Covenant: The Framework of God's Grand Plan of Redemption

By Daniel I. Block

Leading scholar Daniel Block helps students of the Bible understand the big picture of God's covenants with humanity as they play out in both the First and the New Testaments.

After fifty years of teaching and preaching around the globe, Block brings a lifetime of study and reflection on the First Testament and relationship with God to this comprehensive volume. The book focuses on God's covenants as the means by which God has reached out to a fallen humanity. It examines the heart and history of God's redemptive plan and shows why the covenants are essential for our understanding of the Bible.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Baker Publishing Group
• Release date: Jul 20, 2021
• ISBN: 9781493429158

Daniel I. Block

Daniel I. Block (D.Phil, University of Liverpool) is Gunther H. Knoedler Professor of Old Testament, Wheaton College.

Book preview

A rich, detailed, and accessible exposition of covenant in the First and New Testaments. We receive not only an overview of how covenant factors into every phase of biblical history but also a grand picture of how the entire Bible coheres marvelously under the hand of God. If you struggle to see how seemingly disparate First Testament themes like creation, sin, law, and exile are interwoven with covenantal ideas and have deep relevance for Christians today, this is the book for you!

—Jerry Hwang, Singapore Bible College

This fascinating and beautifully written study of biblical covenants from First Testament to New Testament will be valuable to a wide range of readers. Everyone interested in the Bible will benefit from Block’s wise reflection on the theological unity of the Bible’s diverse texts. Students, pastors, and scholars will find in this book a treasure trove of insight from years of study and meticulous research.

—Frank Thielman, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University

At last, Block has written his magnum opus! With characteristic rigor and boldness, Block sweeps aside false dichotomies and stale debates to invite fresh reflection on the ‘one continuous story of divine redemption.’ His book does a tremendous service to Christians struggling to see continuity between the Testaments. Students and scholars alike will appreciate his exegetical insight and synthesis of the Bible’s teaching on covenant.

—Carmen Joy Imes, Prairie College

"In Covenant, Dan Block has done a great service for scholars, pastors, teachers, and everyone interested in the structure and logic of the Bible. This is a comprehensive survey of the Bible’s message organized around a concept critical to properly appreciating the meaning and significance of the most-read book in human history. Throughout, the reader will find a treasure trove of information, framed and communicated through Dan’s characteristic combination of humility, warmth, clarity, thorough research, openness to critical discussion, and personal devotion to the God who speaks and brings us to himself through covenant."

—Dan Wu, Moore Theological College

"Block’s Covenant guides readers through the cosmic story of God’s plan of redemption through the framework of covenant. Block charts the covenantal story, which begins in Genesis and comes to its dramatic climax as Jesus Christ appears in the New Testament, fulfilling the divine plan. It’s a journey that uncovers the heart of God in profound ways, draws the reader into Scripture’s great drama and God’s great mission, and culminates with the resounding sound of worship. An inspiring and valuable read!"

—Beth Stovell, Ambrose University

Block has written a masterful survey of his approach to a coherent structure and framework for understanding the Bible. This book is the fruit of decades of research, and Block is the model of a godly and excellent scholar.

—Josh Moody, senior pastor of College Church, Wheaton, Illinois; president and founder, God Centered Life Ministries

While completely familiar with every nuance of critical scholarship, Block refreshingly allows the Bible to speak for itself without detours and debates. Every chapter is enriching, with illuminating exegesis from all over Scripture—a feast of good things to which the only adequate response is the last word of the book: ‘Hallelujah!’

—Christopher J. H. Wright, Langham Partnership; author of The Mission of God

© 2021 by Daniel I. Block

Published by Baker Academic

a division of Baker Publishing Group

PO Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287

www.bakeracademic.com

Ebook edition created 2021

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is on file at the Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

ISBN 978-1-4934-2915-8

Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture translations are the author’s own.

Scripture quotations marked CSB have been taken from the Christian Standard Bible®, copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers.

Scripture quotations labeled ESV are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. ESV Text Edition: 2016

Scripture quotations labeled KJV are from the King James Version of the Bible.

Scripture quotations labeled NASB are from the New American Standard Bible® (NASB), copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. www.Lockman.org

Scripture quotations labeled NIV are from THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture quotations labeled NJPS are from the New Jewish Publication Society Version © 1985 by The Jewish Publication Society. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations labeled NKJV are from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations labeled NRSV are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

In gratitude to

Murray J. Harris

†Thomas E. McComiskey

†Elmer A. Martens

Inspiring models of disciplined, modest,

and godly biblical scholarship

Contents

Cover    i

Endorsements    ii

Title Page    iii

Copyright Page    iv

Dedication    v

Illustrations    ix

Preface    xiii

Abbreviations    xxi

Introduction: Covenance and God’s Grand Plan of Redemption in Scripture    1

Part 1:  The Cosmic and Adamic Covenants    11

1. The Cosmic Covenant    13

 Excursus: Eden as a Temple?    27

2. The Adamic Covenant    44

Part 2:  The Israelite Covenant    67

Stage 1 of the Israelite Covenant    71

3. The Origins of the Abrahamic Covenant    73

4. The Afterlife of the Abrahamic Covenant    105

Stage 2 of the Israelite Covenant    133

5. The Establishment of the Israelite Covenant at Sinai: Exodus 1:1–31:18    135

6. The Renewal and Completion of the Israelite Covenant at Sinai: Exodus 32–Leviticus 26    171

 Excursus: The Levitical Covenant    205

Stage 3 of the Israelite Covenant    227

7. Reaffirming the Covenant on the Plains of Moab    229

8. The Nature of the Covenant Rituals and Laws on the Plains of Moab    243

Stage 4 of the Israelite Covenant    273

9. The New Israelite Covenant    275

Part 3:  The Davidic Covenant    299

10. The Historiographic Context, Nature, and Significance of the Davidic Covenant    303

11. The Afterlife of the Davidic Covenant in Israelite Prophecy    331

12. The Afterlife of the Davidic Covenant in the Psalter    367

Part 4:  Covenant in the New Testament    393

13. The Cosmic and Adamic Covenants in the New Testament    397

14. Stage 1 of the Israelite Covenant in the New Testament: The Abrahamic Covenant    425

15. Stages 2 and 3 of the Israelite Covenant in New Testament Narratives: The Covenant Ratified at Sinai and Reaffirmed on the Plains of Moab    459

16. Stages 2 and 3 of the Israelite Covenant in the Epistles    483

17. Stage 4 of the Israelite Covenant in the New Testament: The New Israelite Covenant    516

18. The Davidic Covenant in the Gospel Accounts of Jesus’ Early Life and Ministry    531

19. The Davidic Covenant in the Gospel Accounts of Jesus’ Passion and Resurrection    567

20. The Davidic Covenant in the Remainder of the New Testament    604

Conclusion: Reflections on Covenance and God’s Grand Plan of Redemption in Scripture    615

For Further Reading    624

Bibliography of Works Cited    639

Author Index    641

Hebrew and Greek Expressions Index    642

Subject Index    645

Scripture and Ancient Sources Index    652

Back Cover    681

Illustrations

Figures

Tables

Preface

Despite its size, this volume is intended as a work on biblical theology; it is neither the definitive nor the last word on the subject. On the contrary, what I have presented here is written in soft-lead pencil and is subject to revision based on further study of the Scriptures and the counsel of the community of faith.

As I have marinated in the Scriptures, I have constantly heard the words of Paul to young Timothy ringing in my ears: Be diligent in presenting yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). Here Paul uses the word orthotomeō, which occurs nowhere else in the New Testament but is found appropriately twice in the Old Greek version of the book of Proverbs, which is cast as a book of instruction for a young man preparing for responsible adulthood, if not in the court, then certainly in the community. In Proverbs 3:5–6 and 11:5 the sage of ancient Israel wrote, respectively:

Trust in YHWH with all your heart,

and do not rely on your own insight.

In all your ways acknowledge him,

and he will make straight your paths. (NRSV alt.)

The righteousness of the blameless keeps their ways straight,

but the wicked fall by their own wickedness. (NRSV, emphasis added)

In these fragments of counsel, orthotomeō speaks of cutting a straight course, taking a direct path to the desired goal. Together these statements highlight the need for confidence in God to guide us in the straight path and the diligent demonstration of righteousness (an eminently covenantal concept) by the person on the journey. In his pastoral word to Timothy, Paul had in mind the journey toward truth. His understanding of alētheia derives from the Hebrew root represented by ʾĕmet and ʾĕmûnâ, which speak of truthfulness, fidelity, and integrity.

Applied to the Scriptures as the word of truth, Ezra has provided me with the model of rightly handling this treasure for five decades: Ezra set his heart to study the Torah of YHWH, to apply it [in his life], and to teach covenance in Israel (7:10). Although usually translated as plurals, here the singular pair ordinance and stipulation (ḥōq ûmišpāṭ) functions as shorthand for the terms of YHWH’s revealed will for Israel, his vassal partner in the Israelite covenant. However, it also approaches the abstract notion of covenance, which includes both the obligations laid on the vassal and the responsibilities to which YHWH, the divine Suzerain, had committed himself. But it also includes the proclamations of gospel that underlie and provide context for the covenant, as declared, for example, in the preamble to the Decalogue (Exod. 20:2; Deut. 5:6), Moses’ domestic credo (Deut. 6:20–25), Israel’s shorter catechism (10:12–11:1), and the people’s national credo (26:5b–10a).

As I note in the introduction, this book is a Here I stand sort of document. In this volume, after my fifty years of study, teaching, and preaching, I not only seek to explain what I see the Scriptures teaching but also how I hear them teach. This means that for every opinion expressed, readers should adopt the attitude of the Bereans in Acts 17:11, who, after hearing Paul and Silas, examined the Scriptures to see if their teaching was true. If it was necessary for the Bereans to check Paul’s words, how much more urgent it is for readers to subject my interpretations to the standard of the Scriptures. My primary desire in producing this volume is to celebrate the grace of God in designing and implementing his grand plan of redemption and to invite conversation on the plan generally and in its details. In the end, God is most glorified and his people most transformed when they hear his voice in the Scriptures—rather than the voice of deeply flawed human interpreters.

Like my previous publication For the Glory of God: Recovering a Biblical Theology of Worship (Baker Academic, 2014), this book is intended for the church. I shall be pleased if biblical theologians, pastors, and church leaders find my work helpful, and I shall be delighted if it speaks to laypeople. With the aid of the editors at Baker, I have tried to pitch the literary style and register for anyone who seriously values what the Scriptures teach about God’s revealed program of salvation. Accordingly, I have resisted the temptation to present the arguments for every possible interpretation of the texts and concepts addressed and to fill the space available with endless references to secondary sources. This is, after all, intended as a biblical theology, not as a theology of biblical interpreters. To this end, with a few exceptions, I have reserved the footnotes for citing biblical references related to the discussion in the body. For the benefit of readers who may want to consult secondary sources for alternative opinions and fuller treatments of the subjects discussed, or wish I had investigated specific topics in greater detail here, I have provided a series of select bibliographies arranged according to the sequence of the major topics in the volume. Where applicable, these bibliographies are divided into two parts: (1) published works by other authors and (2) references to my own works where I have offered fuller treatments of related topics, generally with additional bibliography and discussion of alternative perspectives.

In this preface I need also to clarify several stylistic issues that readers may find odd and idiosyncratic:

The divine name, YHWH. I consistently render the personal name of the God of Israel as YHWH, which scholars identify as the Tetragrammaton (four consonants). In the period between the Testaments, Jews stopped pronouncing the name of God and substituted it with the title ʾădōnāy (Hb. אֲדוֹנָי), which means Lord, Master. This practice is reflected in the Old Greek translation of the First Testament (called the Septuagint, also known as LXX), where YHWH is consistently rendered as kyrios, the Greek word for lord, master. This is a perfect translation of ʾădōnāy, but it bears no relation to the personal name of the God of Israel, yhwh (Hb. יהוה). This practice carries over into the New Testament, where quotations of texts from the First Testament consistently also render yhwh as kyrios, and English versions translate yhwh as the LORD. In print the capitalization of all the letters helpfully distinguishes this epithet from ʾădōnāy, which is properly represented by Lord, but in oral reading the two are indistinguishable. This creates significant interpretive problems since most readers of Scripture pay no attention to the capitalized spelling, even though the connotations and implications of referring to someone by name or by title differ significantly. Traditionally, when rendered as a name, English translations have vocalized yhwh as Jehovah,1 which artificially combines the consonants of yhwh with the vowels of ʾădōnāy. Although the original pronunciation of the name is uncertain, today non-Jewish scholars generally reject the artificial construct Jehovah and prefer to render the name as Yahweh, which is also a hypothetical form. Personally, I am grateful that YHWH expressly revealed his name to his people and invited them to address him by name (e.g., Exod. 3:13–15), but I mourn losing the practice of addressing God by name. Because of the uncertainty of the name’s original vocalization and in deference to Jewish sensibilities, in this volume I render the divine name simply with the English letters YHWH. Exceptions occur only in direct quotations of English versions or secondary authors that use LORD.

The First Testament, rather than Old Testament. In my writings and teaching, I have generally ceased identifying the Bible that Jesus and the apostles used as the Old Testament. What we call something matters. The label Old Testament reinforces many Western Christians’ dismissive disposition toward the Hebrew Bible, connoting misleading notions of antiquity, irrelevance, and obsolescence, as if God’s earlier revelation has been subverted and supplanted by later revelation. Observing that we inherited Old Testament from the patristic period, John Goldingay rightly questions it, because it . . . suggests something antiquated and inferior left behind by a dead person (Goldingay, Israel’s Gospel, 1:15). To be sure, in 2 Corinthians 3:14 Paul uses the expression old covenant (tēs palaias diathēkēs). However, he was talking about not the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole but the biblical texts relating to the Israelite covenant. The author of Hebrews recognized the progression in divine revelation by speaking of this new covenant (touto diathēkēs kainēs) and the first covenant (tē prōtē diathēkē), respectively (9:15), though with the latter designation he was not thinking about the Old Testament either. We grasp and communicate the relationship between the two Testaments of the Christian Bible better if we identify the Old Testament as the First Testament and then view the New Testament as the completion or fulfillment of the first, rather than its replacement. These two Testaments together tell a single story of God’s grand program of redemption, with the New Testament describing the arrival of Jesus as the climax of that story. Accordingly, throughout this book I will use First Testament for the former Scriptures, the Hebrew Bible.

Citation of biblical texts. Unless otherwise indicated, throughout this volume all translations of biblical texts are my own. Where the English and Hebrew or Old Greek (Septuagint, LXX2) chapter and verse numbers differ, the English verse numbers will appear first, while the corresponding Hebrew or Greek numbers appear in square brackets, as in this example: Psalm 22:23 [24].

Like the oak tree in our previous backyard, the production of this volume—from the germination of the seed to the full-grown tree—has taken decades. Since I was raised in the home of a godly mother and a minister father whose first passion was the study of the Scriptures, the seed of the plant that has become this book was deposited in the soil in my childhood, but its roots went down during my three years at Bethany Bible Institute (later College) in the small town of Hepburn, Saskatchewan, and while I was pursuing my undergraduate degrees at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. In the kind providence of God during our time in Saskatoon, my wife, Ellen, and I were nurtured by our beloved pastor, Henry Harder, a former Old Testament professor at our denominational seminary. Under his ministry the whole Bible came alive for me. Driven by a newfound passion for the First Testament, the call of God to ministry, and the advice of Pastor Harder, in 1971 we moved across the border for seminary studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (TEDS) in Deerfield, Illinois. Through the influence of the faculty and a core group of fellow students, my desire to understand the Scriptures intensified. But my learning did not stop there.

Since 1973 I have had the privilege of teaching at least a decade at four very different institutions. In the preface to a synthetic volume like this, it is fitting that I express my gratitude to faculty colleagues at Providence College in Otterburne, Manitoba; Bethel Theological Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota; the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky; and Wheaton College Graduate School in Wheaton, Illinois. Through insights gained in carpools, over coffee, and in each other’s homes, and through inspiration derived from their godly living, discipline as scholars, and passion for their students, I have been profoundly influenced by these colleagues: sometimes through particular words of encouragement, sometimes with cautions, and sometimes with nonverbal and verbal expressions of incredulity. I am deeply grateful for the role they have had in shaping my life.

However, I must express special gratitude to the three gentlemen to whom this book is dedicated—all of whom have provided me with a model of humble but disciplined scholarship for the glory of God, a model that we need to emulate. I have had more flamboyant and charismatic professors, but my seminary experience began with an eight-week summer New Testament Greek course with Dr. Murray J. Harris. This was indeed a perfect way to start seminary, not only because Professor Harris excited me about reading the New Testament in the language in which it had been written, but also because of the quiet, gentle, and modest but disciplined disposition he displayed inside and outside the classroom. By the time the course was over, he had imprinted in my mind a model of scholarship and professorship that has never left me. Thus for me, Murray Harris modeled New Testament scholarship at its best.

Thomas E. McComiskey († 1996) was Harris’ colleague at TEDS and was his Old Testament counterpart who incidentally published a helpful volume on the covenants. In addition to Harris’ quiet modesty, McComiskey was the consummate gentleman professor. He taught me that we can all learn something from everyone, even those with whom we disagree. He was respectful of those whose opinions differed from his own, and he resisted ad hominem responses, encouraging us to let our work rather than strong and hurtful words win our debates. His oral and written work represented an exemplary combination of sound analysis and gracious locution.

The third person in this triad of honorees is my good friend Dr. Elmer Martens († 2016). Because we were both nurtured in the Mennonite Brethren faith in rural Saskatchewan, our affinities were natural. After I had completed my doctoral studies, he invited me to lecture at the Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary in Fresno, California, in 1983—what was he thinking? However, in the summer before those lectures, our family had moved across the border, and I began participating regularly in the annual conferences of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), the Institute for Biblical Research, and the Society of Biblical Literature. Through these yearly events, Elmer became like an older brother to me, and spending time with him was always the highlight of the conventions for me. In fact, the inspiration for this volume came from him. After hearing my preliminary and programmatic paper on Covenance at ETS, he encouraged me to develop my thesis into a full-length volume on biblical theology. I am deeply grateful to have enjoyed a sibling relationship with Elmer for twenty-five years, and I miss him deeply. When we learned of Elmer’s sudden passing in September 2016, Ellen and I were in Sydney, Australia, on a short teaching assignment. Three days before his death, he had written me a note inquiring whether we could room together at the conferences in San Antonio, Texas, in November. But alas! Before I could answer his kind invitation, he was off to a much more blessed place in [our] Father’s house (John 14:2).

It is a great privilege and delight to dedicate this volume to these three men. However, there are others who deserve special recognition for its production. I am deeply grateful for the encouragement and counsel of Jim Kinney, the executive vice president at Baker Academic, who has overseen the enterprise from the beginning. When the project turned out to be larger than we had envisioned at first, he gulped but stuck with me, proposing a host of ways to make the presentation more efficient. I am also grateful to Brandy Scritchfield, the acquisitions associate at Baker, and the editorial team, especially project editor Jennifer Hale, for their careful and painstaking inspection of every jot and tittle, their stylistic and technical modifications to make the presentation more readable and compelling, and their queries concerning interpretation and lapses in the presentation. They have been truly amazing.

I cannot express adequately how grateful I am for the long-standing support and friendship of Bud Knoedler and his dear late wife, Betty. While I was on the faculty at Wheaton College, they underwrote my professorial chair with incredible generosity, and I am still honored to have his name in my official title. And now we have the special privilege of being neighbors at Windsor Park Manor, where we share conversation on a regular basis. Finally, I eagerly also acknowledge Ellen, the delight of my eyes (מַחְמַד עֵינַי, Ezek. 24:16), who has stood by me as a gracious friend and counselor for more than five decades. Without her love, patience, and wisdom in managing our household, the work represented here would either have taken a very different turn or never have been finished.

I conclude this preface and these acknowledgments with one final testimonial comment. I grew up in a hermeneutical world that was a curious mix of Anabaptist piety and dispensationalist theology. A feature of this world—one that was totally commendable and that the Christian community has largely lost—was the devotion of all, including the laity, to the personal study of Scripture as the authority on all matters of faith and life. When children began to read the Scriptures for themselves, parents would buy them their own copy of the Scofield Reference Bible as Christmas or birthday presents. But inherent in these resources were forces that stifled the life-giving and life-transforming message of the First Testament. When I graduated from Bible college, I was part of a religious community in which we would often hear But that’s in the Old Testament, and with that comment the door slammed shut on closer exploration of First Testament texts.

But that was then. As I have been writing this volume, I have often felt like the starving lepers whose story we read in 2 Kings 7. After they had gorged themselves on the food left by the Aramaean army that had mysteriously abandoned their camp on the outskirts of Samaria, they admitted, "What we’re doing is not right. This is a day of good news [Hb. yôm bĕśōrâ; Gk. hēmera euangelias], and we are keeping it to ourselves! If we keep silent until dawn, then we will be held liable. Let’s go now and report this to the king’s palace (2 Kings 7:9). That is how I feel about the bread of life" that is our Scriptures. Aided by the wise guidance and modeling of strong mentors, I have eaten and drunk deeply of all the Scriptures and have been animated and energized by their messages. During the last phases of this project, I have been reading and greatly inspired by the remarkable early ninth-century-AD Old Saxon account of the life of Jesus Christ: The Heliand: The Saxon Gospel, brilliantly translated into New Living Translation style by G. Ronald Murphy (1992). I will be very pleased if my delight in rehearsing the whole Bible gospel under the rubric of Covenant: The Framework of God’s Grand Plan of Redemption is as transparent as the joy of the obviously precritical but unknown author of The Heliand—whom I look forward to meeting one day. In the chapters that follow, I share with readers the glorious message of grace and redemption that I have found on virtually every page of both First and New Testaments. In them we find the words of eternal life that YHWH incarnate in Jesus Christ offers us (cf. John 6:68).

So come, taste and see that YHWH is good!

How privileged are those who seek refuge in him!

Oh, fear YHWH, you his holy ones,

for those who fear him have all they need! (Ps. 34:8–9 [9–10])

1. Jehovah appears four times in the 1611 KJV: Exod. 6:3; Ps. 83:18 [19]; Isa. 12:2; 26:4. The form is also reflected in the names Jehovah-jireh (Gen. 22:14), Jehovah-nissi (Exod. 17:15), and Jehovah-shalom (Judg. 6:24).

2. Technically, the title Septuagint (70, hence LXX) applies only to the first five books, the Pentateuch, which, according to the Letter of Aristeas, was translated by seventy Jewish scribes in the third century BC. The remainder of the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek between 200 and 50 BC and is more precisely referred to as the Old Greek version. However, the designation LXX for the Greek Torah/Pentateuch is often extended to the entire Greek First Testament.

Abbreviations

General

Bible Texts and Versions

First Testament

New Testament

Apocrypha

Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran)

Pseudepigraphon

Mishnaic Tractates

Other Rabbinic Works

Bibliographic

Introduction

Covenance and God’s Grand Plan of Redemption in Scripture

Covenance as the Heart of Biblical Revelation

Theologians have identified many profoundly significant big and unifying motifs in the Scriptures. After five decades of marinating in the Scriptures, I have found, among those themes, that the notion of covenance represents the heart of all biblical revelation, and the covenants themselves provide the framework for that revelation. A covenant is a formally confirmed agreement between two or more parties that creates, formalizes, or governs a relationship that does not naturally exist or a natural relationship that may have been broken or disintegrated. The term covenant derives from an Old French verb covenancier, to settle or contract. The Oxford English Dictionary defines covenant as a mutual agreement between two or more persons to do or refrain from doing certain acts; a compact, contract, bargain; sometimes, the undertaking, pledge, or promise of one of the parties (1:585). Normally parents need not formalize their relationship with biological children; the relationship is established by birth. However, it is conceivable that should parent and child be estranged, at some point they could reestablish the relationship through a covenantal procedure. In contrast to relationships established by birth, adults in many societies may establish a relationship with a person who is not their biological child through a formal ceremony of adoption. Through this covenant ritual, the parents claim the child as their own and commit to caring for that child. Covenants typically involve solemn commitments establishing the privileges and obligations that attend agreements.

The Scriptures know of two kinds of covenants: parity covenants, between parties of equal social status; and disparity covenants, between parties of unequal status—usually identified as suzerain-vassal treaties. The Scriptures present marriage relationships as covenantal: two unrelated persons commit to each other and to the long-range goal of establishing a new family through a formal procedure (Prov. 2:17; Mal. 2:14). The patricentric world of the Bible considered the husband and father the head of the household (bêt ʾāb, a house of a father). However, the Song of Songs suggests that within the context of marriage, the relationship between husband and wife could be quite egalitarian.

In the ancient world, covenants, also referred to as treaties, often established and governed relationships involving heads of clans or rulers of realms. These could involve parity or disparity relationships. Genesis 31:43–55 illustrates the former. By means of a covenant ritual, Laban formally acknowledged his son-in-law as his social and economic peer. Second Kings 16:7 illustrates the latter. King Ahaz of Judah expressly acknowledged that he was the vassal (ʿebed) and son (bēn) of Tiglath-pileser III, the emperor of Assyria. This obviously involved disparity—that is, a suzerain-vassal relationship.

While the notion of covenant dominates the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation, in the Bible the concept is profoundly theological rather than economic or political: it involves the infinite God and finite parties whom he invites to covenant relationship with himself, and these finite members are to treat each other as coequal beneficiaries of these covenants. In the Scriptures all covenants involving God are fundamentally monergistic suzerain-vassal pacts: God the divine Suzerain initiates the covenant; God chooses the covenant partner; God declares the terms; God determines the consequences for the subjects, depending on their responses to him and his revealed will (blessing for fidelity, curses for rebellion); and God identifies the sign of the covenant (rainbow, Gen. 9:12–17; circumcision, Gen. 17:9–14; the seventh-day Sabbath, Exod. 31:15–17). Accordingly, God always identifies these covenants as my covenant, while biblical authors or characters refer to them as his covenant, or God’s covenant with X, rather than our covenant, Israel’s covenant, or X’s covenant with God. YHWH’s covenant partners are never in a position to negotiate either the terms of the contract or the consequences for fidelity or infidelity; their only option is to accept or reject the relationship.

Categories of Covenants in the Bible

Biblical covenants have long been classified either as unconditional and irrevocable covenants of grant (Abrahamic, Davidic) or conditional and revocable covenants of obligation (Israelite). But this dichotomy is false: they all exhibit signs of both irrevocability and contingency. The repeated use of the word eternal (i.e., irrevocable; Hb. ʿad ʿôlām) in association with the covenants guaranteed their perpetuity irrespective of the response of the vassal partner. God would never retract his commitments (cf. Judg. 2:1). Nevertheless, as in any relationship, the extent to which covenants achieved their goals was always contingent on the response of the vassal partners, who retained freedom at every stage to keep the covenants or to violate them (cf. Exod. 19:4–6). The consequences of these divergent courses were fundamental elements of the covenant, either implicitly or explicitly. Even in the precovenant world of Eden, the tree of life represented the divine ideal, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represented the curse for rebellion by the vassal; these respectively symbolized the alternative effects of human responses. In the Israelite covenant, YHWH spelled out in detail the alternative effects in the form of blessings and curses (Lev. 26; Deut. 28). The Davidic covenant predicted negative effects with God’s threat to discipline the descendant of David, but it did not spell out the reasons (2 Sam. 7:14; cf. Ps. 132:12).

Figure 0.1

God’s Irrevocable Covenant Commitment

fig003

However, the imposition of the curses would not signal the termination or cancellation of the covenant. Rather, as Daniel recognized (Dan. 9:1–19), because YHWH had built punishments for infidelity into the covenants, his people’s experience of the curses meant that the terms of the covenant were fulfilled to the letter. Objectively, the covenant remained in force in perpetuity, irrespective of human response; subjectively, the mission envisioned for the vassal and enjoyment of the benefactions promised by the covenant depended upon the vassal’s faithful fulfillment of the suzerain’s charge (fig. 0.1).

In summary, the oft-proposed categories of conditional and unconditional covenants should be abandoned for two reasons. On the one hand, God’s covenants are all irrevocable; as the divine Suzerain, he is always faithful to his covenant commitments. On the other hand, the effectiveness of all covenants depends upon the fidelity of the human covenant partner(s). Therefore, I find it best to recognize two types of divine covenants according to function rather than duration: missional/communal covenants and administrative covenants. The first category involves covenants focused on the health of the group (communal) and God’s mandate for them (hence missional). These include the cosmic and Israelite covenants, while the administrative covenants involve the Adamic and Davidic covenants. I classify them as administrative because within the communities involved in ecclesial/missional covenants, God appoints individuals and their descendants to promote the smooth operation of these broader covenants. Whereas these latter covenants offered benefits to vassals chosen for a particular suzerain-vassal covenant relationship, the primary concern of administrative covenants was not the vassal as vassal but the triangular complex of relationships involved in the ecclesial/missional covenants (figs. 1.1 and 1.5 below). Three covenants revealed in the First Testament fall under the rubric of administrative covenant: the Adamic, Davidic, and Levitical covenants. Of these three, the last is an outlier and will be treated separately in an excursus after the discussion of the Israelite covenant. In the exploration of all these relationships, we will observe that just as the Israelite covenant serves as a microcosm of the cosmic covenant, so the Davidic covenant functions as a microcosm of the Adamic covenant (fig. 1.5 below).

Up to this point we have been speaking of covenants as real agreements, but we need to begin to think about the notion of covenance in the abstract. In the United Kingdom this noun occasionally occurs in real estate documents in association with the governance of transactions. Even though the Scriptures never use the Hebrew bĕrît or Greek diathēkē in this sense, and covenance never appears in English translations, the abstract concept is useful for understanding the divine passion that drives God’s overtures to create and maintain relationships with his fallen creation. Accordingly, in this volume I shall often speak of covenance in the abstract, in addition to considering covenants in concrete cases.

Organization

The title of this volume, Covenant: The Framework of God’s Grand Plan of Redemption in Scripture, assumes several fundamental convictions that underlie the discussion that follows. First, this project involves a biblical theology of covenance. The Christian Scriptures, made up of the First Testament (the Hebrew Bible treasured by our Jewish friends) and the New Testament, provide our source of information on the covenants. The primary subject of our study is not natural revelation, nor human traditions or mythologies, nor the writings of biblical theologians; as Protestants we adhere to the doctrine of sola scriptura: the Scriptures are our only sure and ultimate source of truth concerning God and the life of godliness. Other sources provide context for biblical revelation and voices that aid us in interpreting the Scriptures. Even so, ultimately, to know the mind of God on these matters, we need to consult the writings that God, in a particularly inspiring sense, breathed out (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16–17). Thus the Scriptures are our primary resource in this study.

Second, this project assumes that the divine project involving the cosmos generally and humankind particularly is a redemptive project. The language of redemption used in the Scriptures is both broad and varied. The Hebrew Bible, which provides the foundation for the New Testament understanding of the concept, uses two principal expressions for redemption, gāʾal and pādâ. While the nuances in their everyday usage differed slightly, when used theologically both involve rescue from a desperate state (e.g., disaster, death, bondage) and transfer into a state of well-being (šālôm).1 Indeed, we may look upon the history of the cosmos after Genesis 3 as a single grand story of God’s determination to rescue his creation from the desperate condition that has resulted from Adam and Eve’s sin and to restore creation into the ideal state for which he had originally created all things.

Third, God’s accomplishment of this goal over time will be not the consequence of haphazard decisions or accidental events but the result of a deliberate plan. Many have spoken of this plan as the drama of redemption, a notion that is quite fitting, not because this drama is played out on a stage for the entertainment of an audience but because it involves real characters in real time on a real plane. The numerous references to before/from the foundation of the world in the New Testament demonstrate that the plan God has implemented in time and space was in God’s mind even before time and space existed.2 The author of Hebrews recognized the place of covenance in this grand divine scheme in his concluding benediction: Now may the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen (Heb. 13:20–21 NIV).

Even though I recognize communal/missional and administrative categories of covenants in the Scriptures, the divine drama of redemption transpires in four acts, which provide the broad structure for this volume:

Part 1 of this volume will involve the first two acts, which deal with the state of the cosmos and humankind generally. Part 2 focuses on Abraham and his descendants, the nation of Israel, whom YHWH chose as his agents of blessing to a cursed world. Part 3 examines the Davidic covenant in the First Testament and its forward look. Part 4 investigates the fulfillment of the divine redemptive goal in Jesus, Messiah, the Son of God, and the Son of Man. All four parts will begin by exploring the communal/missional covenants involved in the drama and conclude with examinations of the role of the administrative covenants in the communal/missional agenda.

Method and Approach

Initially many readers will find my approach to the biblical notion of covenance to be idiosyncratic, but this is characteristic of many biblical theologians. We all make choices and then tend to interpret and present the evidence in the light of those choices. We recognize that the biblical accounts of the various covenants are sufficiently vague and ambiguous to invite more than one approach. I offer this presentation as a contribution to a lively ongoing discussion.

Readers interested in biblical theology will find many excellent books and journals in libraries and in the warehouses of publishers. These resources vary greatly in depth of discussion, approaches to the subject, their views of Scripture, their hermeneutics, and their authors’ theological predispositions. Most of us can cite resources that both reinforce and challenge the positions we hold. My aim in this volume is not to rehash previous works nor to provide an exhaustive discussion of every subject I raise. I do not intend to examine or even mention alternative views on every matter. My lack of documentation of authorities who have held similar views or who reject both my method and my conclusions will probably frustrate some readers. Rather, I offer this work as a Here I stand sort of statement.

With this comment I do not mean to be presumptuous. I recognize openly that the import of those words in this context is not nearly as weighty and the words themselves are not nearly as consequential as they were for Martin Luther and the history of Christianity when he declared them at the Diet of Worms before Emperor Charles V on April 18, 1521. However, as we often find in the Scriptures, in later accounts speakers and authors find antecedent statements appropriate in new settings. The Reformer’s words express my state of mind as I pen this manuscript. What lies ahead is the result of fifty years of listening to, studying, and wrestling with the Scriptures; seeking to demonstrate the transforming truth and grace of the Scriptures in my daily life and ethic; participating in small group Bible studies; ministering pastorally in local churches; and lecturing, teaching, and preaching on every continent except Antarctica.

I could have kept this project much simpler by limiting my discussion to the essential features of the covenants serially. Biblical scholars have produced many fine monographs that achieve this purpose. My concern has been deeper, to explore how biblical authors develop the notion of covenance. This involves investigating the historical and literary contexts out of which the covenants arose and that they address. To do this, we must read the texts closely, suspending our own presuppositions and earnestly listening for the inspired illocutionary messages that the authors of Scriptures were communicating, rather than merely finding support for our preconceived ideas. I grant that this is a modernist approach and that reading ancient texts without prejudice and without personal biases is ultimately impossible, but we must be diligent in letting biblical texts speak their own messages.

A high view of Scripture lets biblical authors say whatever they want to say. This means neither forcing them to say more or something different from their intended sense nor having them say less than they intend. Because the book of Deuteronomy never identifies its author, I resist the impulse to name the person or to fix a firm specific date to the composition as we have it. I accept that it comes with Mosaic authority, for this is fundamental to its message. With allowance for the engagement of an amanuensis or a secretary, I accept that Moses was the author of the texts that appear to be transcripts of his concluding pastoral addresses, and that from the beginning these documents had full canonical authority, because this is what the text says (Deut. 4:2; 31:9–13, 24–26). However, because the text does not identify the author of the first five verses and the final chapter of the book, and because the book contains a series of other post-Mosaica (e.g., 2:12), I do not feel obligated to identify Moses as the author of the book as we have it. By virtue of the inspiration of its final author, whom I understand to be a prophet like Moses (18:15–22), it comes with Moses’ authority and Mosaic content, but the style of Hebrew and other features suggest that the present form derives from a later date.

This approach applies also to issues that are more theological. When we read biblical texts, we must let them speak with their own voice before we listen to the voices of later interpreters. This is difficult, because we are all products of our literary and hermeneutical past. But it is a goal for which we need to strive. For this reason, I have spent a considerable amount of time and space discussing both the fundamentals of covenance and the covenants and the ways biblical authors saw these notions working in their narratives, genealogies, hymns, prayers, prophecies, and epistles.

Biblical theologians follow different strategies in laying out their understanding of the theological message of the Scriptures, which for us mean the First and New Testaments. Some approach the task serially by declaring what they consider to be the common and distinctive theologies of the individual compositions that make up the Scriptures. Others present their interpretation of biblical theology thematically, tracing the progress of particular topics and perspectives (e.g., divine kingship, holiness, theological ethics), exploring the history and progress of revelation through time, beginning with the earliest compositions and ending with the book of Revelation. Because of the scope of the project, biblical theologians tend to divide with the Testaments. On the one hand, we have First (Old) Testament theologians, who begin with Genesis and end with Malachi or 1–2 Chronicles, the last of the writings in the Hebrew canon. On the other hand, New Testament theologians tend to begin with Paul, who composed his epistles somewhere between AD 48 and the mid-60s, and end with the Johannine writings, which were written between the AD mid-80s and the mid-90s.

First Testament and New Testament theologians have enough work to do in their separate areas; the complexity and sheer bulk of textual data require disciplined analysis of manageable material. Likely this partly explains why First and New Testament scholars hesitate to cross the gap between the Testaments, and when they do, they primarily seek enlightenment from the other Testament for a reference or issue in one’s chosen Testament. In this volume I will accept the charge of chutzpah for devoting almost 40 percent of my investigation to the New Testament. I freely admit that I am not a New Testament scholar, and in giving this amount of space to reading the other Testament from the inside out, I am traveling where other First Testament scholars (and angels?) fear to tread. The absence of First Testament scholarly voices from published discussions on the new versus old perspectives on Paul illustrates the problem. I expect that some—perhaps many—will dismiss my interpretations of New Testament texts as superficial, uninformed, and naive, but they arise out of my deep reflection on First Testament perspectives. Then I seek to read the New Testament in light of antecedent texts, rather than the reverse, which often yields forced and unnatural readings of earlier texts.

The Value of a Biblical Theology Grounded in the First Testament

Within North American evangelicalism, we hear voices explicitly calling for Christians to detach the First Testament from Christian faith because the Old Testament poses too many problems for those who try to present the good news (gospel) of salvation in Jesus Christ. Christians since the heretic Marcion—who argued that the God of ancient Israel and the God of the New Testament were distinct and very different deities—have hesitated to be this explicit. Yet for many evangelicals, the First Testament is at worst the problem that the New Testament supposedly fixes and at best a dead book that we would do well to bury ceremoniously in a genizah.

Our creedal statements affirm the authority of the entire Bible, First and New Testaments, for Christian faith and life, but the former is largely missing in evangelical worship. My summary of the problem below is embarrassingly autobiographical, but in our time symptoms of the trivialization and demise of the only Bible that Jesus and the apostles had are everywhere: (1) avoidance of the First Testament; (2) walk-through-the-Bible approaches to the First Testament; (3) using the First Testament primarily as a source of illustrations for New Testament sermons; (4) using the First Testament primarily for prooftexts in apologetic debates; (5) restricting our use to a few favorite selected texts; (6) preaching biographical sermons that focus on the human characters and idealize them even when biblical authors intentionally characterize them negatively; (7) reading the First Testament with a a homiletical hermeneutic, which means that the message we preach depends upon what we want the people to get out of the text, rather than what the text intends to say; (8) Alexandrian spiritualizing of historical and cultural elements in the text because the spiritual meaning of the text supposedly edifies; (9) reading the First Testament through New Testament lenses, which means that the rhetorical use of texts or concepts in the later contexts drowns out the message of the authors as established by normal grammatical-historical interpretation; (10) Christologizing the First Testament. That Jesus Christ is the heart and goal (telos) of all revelation (cf. Luke 24:25–35) is an important underlying assumption of Christian exegesis, but it is not the starting point of interpretation for any given text.

These are the symptoms of a deeply rooted and pervasive problem. Modern readers offer many excuses for their disinterest in and repudiation of the First Testament: (1) As an ancient text it is out of touch and irrelevant for modern Western Christians. (2) It presents a ritualistic approach to religious expression that has ended or been superseded by Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice. (3) Its ethic of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is grossly inferior to Christ’s ethic of love, which calls us to return good for evil. (4) Literarily, it is cast in genres that range from boringly detailed genealogies to incomprehensible metaphors and offensive rhetoric. (5) Theologically, it presents a view of a vengeful God that is utterly objectionable to modern sensitivities.

However, the greatest problem may be dogmatic. Many evangelicals subscribe to theological dogmas that highlight the contrasts between the two Testaments. Instead of treating the Scriptures as one continuous story of divine redemption, in which the incarnation and the New Testament as a document represent the climactic chapter in YHWH’s grand redemptive project, they focus on and exaggerate discontinuities. Whether rooted in Martin Luther’s law-gospel contrast, Anabaptist claims of a new and superior ethic, a neo-Reformed inability to experience the life-giving and life-transforming power of the word unless it speaks of the New Testament Christ, or a dispensationalist division of human history into discrete eras within which the divine economy operates according to divergent rules, the effects of these discontinuities have been deadly for the place of the First Testament in North American Christianity. Since the Reformation, we have invested too much time and effort into digging the ditch between the Testaments. The time has come to read the Scriptures as one story and to begin filling the ditch by highlighting the continuities over time in God’s amazing grace toward a fallen and rebellious humanity, which has unfortunately dragged the cosmos down with it. This book offers twenty shovels of soil (chapters) between the introduction and the conclusion as my small contribution to closing the chasm between the First Testament and New Testament. To return to the metaphor of the drama of redemption, the Scriptures do not offer two distinct dramas. This is one grand story in which Act 4 represents the climax of an account that began in Act 1 and has taken us through Acts 2 and 3.

1. For examples, see the following: gāʾal, Gen. 48:16; Exod. 6:6 (both Gk. ryomai); 15:13 (Gk. lytroō); pādâ, Deut. 7:8; 9:26; 13:5 [6]; Ps. 25 [LXX 24]:22 (all these, Gk. lytroō).

2. Matt. 13:35; 25:34; John 17:24; Eph. 1:4; Heb. 4:3; 9:26; 1 Pet. 1:20; Rev. 13:8; 17:8.

Chapter 1

The Cosmic Covenant

Introduction

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1). With this grand announcement, Act 1 of the cosmic drama began. I have carefully chosen the expression cosmic drama; what we are about to describe concerns all creation. Christians often view the world and the Scriptures from an anthropocentric perspective—as if human beings are the center of the universe and everything exists for them. Genesis 1:1 reminds us that God has been engaged in a project that is vastly greater than the human population. The spectacular astronomical discoveries made possible by the Hubble Space Telescope and other machines that humans have sent into space reveal a creation infinitely greater than our species of primates. While human characters dominate accounts of earthly history, biblical writers never lost sight of the grander vision.

This grander vision is especially prominent in the writings of the psalmists, sages, and prophets. Psalmists celebrate the wonder of YHWH’s creation in its entirety.1 They speak of the heavens and their expanse as spokespersons for the glory of God (19:1–6 [7]) and his righteousness (50:6; 97:6) and of the earth as belonging to YHWH.2 They marvel at his care for his creatures and his control of cosmic forces to accomplish this (Ps. 104). And they call upon the cosmos and all the creatures of earth to praise YHWH (Ps. 147). Sages (Prov. 8:22–31; Job 38:4–11) and prophets