1 Introduction
At the background of all Reformed theological reflection on the covenant stands seventeenth century federal theology, in which the doctrine of the covenant has a controlling function.1 According to federal theology, three covenants exist: the intratrinitarian covenant of redemption in which Father, Son, and Spirit agreed to save the elect; the prelapsarian covenant with Adam, often referred to as the covenant of works; and the covenant of grace, which began right after Adam’s fall. The prelapsarian covenant with Adam structures the relationship between God and humanity both before and after the fall. As a consequence, the covenant of works determines the covenant of grace.
In the New Testament, Paul mentions twice the ‘covenants,’ diathèkai, in which Israel participated (Rom. 9: 4; Eph. 2: 12). These covenants of Israel differ from the three covenants of federal theology. Scripture does not mention explicitly the intratrinitarian covenant of redemption, nor the prelapsarian covenant of works. Furthermore, the covenant of grace is not one covenant that embraces the history of salvation. Instead, we find in Israel’s history different berits or diathèkai, with Abraham, Israel, David, and a new berit. Consequently, the use of ‘covenant’ in systematic theology differs from the use of berit and diathèkè in scripture.
It is a presupposition of this article that systematic theology (dogmatics) should be a guide in reading and interpreting scripture. Dogmatics has its own task and develops its own concepts for theological purposes. However, these theological concepts have to facilitate the reading of scripture and should not constitute an obstacle in understanding scripture. As a consequence, the use of berit and diathèkè in scripture is relevant for the use of ‘covenant’ in systematic theology. And it is problematic when the use of ‘covenant’ in dogmatics is completely different from the use of berit and diakthèkè in scripture.
In this article, I focus on the covenant of works. According to Weir, this covenant is “the identifying feature of the federal theology.”2 This article gives a critical analysis of the concept. I will start with the historical background of the covenant of works. Second, I will analyze the theological functions of the covenant of works within the framework of Reformed dogmatics. Third, I will deal with the problems of this concept that constitute arguments against the use of this concept. Finally, I will outline a theology without a prelapsarian covenant. Here, the article has the character of a thought experiment: what could a Reformed theology without a prelapsarian covenant look like? The aim is to answer the question: do we need the concept of a prelapsarian covenant in Reformed theology?
2 Historical Background
The ‘covenant of works’ was developed in the sixteenth century.3 However, its roots can be traced back before the middle ages, to Augustine and Irenaeus. It seems that Augustine was the first to write about a pre-fall covenant with Adam.4
During the medieval period, several strands of thought are important for the genesis of the covenant of works. The first strand is related to the sacrament of penance and the logic of works and merit connected to this sacrament. Jaroslav Pelikan has shown how deeply the sacrament of penance has influenced medieval theology.5
Second, Berndt Hamm has investigated the tradition of what he calls ‘divine self-binding’ from Augustine to Luther. Within this tradition words were used like promissio, sponsio, pollicitatio, institutio, condicio, conventio, contractio, decretum, statutum, ordinatio, and pactum. These words were used in a soteriological context. From Duns Scotus on, the difference between potentia absoluta and potentia ordinata played a crucial role in attempts to understand the meritorious character of our good works. Contingently, God limits himself in his relationship with his creation to ordinances, to a pact, a covenant.
Firstly, this tradition of divine self-binding was important because of its use to explain the economy of salvation. God’s free self-binding was an alternative to an ontological understanding of the meritorious character of our works. When inherent qualities of our works force God to accept them, this would imply pelagianism, due to the identification of ‘facere quod in se est’ (do what is within someone) with ‘facere ex puris naturalibus’ (act from one’s own powers). God’s self-binding in a covenant makes it possible to distinguish a specific kind of theological causality (covenantal causality) and safeguards his free sovereignty.6 The distance between God’s glory and the worth of human works can be maintained, for it is in his freedom and grace that God decides to give his reward. Nevertheless, it is important to note that in late medieval nominalism, these words still reflected a semi-pelagian position.7
Secondly, this covenantal thinking could be used to clarify the relationship between God and his creation. In the work of the late-medieval nominalist Pierre d’Ailly, we find two covenants: a covenant that was begun at creation and a covenant with the church, embracing the saints of all centuries before and after Christ. According to Courteney, this first covenant with humanity concerns God’s commitment to uphold his creation and the laws that govern his creation.8
Some Reformed theologians have problems affirming a continuity between nominalist and Reformed covenantal thinking. Nevertheless, the fact that the magisterial reformers oppose the pelagian tendencies of late medieval nominalism does not imply a discontinuation with a tradition of divine self-binding, thinking in terms of promise and covenant. Strangely, e.g. Michael Horton does not see that he shares a covenantal ontology with late medieval nominalism.9
Third, Reeling Brouwer, Lillback, and Woolsey mention political and social thought, resulting in social contract theory. According to Woolsey, these two traditions are distinct but interrelated.10 In the political tradition, the Investiture Struggle (1060–1107) and the Conciliar Movement (1409–1449) both stimulated reflection that led to the development of the idea of a social contract.11 The theologians who occupied themselves with the doctrine of the covenant knew the practice of covenant making in ecclesiology and the political covenants in Switzerland, Scotland and the Netherlands. Both the legal concept of a contract and the theological concept of a covenant developed in the same period.12
The development of covenantal thinking and even the existence of the idea of a pre-fall covenant already in Augustine and in medieval theology, should make one cautious to overemphasize differences between the early reformers and the later mature federal theology.13 However, some features of the development of the concept of the covenant of works can be mentioned.
It is significant that Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and Bullinger all understood the prelapsarian state as determined by law.14 Melanchthon identifies Old and New Testament with law and gospel.15 Comparably, for Calvin, natural law and Mosaic law were virtually identical.16
It is still an ongoing debate whether all elements of the concept of a ‘covenant of works’ are present in Calvin’s theology.17 Clearly, Zacharias Ursinus developed such a concept (in 1562; in print in 1584). This prelapsarian covenant is closely related to the Decalogue.18 The name ‘covenant of works’ was used for the first time by Dudley Fenner. He understood this covenant of works in the light of several New Testament passages.19 Between 1600 and 1640 the covenant of works slowly became an accepted concept.20 In the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), the covenant of works became the official position in Presbyterian theology.
3 Theological Functions
For the purposes of this article, especially the theological functions of the concept of the ‘covenant of works’ are important. In general, the doctrine of the covenant serves to (re)construct coherence and connection, often as an alternative to ontological or societal bonds that were perceived in an earlier phase of history. In nominalism, the concept of the covenant served as an alternative to the ontological frameworks of Neoplatonist and Aristotelian-Thomistic thinking; in the Reformation, it also served to reconstruct societal coherence in the rapidly changing world of the early modern era. The covenant (re)constructs coherence and connections between God, creation and humankind, within humanity, and between Old and New Testament in scripture.
In this article, the focus is on the concept of the covenant of works. What is its function?
-
Covenantal ontology: in general, the covenant of works is one of the basic concepts of a covenantal ontology. According to Bavinck, “among rational and moral creatures all higher life takes the form of a covenant.”21 In such a framework of covenantal thinking, a covenant between God and his creation, between God and humanity cannot be missed. The relationship between God and creation or humanity has to be covenantal. This is an alternative to a metaphysically or onto-theologically conceived relationship, like a Roman-Catholic metaphysics of nature and grace (Bavinck) or an ontology of participation (Horton).22
-
God’s sovereignty: because the distance between God and his creation is infinite, the sovereign creator and king has to make a covenant to bridge this distance. This is stated clearly in the Westminster Confession, “The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any enjoyment of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.”23 A covenant between creator and creation both guarantee their relatedness and the sovereignty of God. Gordon Spykman characterizes the covenant as a charter of God’s kingdom.24
-
Dependency of humanity: For humanity, this implies dependency. God has no obligations towards his creatures. Human beings can claim nothing of their creator, apart from what He freely promised to give them. Hence, the covenant of works has an anti-pelagian function. Humans can claim no reward for their good works, both before and after the fall. According to Bavinck, merit is only possible ex pacto, and not ex condigno (by a full merit), as Roman Catholic theologians taught. He does not mention that the late medieval nominalist theologians developed their semi-pelagian idea of merit ex congruo (merit of congruity) also out of anti-pelagian motives. Merit ex pacto can be developed in a semi-pelagian way as merit ex congruo or within a Reformed doctrine of the covenant of works in a more strictly anti-pelagian fashion.25
-
Moral responsibility of humanity: Furthermore, the covenant between the sovereign king and created humanity implies for humanity moral freedom and responsibility. Because we are created to obey God, disobedience makes us guilty. According to many Reformed theologians, the creation of human beings as morally responsible beings implies that we are created with moral knowledge, and this natural moral law is identical with the ten commandments. We are created with the ability to know and to obey God’s law. Furthermore, the covenant of works locates humanity within creation. Human beings are created in the position of dominium, as God’s stewards. This position of dominium makes the consequences of our fall far-reaching within creation. God, however, cannot be held responsible for our fall in sin, not even as a consequence of his decree of election and reprobation. Because the fall in sin does not alter our moral responsibility over against God, the commandments of God are still binding. The covenant of works guarantees the stability of the divine law.26
-
Unity of humanity: The covenant of works also defines the unity of humanity under its federal head, Adam. The Pauline idea of Adamic headship, mirrored in the new covenant in the headship of Christ, has been incorporated in the doctrine of the covenant of works. Human beings belong together in one federal or organic unity and exist in solidarity. Furthermore, the headship of Adam is essential in the doctrine of original sin (see 7). Finally, it can be essential for understanding union with and participation in Christ.27
-
Human destiny: the covenant of works further determines human destiny and the way to reach this destiny. In the way of obedience to God’s covenant, human beings can obtain eternal glory. This eschatological destination can be deserved, because God in his grace made this merit ex pacto possible. Accordingly, for Michael Horton, eschatology is more fundamental than soteriology. Comparably, Beach finds in Turretin a prelapsarian covenant eschatology, and for Klaas Schilder, history would include also for Adam before the fall a ‘katastrofe’ (catastrophe) or ‘schokmoment’ (moment of shock, shake, or clash) of eschatological transformation.28 As we will see, this influences the understanding of satisfaction (9).
-
Understanding of sin: related to 4 and 5, sin is understood for all humanity as disobedience to God, to the covenant of works and to the law of God. Furthermore, humanity is entirely involved in the consequence of the sin of their head Adam. As a consequence of original sin, all human beings are born as sinners who are liable to death.29
-
Covenant with Israel: concerning the effect of the covenant of works on the understanding of Israel, different effects can be perceived. In the case of Bavinck, the threefold scheme of the covenants results in a blind spot about Israel. Other federal theologians, however, see the covenant with Israel as a republication of the covenant of works. The conditionality of obedience, works and merit are identical in both the covenant of works and the covenant with Israel.30
-
Doctrine of satisfaction and justification: after the fall and in the covenant of grace, humans still face the problem of the broken covenant of works. Within the federal framework, the covenant of works therefore informs the understanding of the satisfaction by the mediator in the covenant of grace. This mediator is covenantal head of humanity, in a way comparable to Adam. Combining grace with the stability of the divine law, God’s mercy with his righteousness, Christ graciously fulfils the conditions of the covenant of works. On the one hand, by his passive obedience Christ repairs the damage of our disobedience, bearing the punishment in our stead. On the other hand, Christ fulfills by his active obedience the required obedience of the covenant of works to purchase the destination of eternal glory. Justification by faith alone means that this twofold obedience of Christ is imputed to the believers.31
-
Ongoing validity of God’s law: the covenant of works, finally, has a political function. In a period of transition the covenant of works with its implied order provided a new possible foundation for a social ethic. The covenant of works guarantees that God’s law retains its societal function even for non-Christians.32
This overview shows that the concept of the covenant of works serves many theological interests within the fabric of Reformed systematic theology. To execute a thought experiment of a theology without such a crucial concept, it is important to keep these different functions in mind. It will be an important question whether these theological interests can be served by other concepts; although it is possible as well that some of these functions are not important anymore.
4 Problems
Although the concept of the covenant of works serves many theological interests, it is problematic in several ways. It is impossible to reflect critically on the covenant of works without mentioning Karl Barth and his interaction with Cocceius as a representative of federal theology.33 His influence can be traced in the criticism of the covenant of works by James B. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, but also in the emphasis of Klaas Schilder on the unity of the covenant and his defence of the covenant with Adam in paradise.34 Furthermore, the fact that S.G. de Graaf, in 1935, no longer spoke of a covenant of works and in 1940 no longer said that man has to ‘obtain’ but ‘inherits’ eternal life, suggests the probable influence of Karl Barth.35
Still, from the time before Barth, the ‘afgescheiden’ (secessionist) tradition of Dutch Reformed theology in Kampen has an emphasis on biblical theology, and is critical of theological systems.36 In this tradition, J. van Andel stated, in 1886, that the first covenant has been made with Noah after the flood. This is the presupposition of the covenant with Abraham. After the fall, God promised a second Adam. The history of the seed of Seth between Adam and Abraham demands the protection of the covenant of the promise. But before Abraham, God never made a covenant with a family. Strictly speaking, the covenant of grace starts with Abraham. No trace can be found of a covenant of works.37 Thus, a critical attitude towards the concept of the covenant of works is part of my own Kampen, secessionist, tradition.
Historical research in the nineteenth and twentieth century has been influenced by a liberal or Barthian agenda. More recently, historians have emphasized the continuity between the work of the Reformers (without an explicit concept of a covenant of works) and later federal theology as well as the complexity of the concept itself in federal theology.38 However, a better historical reconstruction does not solve the systematic problems of the doctrine itself. The doctrine of the covenant of works has several problems indeed.39
1. The nature of the relationship with God:
a. The place of the law: According to the covenant of works, law is fundamental in our relationship with God. From the beginning, our relationship with God and with creation is regulated by law. But is that true? In scripture, the Torah is given to Israel. Furthermore, the doctrine of the covenant emerged in a voluntarist climate, where the will of God became fundamental to God’s acts. Voluntarism does not see God’s will as an expression of his justice and goodness, for in his absolute power God could have decided something completely different. However, if God’s creation is already an expression of his goodness and his justice, it is questionable whether Adam needed God’s law before the fall. If it is possible to maintain the forensic/legal character of the relationship between Creator and creature in a different way, we do not need to presuppose the gift of a law before the fall.40
b. Merit instead of eschatological newness: More problematic is that, according to the covenant of law, the relationship with God is characterised by a mechanism of works and merit. By works of obedience, humans have to merit their final destination. Here the influence of the sacrament of penance, reaching back deep into the medieval period can be traced. Although the idea of merit is criticised and modified by emphasising the gratuitous nature of meritum ex pacto, the mechanism stays the same.41
S.G. de Graaf shared this criticism. According to De Graaf, God gave Adam and Eve the covenant of his favour (“gunst,” distinguished from the covenant of his grace, “genade,” after the fall). This covenant was like a marriage, a covenant of love. When humanity would choose God’s favour by passing the test of the tree in the garden, they could live in God’s favour eternally. Instead of obtaining life, humanity would inherit eternal life.42 This fits well with what McGowan calls “demerit.”43 It also fits better with Genesis 2: 17. God does not promise eternal life on the condition of obedience. He only warns that whoever eats from the tree of knowledge of good and evil will surely die. It is wrong to understand the relationship between Creator and creature in terms of merit, or the necessity of obtaining life by obedience. Instead, this relationship is characterized by love, by God’s favour, and by inheritance.
Because the covenant of works defines the human destination and connects protology and eschatology, the eschatological outcome of history in Christ is read back into the beginning and the possibility of a surprising eschatological newness is excluded. However, in his love, God does more than could be expected based on his justice alone. The possibility should be left open that God, in his gracious love, finally gives unexpectedly and abundantly, more than could be predicted based on covenantal rules. In this case, the eschatological transformation in Christ is not determined by protology or by a covenant of works, but by God’s gracious love, and thus by soteriology.
These problems concern the name and the character of the covenant (a covenant of works). Still, it can be suggested that we need some sort of pre-fall covenant (some kind of creation-covenant).44 But more problems exist.
2. The use of the word berit: in the Hebrew text of Genesis the first time the word berit is used is in Genesis 6: 18. Does this imply that Genesis 6 tell about the first covenant, or do we find the idea of a covenant earlier in Genesis, although the word berit is not used? This question has generated a lot of discussion amongst Reformed theologians. From the beginning scripture clearly tells about a continuing commitment of God to his creation, foundational for the entire history of salvation, and confirmed in the covenant with Noah. Moreover, humanity is created in God’s image and receives within the order of creation a position of dominium or stewardship. Further, God warns Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because when he eats, he will die. Paul attributes to Adam the position of head of humanity, which gives his disobedience a universal scope. Finally, in other texts in the Old Testament, a covenant is mentioned that might refer to a covenant with creation (Jer. 33: 20–21, 25–26; Hosea 6: 7). By themselves, these passages cannot serve as a foundation for a creation-covenant. Whether all this leads to the conclusion of the existence of a prelapsarian covenant, therefore, depends on one’s concept of covenant and on the question whether all the elements in Genesis 1, 6 and 9 (the covenants with Noah) imply a covenant before the fall.45
3. What is a covenant? The influence of voluntarism: The doctrine of the covenant developed in a voluntarist climate in which many important relationships were understood as covenantal. In this model, a covenant establishes or is identical with the relationship. Relationality was conceived as an extra, added by a voluntary act of free subjects. Where western culture encounters the problem of individualism, the question has to be faced whether all these important relationships need to be understood as covenantal.46
An alternative could be that personal relationships of love in a pre-fall situation simply exist without any problem or question. God and humanity are no “contracting parties,” and friendship does not need extra regulations in a covenant.47 Without sin, there was no necessity to seal these relationships covenantally.48 Relationality is just part of creation: God, who expresses his love in his creation, is lovingly related to his creation, and human beings are lovingly related to each other and with the entire creation. Only sin has made it necessary to reconstruct relations covenantally. According to Leder, all relevant covenants in scripture address “a problem in the divine-human relationship” and secure “the threatened relationship”.49 In this proposal, a covenant regulates, directs or shapes an existing relationship.
Lee Irons sees the problematic influence of voluntarism, but tries to repair the concept of the covenant of works.50 But do we have warrant “for employing ‘covenant’ … as the central theological category for synthetic construal of the God-humanity relationship”?51 If sin makes covenants necessary, then it is the wrong conclusion to understand all important relationships before the fall as covenants. This would obscure the inherent relatedness of God’s creation. Is it even proper to ask the question as to the extent to which this voluntarist influence has contributed to the loss of transcendence (unrelatedness of God and man, of creator and creation) and to modern individualism (unrelatedness of human persons).
4. The place of Israel: within the threefold scheme of federal theology, Israel is easily forgotten. The law was already given to Adam before the fall, and the covenant of grace already began in Genesis 3. This evokes the question as to why Israel cannot be overlooked. The other possibility is that the covenant of Israel is understood as a republication of the covenant of works. In that case it becomes difficult to understand the existence of Israel as the consequence of the covenant of the promise and of grace made with Abraham.52 Israel only functions as the dark background of the new covenant. Thus, theology with a covenant of works easily fits within a supersessionist reading of scripture following what Kendall Soulen has called the (supersessionist) ‘standard canonical narrative’ of creation, fall, redemption in Christ, final consummation.53
Enough reason exists to do a thought experiment: to imagine a theology without the concept of a prelapsarian covenant.
5 Theology without a Pre-fall Covenant
A theology without a pre-fall covenant has to resolve the problems caused by the covenant of works and serve the justified theological interests that the covenant of works served as well. Sketching such a theology enables us to compare a theology with or without a covenant of works. The more convincing the proposal, the more probable it is.
1. Again: what is a covenant? When a berit or diathèkè is a relationship, or when they are constitutive for relationships, or when all God’s kingly dealings with his creation are determined by a berit or diathèkè, then the thought experiment has failed.54
Because the use of theological concepts have to follow and facilitate the understanding of biblical words, we need to be cautious about starting with a massive, uniform concept of berit. Not parallels with ancient Near Easter sources, but careful exegesis of what we find in Scripture is decisive.55 It is too easy to claim that berit always means relationship,56 or obligation,57 or that a berit always implies a promise,58 or a self-maledictory oath,59 or a reaction to a crisis.60 A berit regulates, shapes, or directs a relationship, and making a berit can, though it should not be, identical with its constitution.61 Like the different treaties of the European Union, the same relationship can be regulated by different successive berits.62 Although it is not necessarily the case, often the establishing of a new berit is a reaction to a situation of crisis to give renewed security in an unstable relationship.63 In scripture, we see God adding covenant to covenant, sometimes simply as a consequence of covenants earlier made but often as a reaction to a question, a problem or a crisis.
If a berit is made, the relationship is not natural as with a relative.64 This fits well with the idea that in the case of self-evident, natural relationships no covenant is necessary. Seen from the perspective of the Creator, Creator and creature just belong together.
2. Ontology of love: Michael Horton favours a covenantal ontology.65 However, if covenant is not the basic ontological category but love, it is better to develop an ontology of love, an ontology of relatedness, an ontology of indwelling. Who stays in God’s presence will live forever. In God’s favour, we inherit eternal life. No do ut des, no works and merit. Sin, however, leads to broken relationships. Sin leads to uncertainty and to the mentality of a slave who hopes to deserve some favour again. But whoever sins against God, will die. Redemption, covenant and reconciliation are all aimed at restoring a relationship of love and mutual indwelling.
3. Justice before the law: in a voluntarist climate, justice is inseparable from law. But being created according to one’s kind has moral implications. Obligations need not be separated from being. As Wolterstorff has shown in his theory of justice, being created implies rights and obligations. The Creator also has rights and creatures have their obligations over against their Creator. No law or covenant is necessary to guarantee this justice.66 Just being the Creator or being created implies rights and obligations. Thus, we can understand God’s wrath and judgment over a sinful world in Romans 1 and 2 without any law or covenant. Law and covenant enlarge the problem of sin and God’s wrath, as the Jewish people have experienced, according to Paul. But justice exists before the law or the covenant.
4. Unity of humanity: with John Bolt we can say that headship is non-negotiable. Both Van Andel and McGowan, however, have shown that the headship of Adam and Christ can be understood apart from the idea of a covenant. The idea of Adam’s headship is crucial to understand the influence of sin. Nevertheless, the idea of headship is not sufficient to understand our participation in Christ. The mystical union with Christ implies a renewed indwelling in Christ and transcends the idea of headship.
5. Position of humanity: the role of humanity within creation, characterized as dominion or stewardship, is not dependent on a covenant of works although it does presuppose an ordered creation (just like 3 and 4). Still, it is important to emphasize this position, for it makes understandable not only the impact of sin on the entire creation, but also the longing of creation for the revelation of the sons of God. The restoration of humanity with Christ will lead to the cosmic restoration of the entire creation.67
6. Israel: Abraham’s children were meant to bring blessing to the peoples, to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. For that reason, they received the law first. Living in obedience to the law, they could be a blessing to the world. Their existence somehow was already part of God’s promise to Abraham to restore his creation and to make undone Adam’s fall.68
Israel’s sin with the golden calf, however, almost immediately made clear that Israel never would be able to fulfil this promise to Abraham. God gave more commandments, as a supervisor, until the promised seed of Abraham would come. As a result of Israel’s disobedience, they had to face the curse of the covenant, the curse of the law. Instead of bringing blessing to the world, they suffered from a curse themselves.69
7. Salvation: Jesus came to fulfil God’s purpose with Israel. He is the true shepherd, the true vine, the true Son of God, the true Israelite. At the cross, he solved the problem of Israel by enduring the curse of the law (Gal. 3: 10–13). The curse of the law has to be understood not as the problem of humanity, but of Israel solely. The law was given to Israel as Israel’s prerogative and problem, as Paul makes clear in Galatians 3 and Romans 2–3.70 Having solved the problem of Israel, however, Jesus was able to fulfil Israel’s purpose as well and to solve Adam’s problem. As the seed promised to Abraham, he bore the curse to bring Abraham’s blessing to the nations. Matthew shows Jesus as the true Israel, Luke shows Jesus as the second Adam, who stands where Adam fell. According to Paul, Jesus’ obedience brings life where Adam’s disobedience brings death (Romans 5). Jesus is the servant of the lord, who is made a guilt offering (Isaiah 53). Jesus bore the divine judgment of sin and was the true high priest for all the nations.71
This implies that the doctrine of atonement and salvation has to be reconstructed as a two-stage process: first, Israel is saved, so that, second, the world can be saved. The doctrine of atonement can be reformulated in relation to Israel and apart from the covenant of works. In his passive obedience, Jesus became the curse of the law for Israel, but also bore as Israel’s representative the judgment for the nations. In his active obedience, he is the true Israel, a light to the nations, and as such the last Adam. We receive him, the new man, with his righteousness and holiness, to clothe ourselves with him.
8. Eschatology: the eschatological gift of salvation in Christ no longer has to be understood as the consequence of a covenant made in the beginning. Instead, the creative and abundant nature of God’s love can be emphasized. In his love for his enemies, God does far more than what could be expected based on covenants or laws. He does new and unexpected things: he overcomes our evil with good and gives himself to us to invite us to share in his glory.
6 Conclusion
After an investigation of some historical backgrounds, this article gave an overview of the important theological functions of the covenants of works. Furthermore, the problems of this concept were analyzed. In a next step, a thought experiment was conducted. The conclusion of this article is that from a systematic-theological point of view, it is quite realistic to have a theology without the concept of a covenant of works. This experiment has not determined whether sufficient exegetical warrant exists for this concept. Exegesis still might falsify this conclusion. Still, if exegesis leaves us in uncertainty, the result of this thought experiment is significant. The ‘covenant of works’ is no indispensable concept.
Bibliography
Andel, J. van. Handleiding bij de beoefening der gewijde geschiedenis [Manual for the practice of sacred history].2 vols. Leeuwarden: G. Amsing, 1886.
Asselt, Willem J. van. The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669). Translated by Raymond A. Blacketer. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Barth, Karl. Kirchliche Dogmatik. Vol. 4.1, Die Lehre von der Versöhnung. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1953.
Bartholomew, Craig G. “Covenant and Creation: Covenant Overload or Covenantal Deconstruction?” Calvin Theological Journal 30 (1995): 11–33.
Bavinck, Herman. Gereformeerde dogmatiek. 4 vols. 4th ed. Kampen: Kok, 1928–1929.
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. 4 vols. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003-2008.
Beach, J. Mark. Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007.
Bekkum, Koert van. “Biblical Covenants in their Ancient Near Eastern Context: A Methodological, Historical and Theological Reassessment.” In the present volume, 43–78.
Belcher Jr., Richard P. “The Covenant of Works in the Old Testament.” In Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, Historical Perspectives, edited by Guy Prentiss Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, and John R. Muether, 63–78. Wheaton: Crossway, 2020.
Bolt, John. “Why the Covenant of Works Is a Necessary Doctrine.” In By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification, edited by Gary L.W. Johnson and Guy Prentiss Waters, 171–189. Wheaton: Crossway, 2007.
Bruggen, Jacob van. Paulus: Pionier voor de Messias van Israël [Paul: Pioneer for Israel’s Messiah]. CNT-3. Kampen: Kok, 2001.
Burger, Hans. “Het belang van een deelnemersperspectief voor de theologie” [The value of a participant perspective for theology]. Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 70.4 (2016):321–337.
Burger, Hans. “Theirs Are the Covenants: Israel and the Covenant of Grace.” Forthcoming.
Courtenay, William J. “Covenant and Causality in Pierre d’Ailly.” In Covenant and Causality in Medieval Thought: Studies in Philosophy, Theology and Economic Practice. London: Variorum Reprints, 1984.
Denlinger, Aaron C. Omnes in Adam Ex Pacto Dei: Ambrogio Catarino’s Doctrine of Covenantal Solidarity and Its Influence on Post-Reformation Reformed Theologians. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010.
Dulk, Maarten den. … Als twee die spreken: een manier om de heiligingsleer van Karl Barth te lezen [… Like two people speaking: a way of reading Karl Barth’s doctrine of sanctification]. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1987.
Dumbrell, William J. Covenant and Creation: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000.
Genderen, J. van, and W.H. Velema. Beknopte gereformeerde dogmatiek [Concise Reformed dogmatics]. Kampen: Kok, 1992.
Gentry, Peter J. and Stephen J. Wellum. Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology. Vol. 1: Israel’s Gospel. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003.
Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology. Vol. 2: Israel’s Faith. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006.
Graaf, S.G. de. Verbondsgeschiedenis: schetsen voor de vertelling van de Bijbelsche geschiedenis [Covenant history: Sketches for the narration of biblical history]. Vol. 1, Oude Testament [Old Testament]. Kampen: Kok, 1937.
Graafland, Cornelis. Van Calvijn tot Comrie. Oorsprong en ontwikkeling van de leer van het verbond in het Gereformeerd Protestantisme [From Calvin to Comrie: Origin and development of the doctrine of the covenant in Reformed Protestantism]. 3 vols. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1992-1996.
Hahn, Scott W. Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises. AYBRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.
Hamm, Berndt. Promissio, Pactum, Ordinatio: Freiheit und Selbstbindung Gottes in der scholastischen Gnadenlehre. Tübingen: Mohr, 1977.
Hildebrand, Pierrick. “Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) and the Covenant of Works”. In the present volume, 254–66.
Horton, Michael Scott. Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002.
Horton, Michael Scott. Lord and Servant: A Covenant Christology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005.
Horton, Michael Scott. Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007.
Hugenberger, Gordon Paul. Marriage As a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi. VTSup 52. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Irons, Lee. “Redefining Merit: An Examination of Medieval Presuppositions in Covenant Theology.” In Creator, Redeemer, Consummator: A Festschrift for Meredith G. Kline, edited by Howard Griffith and John R. Muether, 253–269. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2007.
Jong, H. de. Van oud naar nieuw: de ontwikkelingsgang van het Oude naar het Nieuwe Testament [From old to new: The development from the Old to the New Testament]. Kampen: Kok, 2002.
Jong, H. de. Vergeving: De kern van het christelijk geloof [Forgiveness: The core of Christian faith]. Franeker: Van Wijnen, 2012.
Kutsch, Ernst. Verheissung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten “Bund” im Alten Testament. BZAW 131. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973.
Kwakkel, G. “Verplichting of relatie: verbonden in Genesis; Henk de Jong en zijn visie op het verbond” [Obligation or relation: Covenants in Genesis; Henk de Jong and his vision of the covenant]. In Verrassend vertrouwd: een halve eeuw verkondiging en theologie van Henk de Jong [Surprisingly familiar: Half a century of preaching and theology by Henk de Jong], edited by Jan Bouma, Freddy Gerkema, and Jan Mudde, 117–130. Franeker: Van Wijnen, 2009.
Kwakkel, G. “The Sinaitic Covenant in the Book of Exodus.” In Living Waters from Ancient Springs: Essays in Honor of Cornelis Van Dam, edited by Jason van Vliet, 27–39. Eugene: Pickwick, 2011.
Kwakkel, G. “Berith and Covenants in the Old Testament: A Contribution to a Fruitful Cooperation of Exegesis and Systematic Theology.” In the present volume, 21–42.
Leder, Arie C. “Divine Presence, then the Covenants: An Essay on Narrative and Theological Precedence (Part Two).” Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif 54.3/4 (2013): 207–220.
Lillback, Peter A. The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.
Mangold, Matthias. “Friendship, Covenant, and Law: The Doctrine of the Covenant in Johannes Braun (1628-1708).” In the present volume, 267–82.
McGiffert, Michael. “The Perkinsian Moment of Federal Theology.” Calvin Theological Journal 29 (1994): 117–149.
McGowan, A.T.B. Adam, Christ and Covenant. Nottingham: InterVarsity, 2016.
Muller, Richard A. “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Law in Seventeenth- Century Reformed Orthodoxy: A Study in the Theology of Herman Witsius and Wilhelmus à Brakel.” Calvin Theological Journal 29 (1994): 75–101.
Noort, Ed. “Over-lijden en overleven: de verbondsvoorstellingen van de deuteronomistische scholen” [About suffering, passing away and surviving: The covenant representations of the deuteronomistic schools]. In Sleutelen aan het verbond: Bijbelse en theologische essays [Engineering Covenant: Biblical and theological essays], 7–32. Boxtel: Katholieke Bijbelstichting, 1989.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600). Vol. 1 of The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1975.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Growth of Medieval Theology (600–1300). Vol. 3 of The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1978.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300–1700). Vol. 4 of The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984.
Reeling Brouwer, Rinse H. Karl Barth and Post-Reformation Orthodoxy. Farnham: Ashgate, 2015.
Schilder, Klaas. Wat is de hemel? [Heaven: what is it?]. Kampen; Kok 1935.
Soulen, R. Kendall. The God of Israel and Christian Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.
Spykman, Gordon J. Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
Stek, John H. “ ‘Covenant’ Overload in Reformed Theology.” Calvin Theological Journal 29 (1994): 12–41.
Strauss, S.A. Alles of niks: K. Schilder oor die verbond [All or nothing: K. Schilder on the covenant]. Bloemfontein: Patmos, 1986.
Strehle, Stephen. Calvinism, Federalism, and Scholasticism: A Study of the Reformed Doctrine of Covenant. Bern: Lang, 1988.
Veldhuizen, P. God en mens onderweg: Hoofdmomenten uit de theologische geschiedbeschouwing van Klaas Schilder [God and man on the road: Key moments in Klaas Schilder’s theological-historical considerations]. Leiden: Groen en zoon, 1995.
Waters, Guy Prentiss. “The Covenant of Works in the New Testament”. In Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, Historical Perspectives, edited by Guy Prentiss Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, and John R. Muether, 79–98. Wheaton: Crossway, 2020.
Weir, David A. The Origins of the Federal Theology in Sixteenth-Century Reformation Thought. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990.
Wendt, H.T. “The Love of the Lord is a Flame: The Covenant Theology of S.G. de Graaf in the Context of his Work and Life.” MA thesis, Theologische Universiteit Kampen, 2016.
Williamson, Paul R. Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose. NSBT 23. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007.
Wisse, Maarten. “The Inseparable Bond between Covenant and Predestination: Cocceius and Barth.” In Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour of Willem J. Van Asselt, edited by Willemien Otten, Marcel Sarot, and Maarten Wisse, 259–279. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Justice: Rights and Wrongs. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.
Woolsey, Andrew A. Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2012.
Wright, Christopher J.H. Knowing Jesus: Through the Old Testament. London: Marshall Pickering, 1992.
Wright, Christopher J.H. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006.
Wright, N.T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 4. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013.
For a short impression of this position, see Andrew T.B. McGowan, Adam, Christ and Covenant (Nottingham: Inter Varsity, 2016), 10–12; David A. Weir, The Origins of the Federal Theology in Sixteenth-Century Reformation Thought (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 3–5.
Weir, Origins of the Federal Theology, 22; cf. 29. Further about the covenant of works, “das beherrschende Prinzip des ganzen.” Karl Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik, vol. 4.1, Die Lehre von der Versöhnung (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1953), 62. And “secondary of derivative” but still “fundamental.” Richard A. Muller, “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Law in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Orthodoxy: A Study in the Theology of Herman Witsius and Wilhelmus à Brakel,” Calvin Theological Journal 29 (1994), 75–101.
For literature regarding the history of the doctrine of the covenant, see J. Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 19–64; Aaron C. Denlinger, Omnes in Adam Ex Pacto Dei: Ambrogio Catarino’s Doctrine of Covenantal Solidarity and Its Influence on Post-Reformation Reformed Theologians (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 36–64; Weir, Origins of the Federal Theology, 1–36; Andrew A. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2012), 80–158.
On Irenaeus and Augustine, see Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 164–66, 170–82; Peter A. Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 38–45.
Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600), vol. 1 of The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1975), 330–31; Pelikan, The Growth of Medieval Theology (600–1300), vol. 3 of The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1978), 210; Pelikan, The Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300–1700), vol. 4 of The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), 95, 128.
William J. Courtenay, “Covenant and Causality in Pierre d’Ailly,” in Covenant and Causality in Medieval Thought: Studies in Philosophy, Theology and Economic Practice (London: Variorum Reprints, 1984), 99.
Berndt Hamm, Promissio, Pactum, Ordinatio: Freiheit Und Selbstbindung Gottes in der scholastischen Gnadenlehre (Tübingen: Mohr, 1977), 352–53, 393, 415. See further Cornelis Graafland, Van Calvijn tot Comrie: Oorsprong en ontwikkeling van de leer van het verbond in het Gereformeerd Protestantisme [From Calvin to Comrie: Origin and development of the doctrine of the covenant in Reformed Protestantism] (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1992–1996), 1:30–40, 171–85; Lee Irons, “Redefining Merit: An Examination of Medieval Presuppositions in Covenant Theology,” in Creator, Redeemer, Consummator: A Festschrift for Meredith G. Kline, ed. Howard Griffith and John R. Muether (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2007), 256–65; Lillback, Binding of God, 45–57; Stephen Strehle, Calvinism, Federalism, and Scholasticism: A Study of the Reformed Doctrine of Covenant (Bern: Lang, 1988), 6–82.
Courtenay, “Covenant and Causality,” 117. In support of Courtenay’s position, see Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 196–98; Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 56–68.
See Michael S. Horton, Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 160; Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 64–65; Graafland, Van Calvijn tot Comrie, 1:32, 177–78; Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 202–3. Lillbeck, Binding of God, sees Calvin as the link between nominalist covenantal thought and reformed federal theology; according to Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, it is Ambrogio Catarino.
Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 184–94.
Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 187–90.
Lillbeck, Binding of God, 305; and further 29–37. Cf. Rinse H. Reeling Brouwer, Karl Barth and Post-Reformation Orthodoxy (Farnham: Ashgate, 2015), 144–47.
Cf. Pierrick Hildebrand, “Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) and the Covenant of Works” (in this volume, 254–66).
On Luther, see Graafland, Van Calvijn tot Comrie, 1:30–50; Lillbeck, Binding of God, 58–80; Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 209; Strehle, Calvinism, Federalism, and Scholasticism, 83–104. On Bullinger, see Hildebrand in this volume.
On Melanchthon, Strehle, Calvinism, Federalism, and Scholasticism, 92–97. According to Moltmann, Melanchthon is the cause of the discontinuity between earlier and later Reformation theologians, see Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 39; Lillback emphasizes in relationship to the understanding of the covenant in Gen. 17, that Wittenberg and Switserland differed with respect to law and gospel. See Lillbeck, Binding of God, 110–25.
Muller, “Covenant of Works,” 88–89; Lillbeck, Binding of God, 276–304; Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 277–305; Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 46–56.
On this issue, see Lillbeck, Binding of God, 276–304; Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 36–56. According to Denlinger, Calvin had no covenantal (foederalist) understanding of original sin, see Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 49–56.
On Ursinus, see Graafland, Van Calvijn tot Comrie, 2:11–41; Strehle, Calvinism, Federalism, and Scholasticism, 163–68; Weir, Origins of the Federal Theology, 99–114; Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 399–420.
Graafland, Van Calvijn tot Comrie, 2:155–56; Weir, Origins of the Federal Theology, 137–44.
See Michael McGiffert, “The Perkinsian Moment of Federal Theology,” Calvin Theological Journal 29 (1994): 117–49.
“Alle hooger leven onder redelijke en zedelijke schepselen draagt den vorm van een verbond.” Herman Bavinck, Gereformeerde dogmatiek, 4th ed. (Kampen: Kok 1928–1929), 2:530, (Reformed Dogmatics, trans. John Vriend [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2004], 2:568). Cf. Klaas Schilder, Wat is de hemel? [Heaven: what is it?] (Kampen; Kok 1935), 237–38, 245.
Bavinck, Gereformeerde dogmatiek, 2:499–509 (Reformed Dogmatics, 2:539–48); Michael S. Horton, Lord and Servant: A Covenant Christology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 10–16, 84, 93; Horton, Covenant and Salvation, 3, 7, 152–53, 181–215.
WCoF VII.1. Echoed by Bavinck, Gereformeerde dogmatiek, 2:530–31 / Reformed Dogmatics, 2:568–70; Horton, Lord and Servant, vii, 81.
Gordon J. Spykman, Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 258. Further Willem J. van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 259–61; Craig G. Bartholomew, “Covenant and Creation: Covenant Overload or Covenantal Deconstruction?,” in Calvin Theological Journal 30 (1995): 25; Beach, Christ and the Covenant, 81–85; Richard P. Belcher Jr., “The Covenant of Works in the Old Testament,” in Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, Historical Perspectives, ed. Guy Prentiss Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, and John R. Muether (Wheaton: Crossway, 2020), 68–69; John Bolt, “Why the Covenant of Works Is a Necessary Doctrine,” in By Faith Alone: Answering the Challenges to the Doctrine of Justification, ed. Gary L.W. Johnson and Guy Prentiss Waters (Wheaton: Crossway, 2007), 184; J. van Genderen and W.H. Velema, Beknopte gereformeerde dogmatiek [Concise reformed dogmatics] (Kampen: Kok, 1992), 362; Schilder, Wat is de hemel?, 249–50; S.A. Strauss, Alles of niks: K. Schilder oor die verbond [All or nothing: K. Schilder on the covenant] (Bloemfontein: Patmos, 1986), 72; P. Veldhuizen, God en mens onderweg: Hoofdmomenten uit de theologische geschiedbeschouwing van Klaas Schilder [God and man on the road: Key moments in Klaas Schilder’s theological philosophy of history] (Leiden: Groen, 1995), 67–68.
Bavinck, Gereformeerde dogmatiek, 2:500–5, 512, 533, 535 / Reformed Dogmatics, 2:539–44, 551, 571–74; Belcher, “The Covenant of Works”, 69; Irons, “Redefining Merit;” Muller, “Covenant of Works,” 91–93; Strauss, Alles of Niks, 83, 99.
Van Asselt, Federal Theology, 253–54, 261–68; Beach, Christ and the Covenant, 86–90, 143; Bolt, “Covenant of Works,” 183, 185; Bavinck, Gereformeerde dogmatiek, 2:532–33, 535; Horton, Lord and Servant, 80–81, 94, 101, 105, 128, 131–32, 208; McGowan, Adam, Christ and Covenant, 10; Muller, “Covenant of Works,” 88–90, 95–97; Schilder, Wat is de hemel?, 245, 250; Strauss, Alles of Niks, 78, 86–87, 97, 101; Veldhuizen, God en mens onderweg, 86–92.
Weir emphasizes that the covenant of works safeguards the moral responsibility of humanity against the pressure of the doctrine of election. He seems to have overstated his case. Nevertheless, still the covenant of works has this theological function. See Weir, Origins of the Federal Theology, 15–16, 22–23, 27, 32.
Bavinck, Gereformeerde dogmatiek, 2:538–40; 3:82–85 / Reformed Dogmatics, 2:576–79; 3:103–6; Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 185–92; Van Genderen and Velema, Beknopte gereformeerde dogmatiek, 364; Horton, Lord and Servant, 96, 115, 128, 135, 160, 224; McGowan, Adam, Christ and Covenant, 10; Muller, “Covenant of Works,” 94; Veldhuizen, God en mens onderweg, 82–84, 88.
According to John Bolt, the federal headship of Adam is “not negotiable” and hence the crucial element in his defense of the covenant of works. Andrew McGowan separates the headship of Adam from the doctrine of the covenant. This enables him to maintain the headship of Adam in his ‘headship theology’ without a covenant of works. See Bolt, “Covenant of Works,” 183–84; McGowan, Adam, Christ and Covenant.
For Michael Horton, federal headship is the way to understand participation in Christ in accordance with a covenantal ontology. See Horton, Covenant and Salvation, 129–52, 164–65, 168, 200. Guy Prentiss Waters writes: “Paul understood God to have entered into a covenant with Adam as a representative man.” Guy Prentiss Waters, “The Covenant of Works in the New Testament,” in Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, Historical Perspectives, ed. Guy Prentiss Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, and John R. Muether (Wheaton: Crossway, 2020), 81.
Van Asselt, Federal Theology, 264–65; Bavinck, Gereformeerde dogmatiek, 2:512, 526, 534 / Reformed Dogmatics, 2:551, 565, 572–73; Beach, Christ and the Covenant, 131–35; Belcher, “The Covenant of Works”, 76; Horton, Lord and Servant, xi, xiii, 79–80, 94, 104, 108–9, 129, 151, 191; McGowan, Adam, Christ and Covenant, 10; Schilder, Wat is de hemel?, 250–252; Strauss, Alles of Niks, 76–77, 81, 90–92.
Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik 4.1, 66; Belcher, “The Covenant of Works”, 70; Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 185–92; Horton, Lord and Servant, 128, 135; Bavinck, Gereformeerde dogmatiek, 2:547–50; 3:82–85 / Reformed Dogmatics, 2:584–88; 3, 103–6; Beach, Christ and the Covenant, 143; Van Genderen and Velema, Beknopte gereformeerde dogmatiek, 370–81; Veldhuizen, God en mens onderweg, 99–102; Waters, “The Covenant of Works”, 96.
See Weir, Origins of the Federal Theology, 4; McGowan, Adam, Christ and Covenant, 70; Michael S. Horton, Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 133; Horton, Lord and Servant, xi; 120, 151, 159; Horton, Covenant and Salvation, 13–15, 17, 97; Schilder, Wat is de hemel?, 255.
Van Asselt, Federal Theology, 253–54; Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik 4.1, 66; Bavinck, Gereformeerde dogmatiek, 3:81, 85, 365 / Reformed Dogmatics, 3:103, 106, 379; Belcher, “The Covenant of Works”, 64, 70; Bolt, “Covenant of Works,” 184; Horton, Lord and Servant, 79, 130–31, 133, 190–91, 220, 239–40; Horton, Covenant and Salvation, 24, 99, 114, 144, 187; McGowan, Adam, Christ and Covenant, 76–77; Muller, “Covenant of Works,” 89, 95–99; Schilder, Wat is de hemel?, 252–53; Strauss, Alles of Niks, 85, 92–95; Veldhuizen, God en mens onderweg, 96, 103–4; Waters, “The Covenant of Works”, 90, 97.
Belcher, “The Covenant of Works”, 70; Weir, Origins of the Federal Theology, 6–8; Horton, Lord and Servant, 84, 145.
On Barth, see McGowan, Adam, Christ and Covenant, 22–45; Maarten den Dulk, … Als twee die spreken: een manier om de heiligingsleer van Karl Barth te lezen [… Like two people speaking: a way of reading Karl Barth’s doctrine of sanctification] (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1987), 186–203.
On Barth and Cocceius, see Rinse Reeling Brouwer, Karl Barth, 107–43; Maarten Wisse, “The Inseparable Bond between Covenant and Predestination: Cocceius and Barth,” in Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour of Willem J. Van Asselt, ed. Willemien Otten, Marcel Sarot, and Maarten Wisse (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 259–79.
Schilder, Wat is de hemel?, 238, 249; Strauss, Alles of Niks, 66–98, 201; Veldhuizen, God en mens onderweg, 104–5.
S.G. de Graaf, Verbondsgeschiedenis: schetsen voor de vertelling van de Bijbelsche geschiedenis [Covenant history: Sketches for telling biblical history], vol. 1, Oude Testament [Old Testament] (Kampen: Kok, 1937), 14–20; H.T. Wendt, “The Love of the Lord is a Flame: The Covenant Theology of S.G. de Graaf in the Context of his Work and Life” (MA thesis, Theologische Universiteit Kampen, 2016), 88.
On Kampen theology, see Hans Burger, “Het belang van een deelnemersperspectief voor de theologie” [The value of a participant perspective for theology] Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 70.4 (2016): 321–37.
J. van Andel, Handleiding bij de beoefening der gewijde geschiedenis [Manual for the practice of sacred history] (Leeuwarden: G. Amsing 1886), 1:21–23, 35–36, 38.
Hildebrand, “Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575)” (in this volume, 254–66); Matthias Mangold, “Friendship, Covenant, and Law: ‘The Doctrine of the Covenant of Works in Johannes Braun (1628–1708)’ ” (in this volume, 267–82).
Beach, Christ and the Covenant, 78–79.
For a similar criticism, but in combination with a defense of the covenant of works, see Irons, “Redefining Merit,” 259–67. According to John Bolt, we need the covenant of works to maintain the legal character of the relationship with God. He claims that between love/grace and law exists no contradiction. See Bolt, “Covenant of Works,” 184–89. Similarly, according to Muller, the fact that in the covenant of works stability of law and the grace of the new covenant can be combined, contradicts the accusation of legalism. Muller, “Covenant of Works,” 95, 97, 99. However, too easily he forgets that the covenant of works makes the law fundamental to the God-man relationship. In his view, this relationship in its essence has a legal character (see, e.g., Van Asselt, Federal Theology, 254).
Barth, Kirchliche Dogmatik 4.1, 66. Beach denies that the covenant of nature implies a legalistic quid pro quo scheme, no sort of merit of condignity or congruity is operative. Still, merit ex pacto exists. Further, he cannot imagine “a divine/human relationship in which God’s law has no role.” Christ and the Covenant, 141. Like Beach also Mangold in this volume. According to Belcher, “salvation is by works, … the works of Christ”. Belcher, “The Covenant of Works”, 70; further 77.
De Graaf, Verbondsgeschiedenis, 16–20; Wendt, “The Love of the Lord,” 88, 98.
McGowan, Adam, Christ and Covenant, 77.
According to Bolt, “Covenant of Works,” 185, much opposition is terminological.
Goldingay, Leder, Stek, and Williamson conclude that before the fall no covenant existed, because in their view a covenant guarantees a relationship in a situation that has become uncertain; see John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1: Israel’s Gospel (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003), 92, 181, 415; Old Testament Theology, vol. 2: Israel’s Faith (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 182, 184; Arie C. Leder, “Divine Presence, then the Covenants: An Essay on Narrattive and Theological Precedence (Part Two),” in Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrif 54.3/4 (2013): 207–10; John H. Stek, “ ‘Covenant’ Overload in Reformed Theology,” in Calvin Theological Journal 29 (1994): 12–41; Paul R. Williamson, Sealed with an Oath: Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose, NSBT 23 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2007), 52–58. Further Christopher J.H. Wright, Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament (London: Marshall Pickering, 1992), 80.
Belcher writes that “several elements commonly associated with covenants are present in Genesis 1–3”. Moreover, Hos 6,7 “identifies Adam as a covenant breaker”. Belcher, “The Covenant of Works”, 64–67. According to Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, the language of ‘image of God’ (Gen. 1: 26–27) communicates within the Ancient Near East context the ideas of rulership and sonship. Without giving arguments, they identify such as a “covenant relationship.” Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 190–202, 217, 613–16. Spykman understands all God’s dealings with creation as covenantal, also before the fall, see Spykman, Reformational Theology, 260–63. See further Bartholomew, “Covenant and Creation,” 20–30; William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000), 11–46.
According to Stek, in the reformed tradition the ontic distance between Creator en creature has made it necessary to construe the nature of the God-humanity relationship as a covenant. However, “biblical covenants do not belong to the fundamentals of thee God-creature relationship.” Stek, “ ‘Covenant’ Overload,” 15, 40; against Spykman, Reformational Theology, 257–59.
Turretin and Cocceius held a different opinion. See Beach, Christ and the Covenant, 106–19; Van Asselt, Federal Theology, 253.
Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 1:181; 2:184.
Leder, “Divine Presence,” 208. Cf. Stek, “ ‘Covenant’ Overload,” 39.
Irons, “Redefining Merit.”
Stek, “ ‘Covenant’ Overload,” 25.
According to Horton, “two different types of covenants form distinct riverbeds cutting synchronically through the same biblical history.” Lord and Servant, 150; further viii–xii, 159–60; Horton, Covenant and Salvation, 12–29. For a different view, see Van Genderen and Velema, Beknopte gereformeerde dogmatiek, 500.
R. Kendall Soulen, The God of Israel and Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 16. See also Hans Burger, “Theirs Are the Covenants: Israel and the Covenant of Grace” (forthcoming).
Bavinck, Gereformeerde dogmatiek, 3:211 / Reformed Dogmatics, 3:229; Spykman, Reformational Theology, 11–12, 257–59; Van Genderen and Velema, Beknopte gereformeerde dogmatiek, 363–64; cf. 366.
See Koert van Bekkum, “Biblical Covenants in their Ancient Near Eastern Context: A Methodological, Historical and Theological Reassessment” (in this volume, 43–78).
So e.g. H. de Jong, Van oud naar nieuw: de ontwikkelingsgang van het Oude naar het Nieuwe Testament [From old to new: The development from the Old to the New Testament] (Kampen: Kok 2002), 89–90. Kwakkel disagrees, see G. Kwakkel, “Verplichting of relatie: Verbonden in Genesis; Henk de Jong en zijn visie op het verbond” [Obligation or relation: Covenants in Genesis; Henk de Jong and his vision of the covenant], in Verrassend vertrouwd: een halve eeuw verkondiging en theologie van Henk de Jong [Surprisingly familiar: Half a century of preaching and theology by Henk de Jong], ed. Jan Bouma, Freddy Gerkema, and Jan Mudde (Franeker: Van Wijnen, 2009), 119, 128.
Ernst Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten “Bund” im Alten Testament, BZAW 131 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973), 1–27.
John Murray, followed by McGowan, see McGowan, Adam, Christ and Covenant, 50, 54, 129–61.
Stek, “ ‘Covenant’ overload,” 39. Against Stek see Bartholomew, “Covenant and Creation,” 21–22.
Ed Noort, “Over-lijden en overleven: de verbondsvoorstellingen van de deuteronomistische scholen” [On suffering, passing away and surviving: The covenant representations of the deuteronomistic schools], in Sleutelen aan het verbond: Bijbelse en theologische essays [Engineering Covenant: Biblical and theological essays], ed. Ed Noort et al. (Boxtel: Katholieke Bijbelstichting, 1989), 7–11; Stek, “ ‘Covenant’ overload,” 39; and further 25, 37–41. Against Stek see Bartholomew, “Covenant and Creation,” 20–21, 23. Bartholomew rightly denies this is always the case, but he does not see that more often than he acknowledges, a covenant is a reaction to a crisis. See Bartholomew, “Covenant and Creation,” 23–26. Leder limits his claim to all covenants in the narrative of Genesis – Kings: they secure a “threatened relationship.” “Divine Presence (Part Two),” 208.
Bartholomew, “Covenant and Creation,” 22–23, 25, 27; Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 1:181; Gordon Paul Hugenberger, Marriage As a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi, VTSup 52 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 170–71, 174, 176–80; Kwakkel, “Verplichting of relatie,” 119–20, 128; Gert Kwakkel, “Berith and Covenants in the Old Testament: A Contribution to a Fruitful Cooperation of Exegesis and Systematic Theology” (in this volume, 21–42); Williamson, Sealed with an Oath, 43.
Cf. De Jong, Van oud naar nieuw, 87–95; Kwakkel, “Verplichting of relatie,” 129.
Cf. Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 1:181; 2:182–84; Leder, “Divine Presence (Part Two),” 208; Stek, “ ‘Covenant’ overload,” 39.
Hugenberger, Marriage as Covenant, 171, 174, 180–81; Williamson, Sealed with an Oath, 39, 43.
Horton, Covenant and Salvation, 164–65, 182–215.
Nicholas Wolterstorff, Justice: Rights and Wrongs (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008).
See e.g. N.T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God 4 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 485–94.
Burger, “Theirs Are the Covenants”; Chr. Wright, Knowing Jesus, 36–39, 85–86, 92–93, 95; Christopher J.H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 31, 191–263, 329–33; N.T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 495–506.
Kwakkel formulates more cautiously. See G. Kwakkel, “The Sinaitic Covenant in the Book of Exodus”, in Living Waters from Ancient Springs: Essays in Honor of Cornelis Van Dam, ed. Jason van Vliet (Eugene: Pickwick, 2011), 28–34.
Scott W. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises, AYBRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 62–83, 90–92; H. de Jong, Vergeving: De kern van het christelijk geloof [Forgiveness: The core of Christian faith] (Franeker: Van Wijnen, 2012), 9–12, 52–57; Kwakkel, “The Sinaitic Covenant”, 35–39; N.T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 507–11.
Cf. Jacob van Bruggen, Paulus: Pionier voor de Messias van Israël [Paul: Pioneer for Israel’s Messiah], CNT-3 (Kampen: Kok, 2001), 180–81; Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 239, 248–56.
Chr. Wright, Knowing Jesus, 22, 44, 62–63, 125–35, 153–74, 182; Chr. Wright, Mission of God, 65–66, 286, 304, 325, 342–44; N.T. Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 511–37.