To speak of two covenants instead of two administrations of one covenant leads one to expect greater differentiation between the covenants than the two-administration language suggests. It may be objected that theologians constantly make use of language in theology that does not exactly correspond to the language of the Bible. This objection overlooks the following: First, when systematic theology uses language that does not appear in the Bible, it is usually for the reason that no suitable Bible word exists to express the concept. The word “Trinity” springs to mind here. It stands for a teaching of the Bible which cannot be expressed with any single Bible word. But all must agree that the Bible supplies the word “covenant” for what all sometimes call the old and new covenants. If this language is suitable for both Scripture and theology, the burden of proof must lie on those who would replace it. Second, systematic theology has often confined a biblical word to one of its demonstrable meanings for the purpose of having a biblical term to use in talking about a biblical concept. The word “sanctification” is such a word. While it (or its cognates) has a number of uses in the Bible, in systematic theology it usually refers to the process of growth and development in the Christian life. The Bible clearly uses it that way, though that is not its only use. To use covenant in the overarching sense in which a single covenant encompasses virtually all of history first requires a demonstration that it is so used in Scripture. This is especially true since other words were readily at hand. With respect to God’s intentions before time, the Scripture designates them comprehensively as “an eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:11; see 1 Tim. 1:9). This “purpose” of God is elsewhere called a “decree” (Ps. 2:7), a “determinate counsel” (Acts 2:23; 4:28), and “foreordination” (1 Pet. 1:20). Jesus called it His “Father’s business” (Luke 2:49), “the work” given to Him by the Father (John 17:4), and “the will of Him who sent Me” (John 6:38) Third, this kind of substitution not only runs the risk of creating confusion but actually invites it. It seems time, then, to replace the language of two administrations in one covenant with the biblical recognition of covenants. Fortunately a growing number of scholars are recognizing this fact as they come to insist upon biblical and exegetical theology. Willem VanGemeren has written: “Reformed Theology has always been interested in continuity, but continuity must reflect the results of exegesis. Hence, it is not desirable that covenant be the overarching motif.” Systematic theology, as the crown of biblical investigation, can never come into its own until it is biblically based. Tom Wells
Posted on: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 08:37:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015