2012 Convocation on Covenant Theology

Sermon by J. Ligon Duncan on August 22, 2012

Download Audio


Covenant Theology


August 22, 2012

2012 Convocation

Reformed Theological Seminary

Jackson, Mississippi

The Reverend Dr. J. Ligon Duncan III

It’s a joy to be with you, friends.
This is a formal academic occasion and perhaps calls for a more formal academic
address. My address will be
somewhere between an academic address and preaching; I will be unable to resist
drifting into preaching as we tackle this subject.
I thought it might be encouraging to you at the outset of this new
semester and for some of you at the outset of your theological education, to be
reminded of a central commitment of this institution and of reformed
Christianity from the very beginning, and that is the commitment to classic
covenant theology. And I want to
briefly make a case for classic covenant theology, knowing that for some of you
even that terminology is entirely new.
And so I want to try to give some explanation about what we mean when we
say covenant theology, I want to talk just a little bit about covenant theology
in history, and then I want to point us to four places where covenant theology
helps us in the Christian life from the Scriptures.

So let’s begin by noting this — covenant theology is the Gospel set in the
context of God’s eternal plan of communion with His people and in its historic
outworkings in the covenants of works and grace as well as in the various
progressive stages of the covenant of grace.
Covenant theology explains the meaning of the death of Christ in light of
the fullness of the Biblical teaching on the divine covenants, it undergirds our
understanding of the nature and use of the sacraments, and it provides the
fullest possible explanation of our grounds of assurance of salvation.
To put it another way, covenant theology is the Bible’s way of explaining
and deepening our understanding of five things.
And here they are. I’ll name
them and then I’ll go back and explain them:
the atonement, assurance, the sacraments, the continuity of redemptive
history, and sanctification.
Covenant theology is the Bible’s way of explaining and deepening our
understanding of the atonement, assurance, sacraments, the continuity of
redemptive history, and sanctification.

It is the Bible’s way of explaining and deepening our understanding of the
atonement. That is, the meaning of
the death of Jesus Christ. What did
Jesus come to do? What did He in
fact accomplish in His redemptive death, burial, and resurrection?
Covenant theology, at its very origins, sought to explain that.
And we’ll see why in just a few moments.
Secondly, covenant theology is the Bible’s way of explaining and
deepening our understanding of assurance.
That is, the basis of our communion with God and the enjoyment of His
promises. How can we be sure that we
are accepted by God? How can we be
assured that we are right with God and secure in His hand?
Covenant theology seeks to give a Biblical explanation and application of
that truth, deepening our understanding of that glorious aspect of the Christian
life. Third, covenant theology is
the Bible’s way of explaining and deepening our understanding of the sacraments.
That is, the signs and seals of God’s covenant promises; what they are
and how they work. Covenant theology
explains covenant signs; what they’re there for, what they do, what they don’t
do, how they help us, how they’re means of grace.
Fourth, covenant theology explains and deepens our understanding of the
continuity of redemptive history, the unified plan of God’s salvation.
One of the great things that RTS students tell me constantly is how they
are gripped by this in their Biblical studies courses when they see the great
flow of redemptive history and the unified plan of God.
Well covenant theology is there to help us grasp the one plan of God in
redemption in history. And covenant
theology explains and deepens our understanding of sanctification, and
especially the role of God’s power in growing us in grace in the living of the
Christian life without denying our responsibility.
Sovereignty and responsibility exist not only in salvation as it is
expressed in election and faith but also in the work of sanctification which
Paul repeatedly says is God’s work and then he calls on us to do things.
And so covenant theology helps us to understand how the monergistic work
of God in us doesn’t leave us robots with nothing to do but human beings who are
called to respond and to act. So
covenant theology helps us in those five areas.

It is also an hermeneutic, that is, an approach to understanding Scripture, an
approach that attempts to Biblically explain the unity of Biblical revelation.
Covenant theology is a blending of both Biblical and systematic theology.
If Biblical theology is the thematic survey of redemptive history with an
emphasis on theological development from era to era of whatever topic you’re
studying in the Bible, then covenant theology could rightly be called Biblical,
Biblical theology. That is, covenant
theology recognizes that the Bible itself structures the progress of redemptive
history through a succession of covenants.
So in that sense, covenant theology is Biblical theology, which studies
the Scriptures from the standpoint of the history of redemption.
But it’s also systematic theology.
It’s systematic theology in that it recognizes the covenants serve as a
fundamental architectonic or organizing principle for the Bible’s theology and
so it proceeds to integrate the Biblical teaching, for instance, of the federal
headships of Adam in Christ, the covenantal nature of the incarnation and
atonement, the continuities and discontinuities in the progress of redemptive
history, the relation of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, Law and Gospel,
into a coherent theological system.

And one of the unique things that you will receive at RTS is a theological
education that does not pit Biblical theology against systematic theology, but
rejoices in them both. In many
places, Biblical theology and systematic theology are taught in tension and
contradiction of one another. Here,
there is what I might call dynamic complementarity.
The systematic theologians that you hear rejoice and thrive in Biblical
theology and our Biblical theologians know that it is impossible not to have a
systematic theology. We all do, it’s
just that some of us admit it and others don’t.
And we want to be Biblical in both our Biblical theology and our
systematic theology.

But covenant theology also — we need to understand its role in history —
covenant theology is not a response to dispensationalism.
I don’t know how you are, but when I went to seminary, having grown up in
that eighth generation home of a southern Presbyterian elder, the dominant
theological system of hermeneutics and Biblical theology that I had received
from reading popular evangelical literature was dispensational.
In fact, when I went into my first Biblical theology class in seminary I
was suspicious of the professor because I knew that he was going to be, how
shall I say it, unfriendly to dispensationalism.
Now it took him fifteen minutes to win me over — all of fifteen minutes!
But so often, those of us who have grown up in reformed settings, and
certainly those of us who haven’t, have had no exposure to this glorious system
of Biblical theology bequeathed to us in the covenant tradition.
And that is not a new thing.
That’s what I want you to understand.
Covenant theology is not a response to dispensationalism.
Covenant theology existed centuries before dispensationalism was
popularized by the pen of C.I. Scofield.

Let me just give you a taste for this.
I wish I could give you a whole study on the history of covenant theology
but just take this as an hors d’oeuvre and study it some more yourself.
Scholars studying the origins of the 16th century reformers
covenant theology have established a link between the early reformers covenant
thought and the patristic writers, that is, the writers of earliest
Christianity, the church fathers. It
has been shown, for instance, that Heinrich Bullinger, a reformer who was a
younger contemporary of John Calvin, appealed to a number of early church
fathers in his teaching on the covenant idea, for instance in his book on the
one and eternal covenant or testament of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Here’s what one scholar says.
“Bullinger drew heavily on the Bible and used several church fathers to give his
idea of the covenant a pass in order to show that it was not an innovation but
the very fabric from which the history of salvation was woven through the
centuries from Adam to his own day.
He cited Augustine, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius and Eusebius for his
patristic support.”

Now since that discovery, reformation scholars are widely knowledgeable of that
now, but reformation specialists have also conducted preliminary surveys of the
covenant idea in the church fathers in order to set the stage for the analysis
of the reformers covenant theology.
Andrew Woolsey, for instance, who studied at the University of Glasgow, gives
these concluding remarks to his brief overview of the use of the covenant
concept in the epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of
Alexandria, and Augustine. So you’re
covering from roughly the 2nd century to the 4th century:

“First of all they used the
covenant idea to stress the unity and explain the differences between the Old
and New testaments. Secondly, they
saw the covenant soteriologically as one eternal covenant in Christ manifest
throughout all ages from the time of Adam.
Third, there was a dual emphasis in their presentation of the covenant.
It was a unilateral promise of grace given sovereignly by God, but it
also required a response of faith and obedience from man.
And though this response was only by divine enabling and not by any
natural inherent power in the fallen man, it complimented the sovereignty of God
in the work of sanctification.
Fourthly, in the case of Augustine, there was a definite use of the idea of
covenant in a legal sense, though still in the context of grace with respect to
Adam in his fallen state. And
finally, again, in Augustine especially, there was a close association of the
covenant with baptism. So it is
erroneous to locate the origin of the idea of covenant theology to Zwingli in
the reformation in Zurich” – as you still often hear people say.

They’ll say, “Covenant theology was invented in Zurich in the time of the
reformation.” Now let me tell you
one other thing. There is a book
that was written by Irenaeus, one of the fathers that is referenced here, that
we did not have possession of, again, until the early 1900’s.
And we only have it in a Syriac translation.
It’s called, On the Demonstration
of the Apostolic Preaching
. And
it is what early church scholars call, catechesis.
It is an example of what a pastor would use to teach his congregation the
basics of the Christian faith. And
if you look at that little book, he structures — first of all, it’s Biblical
theology. He wants his people to
have an understanding of the sweep of redemptive history and if you look at that
book it is outlined not unlike Palmer Robertson’s book,
Christ of the Covenants.
He goes from Adam to Noah to Moses to David to Christ and he structures
redemptive history around the outline of the covenants.
And that’s how he wanted to train young Christians in his church in
Biblical theology. Now remember,
Irenaeus studied under a man in Smyrna, probably Papius, who had studied under
John — that John, the John who wrote the gospel and the letters and who laid his
head on Jesus’ chest at the Last Supper.
And interestingly, you may never have seen it before, even if you’ve read
Eusebius ecclesiastical history, when he’s telling about Irenaeus call to the
ministry — do you remember that fascinating story?
It’s 177 and you’re in Gall and the pastor of the church has been
martyred by a mob of pagans. And the
congregation unanimously asks a young man to be their new pastor.
He is terrified of the prospect.
His name is Irenaeus. But
they send him on an embassy from the church to Rome to ask their brothers to
help them in this precarious situation.
And Eusebius says that that young man, Irenaeus, was called “a man who
was zealous for the covenant of Christ.”
Now there is no ascription in the ancient world that is remotely like
that description of Erroneus — “a man zealous for the covenant of Christ.”

My only point is simply this — covenant theology is rooted in history.
It’s a blending of Biblical and systematic theology.
And I want to say this very quickly.
Covenant theology is central, not peripheral, to the Biblical story.
Think about this with me for a few moments.
When Jesus wanted to explain the significance of His death to the
disciples, where did He go? He went
to the doctrine of the covenants. If
you look at Matthew 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22, all the Last Supper narratives,
whereas Jesus, as far as we can tell from the gospels, rarely, if ever, used
covenant theology or covenant theology in His public teaching, when He comes to
explain the meaning and significance of His death to the disciples, do you
remember what He says? “This cup is
the new covenant in My blood.” He relates the meaning of His death to the
fulfillment of the prophecy of Jeremiah 600 years before, and then harkening
beyond that in the bread word, to the establishment of the Mosaic covenant in
Exodus 24. So He brings in covenant
terminology, categories, and concepts to explain the meaning and significance of
His death. This shows us how central
covenant theology is, not only to the Christian story but to Christian theology.

Second, when God wanted to assure Abraham of the certainty of His word of
promise, where did He go? He went to
the covenant. Near Eastern deities
didn’t make covenants with their people and they certainly didn’t assume the
role of a vassal in relation to their people.
But when Abraham, in Genesis 15, asks, “Lord, how am I going to know that
You are going to fulfill Your promises?” God goes to the covenant and He swears
a curse against Himself as He walks through the pieces of the slaughtered
animals like a vassal and says to Abraham, “Be it done to Me as we have done to
these animals if I do not fulfill My promises to you.”
He goes to the covenants, in other words, to assure Abraham.
The meaning of Christ’s death, the assurance of Abraham.

Third, when God wanted to set apart His people and engrain His work in their
minds and tangibly reveal Himself in love and mercy to them and confirm their
future inheritance, what did He do?
He gave them covenant signs. In
Genesis 17, when Abraham still does not have a child by Sarah, and God has
changed His name from “mighty father” to “father of nations,” still without his
own heir, and God wants to assure him of the covenant that He has made with him,
what does He do? He gives him
circumcision. He cuts a sign in his
own flesh in order to assure him and to confirm to him His promises.
And so when God wants to engrain in Abraham’s mind and reveal Himself in
love and mercy and confirm his future inheritance He goes to the covenant signs.
And you can’t understand what He’s doing apart from the theology of the
covenants.

When Luke wanted to show early Christians that Jesus’ life and ministry were the
fulfillment of God’s ancient purposes for His chosen people, where did he go?
He went to the covenant of grace and he quoted Zacharias’ prophecy which
showed that believers in the very earliest days of the Jesus movement understood
Jesus and His Messianic work were the fulfillment, not a Plan-B, but a
fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham.
Take a look at Luke chapter 1 verses 72 and 73 and you’ll see Zacharias
acknowledging that the coming of the Savior into the world is the fulfillment of
God’s promise to Abraham and that that promise belongs to those who believe in
the Savior.

When the psalmist, in Psalm 78 and 89, or the author of Hebrews in chapters 6 to
10 want to show how God’s redemptive plan is ordered and on what basis it
unfolds in history, they go to the covenants and they structure their
presentation of Christian history or the history of redemption in terms of God’s
covenant plans. The doctrine of the
covenant lies at the root of all true theology.
It has been said that those who understand well the distinction between
the covenant of works and the covenant of grace are indeed masters of divinity.
“I am persuaded that most of the mistakes that men make concerning the
doctrines of Scripture are based upon fundamental errors with regard to the
covenant of law and of grace.” Who
said this? Charles Haddon Spurgeon,
the English Baptist preacher, certainly a man beyond our suspicion of secretly
purveying a Presbyterian view of the sacraments to the unsuspecting evangelical
masses! Why is that?
Because Charles Spurgeon was a reformed protestant and the Biblical
theology of the reformed movement is covenant theology and he was commending the
understanding of that to his people for the understanding of Scripture.

Covenant theology flows from the Trinitarian life and work of God.
God’s covenant communion with us is modeled on and reflected in the
intra-Trinitarian relationships – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The shared life, the fellowship of the persons of the Holy Trinity, what
theologians call perichoresis or circumincession is the archetype of the
relationship that the gracious covenant God shares with His elect and redeemed
people. God’s commitments in the
eternal covenant of redemption find their space time realization in the covenant
of grace. Covenant theology is the
Gospel set in the context of God’s eternal plan of communion.
As you learn those things, and many more here this semester and in the
years to come, may the Lord bless and enrich your souls.

© 2019 First Presbyterian Church.

This transcribed message has been lightly edited and formatted for the Web site. No attempt has been made, however, to alter the basic extemporaneous delivery style, or to produce a grammatically accurate, publication-ready manuscript conforming to an established style template.

Should there be questions regarding grammar or theological content, the reader should presume any website error to be with the webmaster/transcriber/editor rather than with the original speaker. For full copyright, reproduction and permission information, please visit the First Presbyterian Church Copyright, Reproduction & Permission statement.