1 Introduction
The research group behind the present congress volume on the covenant, Biblical Exegesis and Systematic Theology (BEST), invests much energy in reflection on the interface between the two disciplines of biblical exegesis and systematic theology. In earlier times, exegesis liberated itself from dogmatic shackles and developed distinct methods in a specific domain. In recent decades, however, the perceived distance between exegesis and systematic theology has diminished, exemplified by canonical approaches and theological interpretations of scripture.1 For BEST, the obvious presupposition is that exegesis and systematic theology can be on speaking terms, or at least within hearing distance, and that exegetes can learn from the work of systematic theologians as well as the other way around.
Particularly in the field of covenant theology, the focus on the interface between exegesis and systematic theology is helpful, since ‘covenant’ is both a typically biblical notion, and a characteristic theologoumenon for the Protestant tradition, and it is useful to make a connection between these two aspects and approaches. This does not mean that covenant theology can, or should, be merely based on exegetical considerations without taking context into account. From the outset of covenant theology in Switzerland, contextual factors have stamped the theologoumenon. The very coinage of the Reformed idea of ‘covenant’ cannot be isolated from Swiss theologians’ familiarity with the Swiss federation or Eidgenossenschaft, in which covenant or Bund was a central idea, and which provided a heuristic framework for God’s covenant with humans.2 Other instances of contextually driven discussions of the covenant include the debate between Voetius and Coccejus,3 and Karl Barth’s dialectic statements that the covenant is the inner basis of creation and creation is the external basis of the covenant.4 For the present time, the rapprochement between biblical studies and systematic theology is an additional reason to recalibrate covenant theology in the light of the present state of biblical studies on the covenant.
The present essay focuses on three contributions from biblical perspectives concerning covenant theology, in Anglo-Saxon contexts, namely by the Reformed Michael S. Horton, the Roman-Catholic (formerly Calvinist) Scott W. Hahn, and the Anglican N.T. Wright. These contributions are discussed with three alleged weak points of traditional Reformed accounts of covenant theology in mind. These weak points are in fact criticisms of Reformed covenant theology that arise from a distinctly trinitarian theological approach. Before highlighting the three criticisms, it is useful to sketch the trinitarian theological approach that forms their background.
In the so-called renaissance of trinitarian theology, the Western theological tradition has been accused of erasing the distinction between the Persons of the Godhead, thus making the Trinity an abstract and impractical doctrine.5 A major objection against much of traditional theology is that it designed most theological loci without taking God’s triune being into account. In the doctrine of God, for instance, God’s unity was discussed before his triunity, as if God could be known without knowledge of his triune existence. Meanwhile, this trinitarian renaissance is also a call to a more concrete, biblical, historical account of the Trinity, by emphasizing the economic Trinity, and identifying the economic and the immanent Trinity.6 While the so-called renaissance of trinitarian theology is somewhat on the wane, and some of its critiques of earlier Western theologies, particularly that of Augustine, have proven overstated,7 the emphases on relational ontology, the economic Trinity, and the practical relevance of the doctrine of the Trinity remain worthwhile.8
A first seemingly weak point in Reformed covenant theology, from the perspective of the renaissance of trinitarian theology, is that it insufficiently connects Trinity and history, particularly the history of redemption. Rather, in abstraction from salvation history, the Trinity is related to an eternal, that is: extra-temporal, covenant: the so-called pactum salutis, or covenant of redemption.9 In this pactum, it is decided that humans will be saved, how they will be saved and who will be saved.10 The issue how people will be saved is answered by the willingness of the Son to take upon himself the burden of becoming human in order to save humans, of being the mediator. The issue who shall be saved concerns election, and reprobation. So, there is a divine counsel, or covenant of the three divine persons: a trinitarian covenant. Three aspects are problematic from a trinitarian point of view, however. First, the pactum per definition has its place outside of time, in God’s eternity. Although it drives the economy of salvation, including the covenant of grace, this trinitarian covenant is kept apart from history. Second, the covenant of redemption is a speculative idea that has insufficient biblical warrant. Traditional Reformed theologians refer to Zechariah 6: 13, Psalms 2: 7 and 110, which together only account for a small portion of the idea of the pactum salutis, and particularly the exegesis of Zechariah 6: 13 is weak.11 Third, the pactum is not a covenant in the proper sense because the relation between the three persons of the godhead is a necessary one. If the pactum brought the three together while they were apart before, this would imply tritheism. The difference between the pactum and other covenants is expressed by the use of a different Latin term: pactum instead of foedus. So it seems that the covenant is either trinitarian and extra-temporal (the pactum salutis), or temporal but insufficiently trinitarian (the covenant of grace)—at least, that is the question. For present purposes there is no need to discuss the legitimacy of the idea of pactum salutis, but a possible weak point of Reformed covenant theology has been identified: the connection between covenant, Trinity, and history.12 This will be used a criterion in the discussion of the three theologies of the covenant below.
A second impetus to recalibrate covenant theology comes from the possible problems between covenant and eschatology in Reformed theology. The Dutch Reformed theologian Bram van de Beek, for instance, has criticized the Reformed tradition for binding baptism and covenant together, which he regards as unbiblical, while disconnecting baptism from eschatology, which is also unbiblical. Thus, baptism became part of a bourgeois theology which lost the eschatological tension that is essential to the New Testament kerygma and turned baptism into a formal membership of a national church.13 Van de Beek emphasizes the fact that baptism means that one partakes in the eschatological reality of the Kingdom, and that the covenant, expressed in the Lord’s Supper, also has eschatological significance.14 Although Van de Beek’s eschatology has been criticized for absorbing the interim between the first and second coming of Christ,15 he rightly notes the eschatological challenge for covenant theology. Additionally, from the perspectives of trinitarian theology and of biblical theology, this is a very relevant point: the renaissance of trinitarian theology went hand in hand with a renewal of eschatological theology. Whereas at the beginning of the twentieth century, Ernst Troeltsch could still write that the eschatological office was mostly closed, Hans Urs von Balthasar replied in 1957 that this office was working overtime.16 This was largely due to the same movements that sparked trinitarian theology, most notably Karl Barth’s theology. Where the demand for a thoroughly trinitarian understanding of theology was heard, its corollary was an eschatological understanding. Both the Trinity and eschatology shape the way reality is understood theologically. So, the second point of attention in the following discussion is the eschatological character of covenant theology.
Third, it is important that a theological account of the covenant gives Israel its proper place. Without this, a doctrine of the covenant removes itself from the concreteness of the Old Testament. For the earliest Reformed theologians, most notably Calvin, it was important to esteem the Old Testament in its concrete and Israelite nature.17 The axis of John Calvin’s covenant theology, for instance, is the unity of the covenant: the Old and New Testament are basically one because of the single mediator Jesus Christ.18 Reformed theologians have not always upheld the importance of Israel, although it did play a role in chiliastic, apocalyptic images and imaginations in seventeenth and eighteenth century Reformed circles.19 But in light of the biblical data, any theology of the covenant should reckon with Israel; the presence and place of Israel thus is a litmus test for the biblical character of any doctrine of the covenant.20
In the present contribution, these three points (trinitarian economy, eschatology, Israel) are used as touch-points with the respective theologies of Michael S. Horton, Scott W. Hahn, and N.T. Wright, to assess their respective strengths and weaknesses, and vice versa: to learn from these theologians how a doctrine of the covenant can be corrected, and improved, by fresh biblical insights. The intention of the present essay is to integrate biblical-theological insights into the doctrine of the covenant, particularly when these insights can serve to state the trinitarian nature of the doctrine of the covenant. The hypothesis of the present essay is that a reorientation of covenant theology to the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments will help to strengthen the trinitarian nature of this doctrine.
Before moving forward to the discussion of the three contributions, it is useful to provide a working definition of both ‘covenant’ and ‘trinitarian.’21 A covenant is a formal regulation of the relation between God and His people, and to call a theologoumenon ‘trinitarian’ means that the reality of God’s triunity, His being Father, Son and Holy Spirit, decisively stamps its content and character.
2 Michael S. Horton
Michael S. Horton, Professor of theology and apologetics at Westminster Seminary California, is a prolific author, particularly on the covenant. He published a four-volume series of monographs “exploring the potential of covenant theology for a renewal of theology that is conscious of its biblical-theological context and horizon.”22 For Horton, the covenantal structure of reality serves as “a hermeneutical guide” in systematic theology.23 Systematic theology itself, according to Horton, should resort to scripture as guide: “At its best, systematic theology never imposes a system on Scripture but seeks instead to draw out the main teaching of Scripture from Scripture itself.”24 Horton claims to seek a biblical and a trinitarian understanding of covenant theology. The question is whether he succeeds and where this leads him.
Building on the earlier research of biblical scholars George E. Mendenhall and Meredith G. Kline, Horton makes a sharp distinction between two sorts of covenants, and thus two series of covenants within the Old and New Testament.25 The first type of covenant bears the traits of a traditional suzerainty pact, in which a greater party (suzerain) obligates the vassal “to serve faithfully and in which blessings or curses are held out as recompense.”26 This kind of treaty includes the structure of a preamble, historical prologue, stipulations, sanctions, and deposit of the treaty. Horton identifies this type in the Sinai covenant, which presents a large number of laws as conditions Israel needs to meet in order to stay in the covenant relationship with Yahweh. The Sinaitic pact is not the first covenant of this type, however. Horton and others interpret the Sinai covenant as a “republication” of the covenant of works, the covenant between God and Adam, made before the Fall.27 It is noteworthy that the Bible itself does not refer to this relation as a covenant (berit), but the presupposition leading many in the Reformed tradition to label this a covenant of works is that God always relates to humans in a covenantal way.28 In this context, ‘covenant’ is loosely defined as the ordering of the relation between the creator and his creation. Moreover, theological reflection identified characteristics of the relation between God and Adam that could be interpreted as covenantal. Leaving the discussion of the legitimacy of the theologoumenon of the covenant of works aside, it must be noted that for Horton this suzerainty type of covenant is in fact a covenant of the law, in distinction from a covenant of grace. This covenant of the law is conditional, provisional, typological, and pedagogical, meant to regulate Israel’s behavior, waiting for the coming of Jesus Christ. This covenant of the law consists of the laws given at Sinai, which obviously belong to the national heritage of Israel. So, the historical Israel belongs to this covenant of the law.
The other type of covenant is that of a royal grant. Unlike the suzerainty type, this type is unconditional, and characterized not by obligations that need to be met, but by promises that will be kept by the royal who has made them. On the other hand, it calls for “genuine partnership and future obedience as the reasonable response.”29 Horton identifies this royal grant type of covenant in all other covenants in the Old Testament: the covenants made with Noah, Abraham, and David. “We could even include the promise made to Adam after the fall—the so-called protoeuangelion, as a type of royal grant treaty.”30 So, while the Sinai covenant is a covenant of the law, the other covenants are covenants of the Gospel. Horton draws a sharp contrast:
Even in Deuteronomy the provisional character of the covenant of law (Sinai) is apparent. Even there, before the people have violated the terms of the treaty, the real hope that transcends national destiny in a typological land is anchored in the Abrahamic promise.31
Horton states that the apostle Paul regarded the old covenant (the Sinaitic pact) as obsolete, since it was no more than a “scaffolding for the building of the true and everlasting temple.”32 Therefore, Israel as a national entity in league with God was a passing phenomenon and its theocratic status revoked, and no promises of land or other earthly blessings apply any more for Israel.33 In this vein, Horton interprets the opposition of Hagar and Sarah in Galatians 4 as referring to the distinction between law and Gospel, Sinai and Abraham, conditional stipulations and unconditional promises.34 It should be noted that ‘law’ and ‘promise’ do not distinguish between the Old and New Testaments, but “characterize two different kinds of covenants that obtain within the same history.”35 Even under the Old Testament, believers were dependent upon Yahweh’s promise to Abraham, while they could not keep the requirements of the Sinai covenant: “The Mosaic legal tradition could hardly have been any more attractive to Solomon than it was to Paul.”36
Horton sides with the Protestant Reformation, particularly Martin Luther, in stressing that salvation can only be received by grace through Christ, not obtained by keeping the law as much as one can.
So just as in Galatians, the point is pressed that those who seek to obtain the blessing and avoid the curse by their personal obedience (i.e., the Sinai covenant) are already condemned, while those who seek that blessing by inheritance in Christ alone (i.e., the Abrahamic covenant) are the true heirs according to the promise.37
It is no surprise to note that Horton is a staunch opponent of the New Perspective on Paul;38 he thinks that Paul’s opponents were legalistic indeed, not because they misunderstood the law, but because they did not understand the difference between the slave and the free person, and lived according to the covenant of works, republished at Sinai.
What does this have to do with the trinitarian character (if any) of covenant theology? It is important for the present argument to note that Horton does not establish a connection between the Trinity and the covenant, except in the pactum salutis (covenant of redemption), which Horton pictures as a direct consequence of the doctrines of the Trinity and of unconditional election.39 One could ask how the pactum salutis fits in the scheme of suzerainty treaties on the one hand, and royal grants on the other. In fact, it does not fit the definition of ‘covenant.’ Horton notes that it does not, but he still underlines its importance in its own right.40
There are three problems with Horton’s approach that relate to the lack of trinitarian reflection on the covenant. First, the concrete Israel becomes irrelevant. It has been important once in a typological sense, and its theocracy has served a temporary function,41 but under the conditions of the New Testament, the Sinai covenant and the people of Israel have become obsolete in Horton’s view. As could be expected (see the introduction above), this results in spiritualization.42 There is an essential connection between the concrete Israel and the economic Trinity: the unity of the Old and New Testaments means that God really engaged Himself in the concreteness of Israel’s theocracy. When one loses sight of Israel, one misses the concrete, historical character of the covenant, and the practical character of the doctrine of the Trinity. Horton misses these points. Second, Horton overlooks the gracious character of the Sinai covenant: although it is the law, it is the same God, the God of Israel, who deals with Israel in the way of His promises. Even when God gives his laws, this is a matter of grace: “What other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?” (Deut. 4: 8). Third, Horton employs dichotomies that are not themselves biblical, such as unconditional-conditional, collective-individual, as if their legitimacy are elevated above discussion, which they are not. The dichotomy between collective and individual, for instance, is indicative of present day post-Enlightenment philosophy rather than characteristic for the times of the Bible. The distinction between conditional and unconditional promises introduces a category to distinguish between absolute and relative promises that is alien to the biblical character of promise itself. Also, the distinction between law and gospel governs the way Horton reads the Bible, but the form in which Horton employs this distinction is itself insufficiently biblically warranted.
All in all, Horton does pay attention to the economy of salvation, but he shows no awareness of the problems related to the pactum salutis and, more importantly, he downplays the importance of Israel. It is unclear whether his view on the covenant is sufficiently eschatological, but this is doubtful since he overlooks the eschatological character of God’s promises by introducing the conditional-unconditional distinction.43
3 Scott W. Hahn
Scott W. Hahn is a former Calvinist who converted to Roman Catholicism, and who teaches at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio.44 His magnum opus is a monograph on the covenant, which he has been working on for decades: Kinship by Covenant.45 Like Michael Horton, he distinguishes between treaty-type covenants in the Old Testament, particularly Deuteronomy, and grant-type covenants, which include almost all Old Testament covenants, such as the covenants with Noah, Abraham, Leviticus, and the Davidic covenant. Hahn identifies a third type of covenant, however, which counts for him as the first, because it would form the root of the other two: the kinship covenant, in which existing family relations are confirmed or outsiders who were potentially at enmity are drawn into the family circle. Notably, Hahn regards exactly the Sinai covenant as such a kinship covenant. “The climactic scene in which Israel’s elders draw near and eat a meal with ‘the God of Israel’ ([Exod.] 24:9–11) vividly conveys the newly-formed covenant communion and family fellowship.”46
Like Horton, Hahn evaluates the treaty-type covenant, which he sees primarily in Deuteronomy, in a more negative way than the grant type.47 In Hahn’s opinion, Deuteronomy serves as “a kind of constitutional charter for Israel’s national polity,”48 in which “Yahweh becomes more remote as a mediating bureaucracy is inserted between Him and His people.”49 This bureaucracy is the Levitical priesthood. Deuteronomy shows “less intimacy, greater severity, and a degraded level of cultic purity,” when compared to Levicitus.50 Thus, Israel became subjected, albeit temporarily, to vassalage under the suzerain, although kinship language still remained.51 Deuteronomy serves a negative function, because it anticipates Israel’s disobedience by invoking covenant curses, painting “a very unflattering portrait of Israel: they are as hard-hearted as the surrounding nations.”52
However negative the treaty-type covenant is when compared to the other types, all three types are united by kinship language. Hahn defines ‘covenant’ as “a kinship bond established by oath.”53 The familial relation between father and son is characteristic for every kind of covenant, according to Hahn.54 So, while Hahn also bases his approach of biblical covenants on Meredith Klines’ theory, he comes to completely different conclusions than Michael Horton: he emphasizes the agreements between the various types of covenants, and between the Old and New Testament.55 Hahn clearly does not support the republication thesis.
Methodologically, Hahn takes a synchronic approach, combining narrative analysis and canonical criticism, instead of traditional diachonic, historical-critical methods. The result of this approach is a tendency to harmonize the various voices in the Bible, subsuming a broad variety of biblical covenants under the kinship language of father and son. Meanwhile, Hahn denies that older theological categories, such as some of the dichotomies applied by Horton, are still valid.56 The oppositions of bilateral versus unilateral, conditional versus unconditional, and the focus on legal and judicial categories have become obsolete. Instead, Christ’s work should be understood
in light of its function to fulfill the terms of a filial bond established by covenant oath between God and his people, the ultimate goal of which was the restoration of the filial relationship with all humanity. Thus, the atonement is ordered to kinship by covenant.57
The link between kinship language and the Trinity is obvious, although Hahn refers to the Trinity only briefly and obliquely. He hints at some questions for trinitarian theology:
The theology of the Trinity may be enriched by recognition of the prominence of the covenantal father-son relationship between God and Israel, and ultimately between God and Adam (humanity). How does one theologically describe the correspondence between this father-son relationship and the Father-Son relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity? Since the various filial relationships between God and humanity were established through covenants sealed by oath, one may also investigate whether oaths and covenants are merely conventions of human society, or if they reflect a deeper reality present within the Triune Godhead.58
As for the latter question concerning oaths, it is relatively easy to connect this swearing of oaths in covenantal contexts with the traditional notion of the pactum salutis. Whereas the traditional proof texting of the doctrine of the pactum salutis was somewhat deficient, as argued above, this approach could provide a more thorough biblical basis to the rather speculative theological idea of the covenant of redemption.
The familial language of the father-son relationship is both more essential to the covenant and obviously closer to trinitarian language than the idea of a covenant as an agreement between two parties in a market or in a judicial context. But as Scott Hahn notes, the question remains as to how covenantal language relates to God himself as Father and Son. Here, Hahn’s ideas can be supplemented by relational trinitarianism. Since God himself exists in communion, in the relation between the Father and the Son through the Spirit, and relationality is no accidental property but is the primary ontological category, it is consistent with God’s relational nature that the triune God is the one who extends himself in relation to humans. While the relation between the Father and the Son remains unique and incomparable to any relation in the world, the relationality implied in the underlying theological ontology provides a point of contact—not in the sense of simple analogy, but in the sense of an analogia fidei or analogia adventus: the reality of the connection between the relation between Father, Son, and Spirit on the one hand, and our relationality lies in God’s gracious act of revelation in history on the other. The analogy only exists in eschatological perspective.59
Hahn correctly notes an essential connection between the Old and New Testaments in the father-son language and imagery, although he only hints at their relevance for trinitarian theology in the final pages of his book without discussing it more extensively. Still, Hahn overstates the unity of the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament it is emphasized time and again that the son of God is human, not divine.60 As a consequence of his approach by way of narrative analysis, Hahn does not pay attention to the fact that in the Umwelt, it was customary to regard the king as semi-divine, and to express this in terms of sonship.61 The Old Testament, however, emphasizes the human nature of David, the person who comes closest to be the son of God. In the history of the redaction of the Old Testament, there are two opposed movements. On the one hand, the final redaction of the Psalter downplays the idea that David does similar things as the living God, emphasizing his merely human character and God’s supreme power.62 On the other hand, the book of Daniel presents a “son of man” that is clothed in semi-divine language.63
Hahn’s lack of attention to developments within the Old Testament, the history of religions and the Umwelt renders his picture of the covenantal aspects of the Bible too smoothly harmonized. While Hahn does note the various types of covenant, he could have taken developments in the history of redemption more into account. Hahn rightly notes the importance of the Lord’s Supper in Luke’s Gospel as a meal that confirms the covenantal bond between God and his people, including the fact that this is a “new” covenant,64 but he neither discusses its background in Jeremiah 31 nor the nature of the eschatological newness of the new covenant. Once again, Hahn only notes continuity: “In fact, the new covenant is not a complete novum, it is the renewal of the Davidic covenant.”65 It is also in continuity with the Passover meal from the Mosaic covenant, and coheres with the promise of sitting on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.66 This may or may not be correct, but Hahn does not highlight the uniqueness of Jesus’ sonship as the suffering one. This is no mere triviality, either for covenant theology, or for the doctrine of the Trinity. The nature of the relation between the Father and the Son is shown particularly in the cross and resurrection, and the eucharistic community is not merely defined by the resurrection, but primarily by the suffering and crucified Christ whose blood is an atoning sacrifice.
In conclusion, there are two sides to Hahn’s contribution to covenant theology. On one hand, Hahn convincingly argues for the centrality of the father-son imagery in the Old and New Testament, and he rightly seeks a connection between this imagery and the doctrine of the Trinity. This helps to recalibrate covenant theology from biblical and trinitarian perspectives. On the other hand, however, Hahn pays insufficient attention to the progress in the history of salvation, and the specific nature of the trinitarian relation between Father and Son. Because of Hahn’s emphasis on continuity, the specific role of Israel and the eschatological tension of the covenant remain underexposed.
4 N.T. Wright
The Anglican theologian and former bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright, is not only famous for his popular books on the theology and the letters of the apostle Paul, but primarily for his contributions to the New Perspective on Paul. In his voluminous work Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Wright characterizes Paul’s theology in terms of a triple renewal of Israel’s theology: (1) monotheism, “The One God of Israel, Freshly Revealed.”67 Paul expands the classical confession of Yahweh’s unity and uniqueness, the Shema (Deut. 6: 4), to include Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8: 6), and he pictures the Holy Spirit as the new shekinah and as involved in the new exodus. (2) Election, “The People of God, Freshly Reworked.”68 Through the idea of Israel’s Messiah as the focus of election, who incorporates the people of God, Paul reinterprets the election of Israel and the covenant made with Israel. (3) Eschatology, “God’s Future for the World, Freshly Imagined.”69 Paul redefines the hope of Israel as being realized through Jesus as the coming King and the Spirit as the gift of the one who comes. This eschatological era is inaugurated yet incomplete. These three themes fit the subject of this paper well, since the first and third are obviously related to trinitarian theology, while the second covers the theme of the covenant, which in the Old Testament clearly converges with the election of Israel.
In comparison to Scott Hahn, Wright’s approach may sound similar because he also emphasizes the Bible’s narrative character, but whereas Hahn limits himself to an analysis of the biblical texts, Wright is also—even primarily—interested in the progress of covenantal history. Wright pictures history in five stages, which function like the acts of a play. The first four are: (1) creation, (2) fall, (3) Israel, and (4) Jesus. In the fifth act, the act of the church, it is the turn of present-day believers to push the development of the previous acts forward. Thus, the picture of five acts serves a hermeneutical function for the self-understanding of the Christian church. This comes with a new understanding of authority, and of the nature of the covenant:
Part of the initial task of the actors chosen to improvise the new final act will be to immerse themselves with full sympathy in the first four acts, but not so as merely to parrot what had already been said. They cannot go and look up the right answers. Nor can they simply imitate the kinds of things that their particular character did in the early acts. A good fifth act will show a proper final development, not merely a repetition, of what went before. Nevertheless, there will be a rightness, a fittingness, about certain actions and speeches, about certain final moves in the drama, which will in one sense be self-authenticating, and in another gain authentication from their coherence with, their making sense of, the ‘authoritative’ previous text.70
Thus, the trinitarian movement in the covenantal process starts from the work of the Father in creation, through the work of the Son as the one righteous Israelite, the Messiah, to the work of the Holy Spirit, who inspires believers to live their lives in a way that is faithful to the previous covenant history.
For those who fear—like Bram van de Beek, quoted in the introduction—that covenant theology equals bourgeois theology and drains away all of the eschatological tensions, Wright demonstrates the exact opposite: his theology of the covenant is thoroughly eschatological, and his eschatology is covenantal. Of course, it may still be the case that in specific historical contexts the eschatological nature of covenant theology was neglected, but Wright offers a specimen of biblical theology in which covenant and eschatology are kept together.
Also, there can be no doubt that when the covenant is discussed, Israel is important. For Wright, Israel is less a passing phase in the history of salvation than it is for Michael Horton, but it belongs to the progress of God’s covenant that it is expanded to include gentiles after the single righteous Israelite Jesus Christ has risen from the dead. The Messiah became a curse for us, “so that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles.”71 This was necessary because Israel had proven to be unfaithful.
The problem is that the law looked as if it would prevent the Abrahamic promises from getting out to the nations, and thus prevent the single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world from coming to pass. This is exactly the point Paul summarizes in Romans 3:3: Israel, entrusted with the oracles of God, proved unfaithful to the commission (despite the boast of Romans 2:17–20). […] Paul sees the entire history of Israel since Moses as the outworking of these great promises and warnings. In particular, he understands the long period since the geographical exile as the continuation of the period of the “curse.” If Israel were to stay under that curse forever—as appeared inevitable, granted that nobody in Israel did in fact abide by everything written in the Torah—then the promises would never be released to the wider world, and Israel itself would never be renewed.72
So, with respect to all three aspects addressed in the introduction, Wright takes a step forward: first, with respect to the connection between Trinity, covenant, and the economy of salvation; second, in the eschatological character of the covenant; third, in the place of Israel. Wright’s model is more trinitarian than Horton’s, and more eschatological than Hahn’s. Gentiles share in the salvation that the God of Israel brings in Jesus Christ, the King of Israel and of the world, through the eschatological spirit. There is a development in which the coming of the Messiah forms the climax of the covenantal history, so that Wright’s understanding of the Trinity is completely intertwined with his understanding of the history of salvation.
Still, the second and third aspects, eschatology and Israel, are kept too separate. Although Israel is not as much a passing phase for Wright as it is for Horton, his five stage hermeneutics still seems to limit the function of Israel to the past.73 Wright does not keep Israel and eschatology together: for the church of the present day, eschatology remains instead of Israel. Israel, the previous act of the play, plays a subordinate role, in memory.
5 Evaluation
The present brief discussion of three contemporary contributions to covenant theology obviously does not warrant a comprehensive conclusion concerning covenant theology. Still, some conclusions can be drawn and observations made.
As to conclusions, Michael Horton’s contribution is particularly strong in picturing the covenant as an overarching principle of history, although the republication thesis is not convincing. Horton focuses on the economic Trinity, but does not take Israel into sufficient account. Scott Hahn has provided ample biblical material for the renewal of covenant theology from the perspective of father-son language, although his approach lacks attention to history, eschatology, and Israel. N.T. Wright provides an approach to the covenant that, at first sight, meets all three questions formulated in the introduction: the connection of Trinity and economy, eschatology, and Israel. His five stage hermeneutic threatens the latter, however.
Based on this overview, the following observations can be made.
First, it should be noted that when the Trinity is primarily understood in economic terms, Trinity, eschatology and covenant/election form a unified whole. This is in accordance with the fundamental renewal Paul brought to covenant theology: the confession that Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of man both takes the place of Israel as covenant partner and places himself on the side of God by identifying himself with the Father. This claim is vindicated in his resurrection. Here, the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the covenant genuinely and intimately cohere.
Second, with respect to the warnings by Van de Beek that the doctrine of the covenant should not result in a tensionless bourgeois theology there is an ample possibility to recalibrate covenant theology from a biblical theology of the Old and New Testaments. N.T. Wright offers a fine example of keeping covenant and eschatology closely together. Biblically, the covenant is characterized by promise, which is an eschatological category. Of course, this immediately calls into question the character of the ‘covenant of works’ and the ‘covenant of redemption’ as true covenants. The Bible does not call these covenants, nor do they bear the promised character of the covenant of grace. While there are valid theological concerns underlying these theologoumena, it is doubtful whether these can be labeled as covenants.74
Third, the covenant needs to be discussed as the history of the covenant. Although Scott Hahn has written an impressive book on the covenant, its canonical approach and narrative analysis lack the accent on history that is vital for covenant theology. N.T. Wright provides a historical picture, although his five act hermeneutic leads to an underestimation of Israel, and possibly of the authoritative nature of the text. Within the history of the covenant, the Christ event is central: it shows both continuity (emphasized by Hahn and others) and discontinuity, as the new covenant in Jeremiah 31 is both a renewal of the existing covenant and a new covenant. In short, the covenant needs to be discussed in the light of eschatology: by way of his promises, God opens ever new avenues for his people to lead them onward.
Fourth, a positive relation between covenant and baptism is possible. Although Van de Beek states that the connection between the covenant with Israel and baptism is not biblical, the previous discussion makes it not difficult to see why the two are in fact essentially connected: because of Christ. The new covenant inaugurated by Christ comes with a new definition of the people of God, in which earlier identity markers as works of the law become as much of a burden as they may have seemed an advantage.75 The new sign of the new covenant is a sign that implies the union with Christ, who is an incorporative Messiah. Thus, baptism is in fact highly eschatologically laden, because it is a sign of the unity with Christ’s death and resurrection, also in the age to come. All this may well be the implication of Paul’s famous statement on baptism as “a circumcision not performed by human hands.”76
All in all, earlier criticisms of Reformed covenant theology can be countered by biblical resourcing and thoroughly trinitarian theology. Thus, covenant theology need not be speculative, bourgeois or a replacement theology that eclipses Israel. Rather, covenant theology as trinitarian theology stays close to the authoritative biblical history, is eschatological in nature, in ongoing solidarity and unity with Israel.
Bibliography
Asselt, W.J. van, ed. Een richtingenstrijd in de Gereformeerde Kerk: Voetianen en Coccejanen, 1650–1750 [A struggle in the Reformed Church: Voetians and Cocceians 1650–1750]. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1994.
Baker, J. Wayne. Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1980.
Balthasar, Hans Urs von. “Eschatologie.” In Fragen der Theologie heute, edited by Johannes Feiner, Josef Trütsch, and Franz Böckle, 403–421. Zürich: Benziger, 1957.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. 4 vols. Edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936-1977.
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 3, Sin, Salvation in Christ, edited by John Bolt. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006.
Beek, A. van de. God doet recht. Eschatologie als christologie [God does justice: Eschatology as Christology]. Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2008.
Berkhof, Hendrikus. Christelijk geloof: Een inleiding tot de geloofsleer [The Christian faith: An introduction to the study of the faith]. 2nd ed. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1973.
Bowald, Mark Alan. “The Character of Theological Interpretation of Scripture.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 12 (2010): 162–183.
Brink, Gijsbert van den. “Social Trinitarianism: A Discussion of Some Recent Theological Criticisms.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 16 (2014): 331–350.
Büsser, Fritz. Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1574): Leben, Werk und Wirkung. 2 vols. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004.
Calvin, John. Institutionis Christianae religionis 1559 libros I et II continens. Vol. 3 of Joannis Calvini Opera Selecta, edited by Petrus Barth and Guilelmus Niesel. München: Kaiser, 1928.
Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1979.
Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Minneapolis: Fortress: 1992.
Collins, Adela Yarbro, and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.
Collins, John J. Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
Cross, Richard. “Quid Tres? On What Precisely Augustine Professes Not to Understand in De Trinitate 5 and 7.” Harvard Theological Review 100 (2007): 215–232.
Dunn, James D.G. “The New Perspective on Paul.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 65 (1983): 95–122.
Dunn, James D.G. Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians. London: SPCK, 1990.
Elam, Andrew M., Robert C. Van Kooten, and Randall A. Bergquist. Merit and Moses: A Critique of the Klinean Doctrine of Republication. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2014.
Elderen, R.J. van. Toekomst voor Israël: Een theologie-historisch onderzoek naar de visie op de bekering der Joden en de toekomst van Israël bij Engelse protestanten in de periode 1547–1620, tegen de achtergrond van hun eschatologie [Future for Israel: A theological-historical investigation into the view on the conversion of Jews and the future of Israel held by English Protestants from 1547 till 1620, against the background of their eschatology]. Kampen: Mondiss, 1992.
Estelle, Bryan D., J.V. Fesko, and David VanDrunen, eds. The Law is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009.
Fesko, John V. The Covenant of Redemption: Origins, Development, and Reception. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016.
Fesko, John V. The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption. Fearn: Mentor, 2016.
Green, Bradley. Colin Gunton and The Failure of Augustine: The Theology of Colin Gunton in Light of Augustine. Cambridge: James Clark, 2012.
Gunton, Colin E. “Augustine, the Trinity and the Theological Crisis of the West.” In The Promise of Trinitarian Theology, 30–55. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997.
Hahn, Scott W. and Kimberly Hahn. Rome Sweet Rome: Our Journey to Catholicism. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993.
Hahn, Scott W. Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises. AYBRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.
Hengel, Martin. The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish- Hellenistic Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976.
Heppe, Heinrich. Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-reformierten Kirche. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1958.
Hertog, Gerard C. den. “Ascetism Only, or Ethics as Well? Oepke Noordmans’ View of Eschatological Ascetism and Ethics as a Challenge for Bram van de Beek.” In Strangers and Pilgrims on Earth: Essays in Honour of Abraham van de Beek, edited by Eddy van der Borght and Paul van Geest, SRTh 22, 381–395. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Hof, W.J. op ’t. De visie op de joden in de Nadere Reformatie, tijdens het eerste kwart van de zeventiende eeuw [The Dutch Second Reformation’s view on Jews during the first quarter of the seventeenth century]. Amsterdam: Bolland, 1984.
Horton, Michael S. Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002.
Horton, Michael S. Lord and Servant: A Covenant Christology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005.
Horton, Michael S. God of Promise: Introducting Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006.
Horton, Michael S. Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007.
Horton, Michael S. People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008.
Horton, Michael S. “Kingdom of God.” In Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic, edited by Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain, 363–391. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016.
Horton, Michael S. “The Church.” In Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic, edited by Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain, 311–338. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016.
Jüngel, Eberhard. Gott als Geheimnis der Welt: Zur Begründung der Theologie des Gekreuzigten im Streit zwischen Theismus und Atheismus. 3rd edition. Tübingen: Mohr, 1978.
Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. “The Trajectories of the Contemporary ‘Trinitarian Renaissance’ in Different Contexts.” Journal of Reformed Theology 3 (2009): 7–21.
Kline, Meredith G. Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.
Kline, Meredith G. By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and Baptism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.
Kooi, Cornelis van der and Gijsbert van den Brink. Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.
Lee, Brian J. Johannes Coccejus and the Roots of Federal Theology: Reformation Developments in the Interpretation of Hebrews 7–10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009.
Meeuse, C.J. De toekomstverwachting van de Nadere Reformatie in het licht van haar tijd: Een onderzoek naar de verhouding tussen het zeventiende-eeuwse chiliasme en de toekomstverwachting van de Nadere Reformatie, met name bij Jacobus Koelman [The expectations for the future of the Dutch Second Reformation in the light of its time: An investigation of the relationship between seventeenth-century chiliasm and the expectations for the future of the Dutch Second Reformation, especially in Jacobus Koelman]. Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan, 1990.
Mendenhall, George E. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: The Biblical Colloquium, 1955.
Miskotte, K.H. Als de goden zwijgen: Over de zin van het Oude Testament [When the gods are silent: On the meaning of the Old Testament]. Amsterdam: Holland, 1956.
Rahner, Karl. “Der dreifaltige Gott als transzendenter Urgrund der Heilsgeschichte.” In Mysterium Salutis II, edited by Johannes Feiner and Magnus Löhrer, 317–397. Eindsiedeln: Benziger, 1967.
Ruler, A.A. van. Die christliche Kirche und das Alte Testament. München: Kaiser, 1955.
Sanders, E.P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.
Schwöbel, Christoph. “The Renaissance of Trinitarian Theology: Reasons, Problems and Tasks.” In Trinitarian Theology Today, edited by Christoph Schwöbel, 1–30. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995.
Spieckermann, Hermann. “Macht und Ohnmacht: die theologische Dimension der Vater-Sohn-Relation im Alten Testament.” In Was ist der Mensch, dass du seiner gedenkst? (Psalm 8,5): Aspekte einer theologischen Anthropologie, edited by Michaela Bauks, Kathrin Liess, and Peter Riede, 503–513. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008.
Troeltsch, Ernst. Glaubenslehre: Nach Heidelberger Vorlesungen aus den Jahren 1911 und 1912. München: Ducker & Humblot, 1925.
Wilson, Gerald H. “King, Messiah, and the Reign of God: Revisiting the Royal Psalms and the Shape of the Psalter.” In The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, edited by Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller Jr., VTSup 99, 391–406. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Wolf, Hans Heinrich. Die Einheit des Bundes: Das Verhältnis von Altem und Neuem Testament bei Calvin. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1958.
Wright, N.T. The New Testament and the People of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 1. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Wright, N.T. Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009.
Wright, N.T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. 2 vols. Christian Origins and the Question of God 4. London: SPCK, 2013.
Zehnder, Markus. “Why the Danielic ‘Son of Man’ Is a Divine Being.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 24 (2014), 331–347.
The term ‘canonical approach’ characterizes the work of Brevard S. Childs. See his Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1979) and Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Minneapolis: Fortress: 1992). ‘Theological Interpretation of Scripture’ is a many-faceted, diverse movement; see e.g. Mark Alan Bowald, “The Character of Theological Interpretation of Scripture,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 12 (2010): 162–83.
See Fritz Büsser, Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1574): Leben, Werk und Wirkung, vol. 1 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2004), 1:232; J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1980), 102–6.
See W.J. van Asselt, ed., Een richtingenstrijd in de Gereformeerde Kerk: Voetianen en Coccejanen, 1650–1750 [A struggle in the Reformed Church: Voetians and Cocceians 1650–1750] (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1994); Brian J. Lee, Johannes Coccejus and the Roots of Federal Theology: Reformation Developments in the Interpretation of Hebrews 7–10 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009).
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, trans. and ed. by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1967–1977), 3.1:94, 228.
See Christoph Schwöbel, “The Renaissance of Trinitarian Theology: Reasons, Problems and Tasks,” in Trinitarian Theology Today, ed. Christoph Schwöbel (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 1–30; Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “The Trajectories of the Contemporary ‘Trinitarian Renaissance’ in Different Contexts,” Journal of Reformed Theology 3 (2009): 7–21.
This is often summarized in “Rahner’s Rule” that the immanent Trinity is the economic Trinity and vice-versa; Karl Rahner, “Der dreifaltige Gott als transzendenter Urgrund der Heilsgeschichte,” in Mysterium Salutis II, ed. Johannes Feiner and Magnus Löhrer (Eindsiedeln: Benziger, 1967), 337.
The critique of Augustine by Colin E. Gunton, “Augustine, the Trinity and the Theological Crisis of the West,” in The Promise of Trinitarian Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 30–55 has been widely critized itself; e.g. Richard Cross, “Quid Tres? On What Precisely Augustine Professes Not to Understand in De Trinitate 5 and 7,” Harvard Theological Review 100 (2007): 215–32; Bradley Green, Colin Gunton and The Failure of Augustine: The Theology of Colin Gunton in Light of Augustine (Cambridge: James Clark, 2012).
This is not communis opinio, however. Gijsbert van den Brink gives an overview of the debate. “Social Trinitarianism: A Discussion of Some Recent Theological Criticisms,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 16 (2014): 331–50.
Relatively little has been published on the pactum salutis. John V. Fesko, The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption (Fearn: Mentor, 2016) offers a limited systematic overview, while John V. Fesko, The Covenant of Redemption: Origins, Development, and Reception (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016) provides a historical overview.
See the references to Reformed scholastics in Heinrich Heppe, Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-reformierten Kirche (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1958), 296–98; 305–8.
E.g., Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3, Sin, Salvation in Christ, ed. John Bolt (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 213.
It should be noted that there are theologians in the Reformed tradition that emphatically intend to do covenant theology from a trinitarian perspective. For instance, Herman Bavinck’s emphasis on the cross of Christ as the center of the history of the covenant can be interpreted as an attempt toward a fully trinitarian theology of the covenant; Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 222–23.
A. van de Beek, God doet recht: Eschatologie als christologie [God does justice: Eschatology as Christology] (Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2008), 175–78.
Van de Beek, God doet recht, 178, 327, 333–34, 349–50.
This critique is that Van de Beek’s idea of the single kairos of the Christ-event leaves no room for Christian life in the time before the final eschatological consummation. For such a critique, see Gerard C. den Hertog, “Ascetism Only, or Ethics as Well? Oepke Noordmans’ View of Eschatological Ascetism and Ethics as a Challenge for Bram van de Beek,” in Strangers and Pilgrims on Earth: Essays in Honour of Abraham van de Beek, ed. Eddy van der Borght and Paul van Geest, SRTh 22 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 381–95.
Ernst Troeltsch, Glaubenslehre: Nach Heidelberger Vorlesungen aus den Jahren 1911 und 1912 (München: Ducker & Humblot, 1925), 36; Hans Urs von Balthasar, “Eschatologie,” in Fragen der Theologie heute, ed. Johannes Feiner, Josef Trütsch, and Franz Böckle (Zürich: Benziger, 1957), 403.
This is particularly so in the Dutch Reformed tradition. See e.g., K.H. Miskotte, Als de goden zwijgen: Over de zin van het Oude Testament [When the gods are silent: On the meaning of the Old Testament] (Amsterdam: Holland, 1956); A.A. van Ruler, Die christliche Kirche und das Alte Testament (München: Kaiser, 1955).
John Calvin, Institutionis Christianae religionis 1559 libros I et II continens, vol. 3 of Joannis Calvini Opera Selecta, ed. Petrus Barth and Guilelmus Niesel (München: Kaiser, 1928), 2.10. Cf. Hans Heinrich Wolf, Die Einheit des Bundes: Das Verhältnis von Altem und Neuem Testament bei Calvin (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1958).
See W.J. Op ’t Hof, De visie op de joden in de Nadere Reformatie, tijdens het eerste kwart van de zeventiende eeuw [The Dutch Second Reformation’s view on Jews, in the first quarter of the seventeenth century] (Amsterdam: Bolland, 1984); C.J. Meeuse, De toekomstverwachting van de Nadere Reformatie in het licht van haar tijd: Een onderzoek naar de verhouding tussen het zeventiende-eeuwse chiliasme en de toekomstverwachting van de Nadere Reformatie, met name bij Jacobus Koelman [The expectations for the future of the Dutch Second Reformation in the light of its time: An investigation of the relationship between seventeenth-century chiliasm and the expectations for the future of the Dutch Second Reformation, especially in Jacobus Koelman] (Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan, 1990); R.J. van Elderen, Toekomst voor Israël: Een theologie-historisch onderzoek naar de visie op de bekering der Joden en de toekomst van Israël bij Engelse protestanten in de periode 1547–1620, tegen de achtergrond van hun eschatologie [Future for Israel: A theological-historical investigation into the view on the conversion of Jews and the future of Israel held by English Protestants from 1547 till 1620, against the background of their eschatology] (Kampen: Mondiss, 1992).
In Reformed circles, Hendrikus Berkhof, Christelijk geloof: Een inleiding tot de geloofsleer [The Christian Faith: An introduction to the study of the faith], 2nd ed. (Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1973), 234–80 was the first to devote a chapter to Israel (and the covenant) in Christian dogmatics. The recent volume Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2017), chap. 9 only discusses the covenant within the context of Israel.
See Gert Kwakkel’s contribution to the present volume for a discussion of the Biblical notion of covenant.
Michael S. Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), ix. The other three volumes are: Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002); Lord and Servant: A Covenant Christology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005); Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007).
Horton, Lord and Servant, 2005, vii.
Michael S. Horton, God of Promise: Introducting Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 77.
George E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: The Biblical Colloquium, 1955); Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963); Meredith G. Kline, By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and Baptism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968). Cf. Koert van Bekkum’s contribution to the present volume.
Horton, God of Promise, 74.
There has been much debate whether this notion of “republication” is correct or not. For a defence of the doctrine of republication, and of the idea that a works principle governed the Mosaic covenant, see Bryan D. Estelle, J.V. Fesko, and David VanDrunen, eds., The Law is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2009). For a critical response to this view, and this book, see Andrew M. Elam, Robert C. Van Kooten, and Randall A. Bergquist, Merit and Moses: A Critique of the Klinean Doctrine of Republication (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2014). The Orthodox Presbyterian Church in the United States accepted an extensive report on this issue, support the idea of “republication”,
Horton, God of Promise, 10.
Horton, God of Promise, 56.
Horton, God of Promise, 43.
Horton, God of Promise, 43.
Horton, God of Promise, 47.
Horton, God of Promise, 47.
“The covenant of works provides the framework within which the New Testament contrast between Adam and Christ, law and promise, personal performance and representative substitution operates.” Michael S. Horton, “The Church,” in Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic, ed. Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 319.
Horton, God of Promise, 74.
Horton, God of Promise, 46.
Horton, God of Promise, 60.
E.g., Horton, God of Promise, 102–3. Representatives of the so-called New Perspective on Paul emphasize that the “works of the law” that the apostle Paul criticizes, are nationalistic boundary markers rather than legalistic in nature. E.g., E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977); James D.G. Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 65 (1983): 95–122; reprint in Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (London: SPCK, 1990), 183–214.
Horton, God of Promise, 81–82.
Horton, God of Promise, 82.
Michael S. Horton, “Kingdom of God,” in Christian Dogmatics: Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic, ed. Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 367.
“The Sinai covenant established a typological interlude – a parable – of God’s overarching purposes. The church became also a nation, a geopolitical entity with YHWH as King.” Horton, “The Church,” 320. Horton explicitly denies that his position is anti-Semitic. God of Promise, 47.
Horton, Covenant and Eschatology, 5–7 does picture eschatological transformation as the goal of creation, but this differs from eschatology as God’s promise driving history.
See Scott W. Hahn and Kimberly Hahn, Rome Sweet Rome: Our Journey to Catholicism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993) for an account of Hahn’s conversion to Roman Catholicism.
Scott W. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises, AYBRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009).
Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 48.
Hahn does not mention Horton’s position, but both are dependent on the work of Meredith Kline.
Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 71.
Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 69.
Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 74.
Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 82.
Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 83.
Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 333.
“Specifically, a canonical reading enabled us to see that the father-son relationshiop and its attendant imagery and terminology were consistently present in the portrayal of the divine covenants between God in [and?] Israel, in all literary traditions and historical periods.” Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 333.
Remarkably, Hahn begins his discussion of the New Testament not with Matthew’s Gospel, although Matthew wrote primarily for a Jewish audience, but Hahn focuses on Luke-Acts, Galatians 3–4, and Hebrews 1–9.
Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 335. Hahn does not direct these criticisms against Horton explicitly.
Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 336.
Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 336.
On “analogy of the advent,” see Eberhard Jüngel, Gott als Geheimnis der Welt: Zur Begründung der Theologie des Gekreuzigten im Streit zwischen Theismus und Atheismus, 3rd ed. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1978), 357–408; 389–90. Jüngel elaborates Karl Barth’s idea of analogia fidei: Barth, Church Dogmatics, 2.1:224–25, 231, 252–53.
Hermann Spieckermann, “Macht und Ohnmacht: die theologische Dimension der Vater-Sohn-Relation im Alten Testament,” in Was ist der Mensch, dass du seiner gedenkst? (Psalm 8,5): Aspekte einer theologischen Anthropologie, ed. Michaela Bauks, Kathrin Liess, and Peter Riede (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008), 503–13; Martin Hengel, The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976).
Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 22.
Gerald H. Wilson, “King, Messiah, and the Reign of God: Revisiting the Royal Psalms and the Shape of the Psalter,” in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, ed. Peter W. Flint and Patrick D. Miller Jr., VTSup 99 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 402.
Dan. 7: 13–14. Cf. Markus Zehnder, “Why the Danielic ‘Son of Man’ Is a Divine Being,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 24 (2014), 331–47. For extensive discussion and literature, see John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 304–10.
Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 224–26.
Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 226 (italics in original).
Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 226–29.
N.T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God 4 (London: SPCK, 2013), 2:619–773.
Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2:774–1042.
Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2:1043–266.
N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 141. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness, 1:456–537 offers a more nuanced picture, in which the various layers of the biblical narrative are more clearly distinguished. However, this nuance does not replace Wright’s picture of history as a play in five stages.
Gal. 3: 14.
N.T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009), 124–25.
Compare Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2:804–15, in which Israel is reduced to an instrumental function: “Through Israel to the World.”
See Hans Burger’s discussion of the covenant of works in the present volume.
Phil. 3: 4–11.
Col. 2: 11.