in which the law can be preserved, taught, enforced.
Thus the different parts of the covenant reinforce one another.
The
consistency of these covenant elements is sharply at odds with the picture
of Scripture found in many forms of modern theology. Typically, the
various schools of liberal theology find in the Bible many discordant
elements, which cannot be reconciled or fit together in a single theological
system. Thus the theologian thinks he is forced to choose some of those
motifs to use in his own theology and to discard (or de-emphasize)
others. There is necessarily a certain arbitrariness in this
procedure, though of course these theologians typically claim that they
have chosen those motifs most fundamental to Scripture itself.
Yet among these theologians there is wide disparity over which
themes are affirmed and which ones discarded, which ones are
considered central and which ones are relegated to the periphery. Thus
we have had in our time a great number of "theologies of" this
or that: the word of God, crisis, personal encounter, history,
love, hope, being, process, etc. Each of these appeals to some aspect of Scripture, maintaining that
other aspects are either to be ignored or to be minimized. Consider some
examples:
(a)
Person and Proposition: In modern theology, especially the personalism of
Martin Buber
[6]
and Emil Brunner
[7]
there is often a sharp opposition between the revelation of a person and
the revelation of propositions or information. As John Baillie puts it, in
the New Testament, "the content of revelation is not a body of
information or of doctrine. (Rather...) what is revealed is God
Himself."
[8]
We certainly cannot doubt that God through Scripture reveals himself as a
person.
[9]
But must we choose between person-revelation and propositional revelation?
Granting the first, must we deny the second? Baillie assumes that we do.
[10]
The
covenant form, however, presents us with a model of revelation which is
both highly personal and highly propositional. God reveals his name, which
is virtually equivalent to himself. He authors the entire treaty,
revealing himself throughout its pages. He communicates love, by
revealing his past blessings and by promising future ones to those who
are faithful. He speaks intimately to his people.
[11]
He promises that he will be personally involved with his people to bless,
to punish and to chastize.
At
the same time, the covenant is propositional. It is a document containing
words and sentences. It functions as a legal constitution for God's
people. It is to be kept, passed on, from generation to generation (Deut.
6:4ff, Jude 3). It contains information as to God's name, his mighty
deeds, his will for our lives, his sanctions and his established
institutions.
In
the light of the covenant model, surely the burden of proof is on the
modern theologian to tell us why we must place personal and propositional
revelation in sharp opposition to one another. Or perhaps they should
admit that their theological construction is simply a capitulation to the
demands of "historical-critical" scholarship, setting the
scholar free to find fault with biblical propositions as long as some
vague "person-revelation" still shines through. But to do that
is to rebel against God's requirements for human thinking (II Cor.
10:5).
[12]
(b)
Act and Word: It was once fashionable among modern theologians to
emphasize very strongly that God reveals himself in events (acts, deeds, etc.) rather than in words (propositions!)
about those events. That sort of contrast can be found in Barth
[13]
and Brunner, as was the last. Baillie also
[14]
assumes this dichotomy, as he did the last. But one wonders, then, how
revelation can be both "person" and "event," and why
we don't have to choose between them.
Baillie gives very little indication of how "person" and
"event" are related in the evidently complex reality
called revelation.
[15]
Somewhat
more consistent was the proposal of G. Ernest Wright
[16]
that God reveals himself only in events interpreted through the eyes of
faith. Events, not propositions; again, that was the contrast. James Barr,
however, certainly a man with no sympathies for fundamentalism,
refuted Wright's thesis with the obvious point that in the scriptural narrative
God reveals himself not only by doing things but also by speaking directly
to man.
[17]
Barr added that we may wish, as modern people, to reject the idea of
direct speech from God to man; but in all honesty we should not pretend
that that idea is absent from the Bible itself.
On
the covenantal model, there is no opposition between God's acts and God's
words. Both exist harmoniously in the treaty form. The whole document
consists of God's words. But among those words are words which tell of
God's mighty acts. These accounts of God's acts are not, as on Wright's
view, the stumbling attempts of human beings to interpret their
experiences (cf. II Pet. 1:20); they are rather God's own descriptions
and interpretations of what he has done. Modern man may, like Barr, resist
the possibility of such divinely formulated interpretation; but in doing
so he resists the very notion of a sovereign God who can do what he wishes
in and with his creation.
(c)
Grace and Law: Not only among modern liberal theologians, but also throughout
the history of Christianity there has been disagreement over the precise
relation between grace and law. Because of certain expressions in the
New Testament referring negatively to law, there has been a
tendency in theology to radically oppose grace and law, even to remove
law from any positive function in the Christian life.
[18]
This tendency has in my view been reinforced in the modern period by the
craving for absolute autonomy expressed by modern philosophers and
literary writers. Even among evangelicals there is now a
substantial controversy as to whether salvation involves a commitment to
obey Jesus as Lord, or whether such a commitment takes place some
time after salvation, at the point when one becomes a
"disciple."
Orthodox
Reformed theology has traditionally avoided the sharp opposition between
grace and law found in other traditions (e.g. Lutheran,
Dispensationalist). While acknowledging that salvation is by the grace of
God and not by any good works of man, Reformed theology has had no trouble
saying that from the beginning of the Christian life we are obligated
(indeed, privileged) to live according to God's law. It is grace
alone that saves, but the grace that saves is never alone (cf.
James 2:14-26).
The
covenant model vindicates this Reformed understanding of the relation
between grace and law. God proclaims his grace in section (B). This is
unmerited favor. He did not choose
Indeed,
the covenant message of grace (B) is already understood to be the word of
the Lord (A). There is no separation here between Lordship and salvation.
It is the Lord who accomplishes salvation (Cf. Jonah 2:9). Only the Lord
has the requisite authority and power to save his people. To
confess trust in God's salvation is at the same time to acknowledge
him as Yahweh, the Lord. Similarly in
(d)
Love and Law: The antagonism in modern theology between love and law goes
back at least to Schleiermacher.
[19]
Emil Brunner
[20]
and Joseph Fletcher
[21]
are among many well-known theological ethicists of our own century who
have urged an ethic of love without any absolute divine legal standards.
Surely Scripture puts love in first place as the distinguishing mark of
the Christian (John 13:35). But (modern theologians to the
contrary) in Scripture the love mandate is part of the law.
[22]
And Jesus says over and over that if we love him we will keep his
commandments (John 14:15, 21, 23f, 15:7, 10, 14; cf. I John 2:3-6, 5:2f,
II John 6).
Modern
theologians assume too readily that since love and law are not perfectly
synonymous, one must take precedence over the other in the Christian life.
They assume that the two must conflict with one another at some point. But
why should we make that assumption? Is that not a fundamentally
atheistic assumption? For if God exists, he is certainly able to create
a world in which love and law both dictate precisely the same ethic.
Such
assumptions are radically negated by the covenant model. The love command
is the first stipulation (C, 1), while what we normally think of as
"law" (C, 2) follows that first stipulation. They are together
in the body of stipulations, indicating that they are not to be considered
antagonistic toward one another. Indeed, the message we receive from the
structural arrangement is that love is the general, law the particular.
Love is that whole-souled, exclusive loyalty we owe to our Great
King, while the detailed stipulations show us the practical,
detailed outworkings of that covenant loyalty. If we love God
exclusively, then we will not worship idols, take his name in vain, etc.
The details spell out the meaning of love, rather than presenting
an alternative ethic which we may or may not wish to choose.
(e)
Redemptive Focus and Comprehensive Application: Much has been written in
recent years about the "purpose" of Scripture and how that
purpose affects the reliability, inerrancy, sufficiency of Scripture.
[23]
Many have argued that the purpose of Scripture is to present a message of
redemption and therefore not to teach us anything of interest to (e.g.)
science, history, or philosophy as such. Therefore if there are errors in
the details of biblical history, e.g., those do not affect
the reliability of Scripture which is only to give us a
redemptive message.
This
issue is also relevant to those who maintain that "redemptive
history" should be the chief or only subject-matter of biblical
preaching, as opposed to ethical principles, apologetic defenses of
biblical reliability, etc.
There
is no doubt that the covenant is redemptive in its thrust. The historical
prologue (B) is a message of redemption. It tells of God's grace in
redeeming his people from the realm of sin and death. But to proclaim the
covenant is not merely to inform people of those redemptive facts. Rather,
to proclaim the covenant is to proclaim it in toto: the message of
grace together with the obligations which constitute our
thanksgiving for grace (C), the consequences of obedience and disobedience
(D) and the institutional, social structure which God has planted
on earth (E). Further, those obligations are comprehensive: the
love commandment requires a radical re-orientation of life so that
all things are done to God's glory (Deut. 6:4f; cf. I Cor.
10:31, Rom. 14:23, Col. 3:17, 24). That includes all aspects of
life including history, science, philosophy. All human work must
be done out of faith, presupposing, embracing all that God has
told us in his word.
So
the covenant is redemptive, but not in any narrow sense; not in any sense
that forbids God to speak to us on certain subjects. Even more fundamental
to the covenant than the emphasis on redemption is the declaration of
God's Lordship (A). And that Lordship is absolutely comprehensive.
I
would offer a similar response to the related question of whether
revelation consists of "events" or of
"timeless truths" (see also (b) above). God's Lordship itself is
certainly eternal; but the application of that Lordship to our situation
is of course conditioned on our history. Our relation to God
depends on how in history we have responded to him; and
further revelation always presupposes these events. His covenant law is
a reflection of his eternal character; but it also relates
that eternal character to the concrete situation of God's people.
And although God is changeless, the specific applications of his
law do change from one situation to another.
(f)
Judgment and Blessing: Nineteenth century liberalism uniformly disparaged
the idea of divine judgment. Barth and Brunner restored the discussion of
judgment to centrality (as did, in a different way, the
consistent eschatological school of Weiss and Schweitzer and the
recent theologians of hope and liberation). But even this more
recent theology regards judgment either as a mere symbol or as an
event fully or largely overcome by grace.
We
all wonder, of course, how a God of love can send people to Hell. It is
not wrong to rethink this matter from time to time. What the covenant
structure reminds us is that God is a God of both justice and blessing and
that neither of these is to be compromised. If we do not understand
completely how grace and retribution can coexist, we must accept both on
faith, trusting that God knows better than we what is truly just and
what constitutes mercy.
(g)
God's Word and Man's Response: Much has been written about the relation
between revelation and the human response to revelation. Most theologians
since Schleiermacher have said that revelation does not exist without
human response, for only when man responds is there true communication.
Indeed, that response must be one of faith, or else the communication has not
been properly received. Since revelation according to these theologians is
nonpropositional, it is virtually defined by them as that event in which
faith is aroused.
Conservatives
have objected that in Scripture itself "revelation" is used in
various senses. Certainly there is one sense in which revelation is
inseparable from response; that is the sense in which revelation is
defined as individual illumination, as in Gal. 1:16, Eph. 1:17, Phil.
3:15, and, I believe, also in Matt. 11:25-27. However, this is not the
same sense in which "revelation" is used, e.g., in Rom. 1:18;
for there revelation is given precisely to those without faith so as to leave them without excuse. Further,
"revelation," with its apocalyptic connotations is not the only,
or the standard term used for divine-human communication in Scripture.
Much more common is the phrase "word of God" which, of course,
applies to publicly written documents as well as to divine
communication with prophets, and which never (so far as I can see) refers
to inward illumination. Even more obviously does this argument
apply to terms like "law," "statutes,"
"testimonies," etc.
The
confusions over this point are linked to the widespread ignorance and
neglect of the covenantal model. For within the covenant there is a clear
relation between divine revelation and human response. God is the author
of the covenant document and identifies himself as such (A). The history,
laws, sanctions and administrative ordinances are by his authorship. But
the covenant requires a response by
the vassals (D), and the nature of that response will lead to curse or
blessing. Further, in the ratification of the covenant, the vassal takes
an oath, agreeing to the treaty conditions (cf. Deut.
27:12-28:68). And future covenants will record the enacting of blessing
and curse sanctions as prologue to the New Covenant.
Such
is the fundamental relation, in Scripture, between divine revelation and
human response. Of course, just as the curse sanctions of the covenant are
borne by Jesus on behalf of God's elect, so the elect also receive a
special kind of revelation: a communication of the spirit eliciting faith.
All of this happens by God's grace. Thus there is more than one kind
of revelation within the covenant. The actual publication of
the covenant document is available to all who can read or hear.
But inward illumination is only for those whom God has united
to Christ by grace.
(h)
History and Eschatology: Since the time of Schweitzer and Weiss, who
argued that Jesus' message was wholly eschatological, many have sought to
understand the relation of history to eschatology in Scripture. To what
extent is Christian faith oriented toward once-for-all past events, and to
what extent is it oriented toward the future? "Future-oriented" theology
has been highly popular recently, under the names of the theology of hope
[24]
,
liberation theology
[25]
,
and in the neo-Hegelian theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg.
[26]
The earlier existential theologians, such as Rudolf Bultmann, presented
the gospel as a kind of "openness to the future," somewhat
anticipating the more recent developments.
In
the covenant structure, however, there is no hint of any tension between
concerns with past and future. Past events are the necessary conditions
for bringing the covenant into being (B). Indeed, the covenant servant of
Yahweh always looks back with thankfulness on the grace given in past
history. Yet there are also in the covenant present (C) and future (D, E)
foci. In the present, we look to God's law to know how he wants us
to live. We look forward to the outworking of God's
covenant sanctions, and we expect in the future to have continued
access to the covenant by God's own administrative arrangements.
The future focus within the covenant does not conflict with the focus on
the past. On the contrary, the past events are the foundation for God's
future working.
And
the future orientation of the covenant is not vague in the way that
Bultmann's "open future" is, or as the unspecified futures of
Moltmann and Pannenberg. God tells us, making some allowances for mystery,
what is going to happen. We can confidently look forward to God's future
in a way in which we certainly cannot look forward to Bultmann's.
(i)
Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: The covenant model cannot do
everything, and I don't think that it leads to any radically new insights
into the sovereignty/responsibility question. However, it does speak
to those theologians (especially of the "process" tradition)
who would insist that God's plans are changeable and dependent upon
man's decisions. The covenant model does, as we've seen (esp. (g) above),
put a great emphasis on man's responsibility, but also on the sovereignty
of God who identifies himself as Lord, who unilaterally establishes the
covenant morality, who declares what will happen in the future. To be
sure, the covenant sanctions (D) are dependent upon whether man responds
in obedience or disobedience. But the divine plan is fully set
in either case. God will not have to make new plans in order to
deal with some unforeseen possibility.
(j)
Nature and Scripture: Far from nature and Scripture being two competing
sources of revelation as in much theology, God appears in the covenant as
the controller of nature, the one who establishes its course. Nature
therefore behaves as the covenant document says it will. It confirms,
but never contradicts, the written covenant. And only those who
see nature through the "spectacles" (Calvin) of the covenant
document see nature aright. Thus the covenant calls the created
world ("heaven and earth") as witnesses (Deut. 4:26, 30:19,
31:28, 32:1) together with the chief witness which is the
covenant document itself (Deut. 31:14-29). Cf.Rom. 8:19-22.
We
have seen, then, many ways in which the covenant model displays the
unity-in-difference of various aspects of scriptural revelation. It is not
necessary for theology to posit disunity and then to pick and choose what
elements it prefers. Rather, to do so is to ignore or violate the basic
structural principle of the biblical genre.
3. Perspectival Relationship
A
third way in which the covenant structure shows the unity of Scripture is
by the "perspectival" relation of its elements to one another.
It
is possible to divide Scripture into various parts, each reflecting a
particular element of the covenant structure. The revelation of the Name
(A) would include passages like Ex. 3:14, 6:1ff, 33:19ff, 34:6f, Isa.
40:25ff, 41:1-4, Mal. 3:6, John 8:58, etc. The Historical Prologue (B)
would consist of the historical books of the O. T. and the Gospels of the
N. T. (But notice that categories (A) and (B) already overlap.) The Law
(C) would include the O. T. torah,
the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) and other ethical portions of
Scripture. The Sanctions (D) would include some passages in Psalms and
Proverbs and other books, particularly prophecy and
apocalyptic. Administration (E) would also be found in the Penteteuch,
in passages like Matt. 18 and the Pastoral Epistles.
But
when you think more deeply about it, the following thought occurs: One
cannot really get a full understanding of the Name of God (A) except by
understanding the totality of Scripture. The whole Bible, then, is the
revelation of the divine Name. Same for history. The full history of God's
people includes the laws God gave them, the poetic, wisdom, prophetic
and apocalyptic literature that molded their thinking. Similarly
for law; for the application of God's laws requires an
understanding of our historical circumstances. To know what God requires
of us, we must know where we are in the history of redemption. Same
for sanctions and administration.
So
the whole Bible is a revelation of God's name; it is all history; it is
all law; it is all sanctions; it is all administration. Each element of
the covenant is a way of looking at the whole Bible. Each element includes
all the others.
The
point is not that the various elements of the covenant are synonymous.
History is not synonymous with law, etc. But for us, understanding history is the same as understanding law. We cannot understand and use one part
of God's revelation adequately if we neglect others. Of course, we do
learn by bits and pieces, and the most fragmentary knowledge of God's book
is better than nothing, if it is part of a process of continuing study
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But theologians often make serious
blunders by arbitrarily chopping the Scriptures into segments and
reporting on those segments in isolation.
I
think that this "perspectival relation" of the various covenant
elements is a further testimony to the unity-in-diversity of Scripture. To
pit these elements against one another as modern theologians like to do is
to miss something very important.
This
covenantal model may suggest other "perspectival" ways of looking
at the text. For instance, consider the discussion over whether God's
revelation is "propositional truth." I would say that
"propositional truth" is one perspective on Scripture; but
Scripture also contains questions, imperatives, poetry, etc. Yet, to
understand the propositional message God gives to us, we must study the
whole Bible-- commands, questions and poetry as well. So in a sense the
whole Bible is propositional. But the whole Bible is also command (it
demands something of us), question (it solicits an answer), poetry
(it engages our deepest selves).
Conclusion
In all these sorts of ways, the covenant model helps us to view Scripture as a unity, amid the undoubted differences among its authors and books. God the three-in-one has given his revelation to us as a unity-in-diversity. Thus he manifests the unity of his speech to us ("I am the Lord") in all its manifold applications. Truly the word of God is rich. If it is simple enough for little children, it also contains depths challenging to the brightest scholars. And for all believers it sets forth a reliable, clear, unified expression of our sovereign God._