Clarity on Covenant Theology

In the sphere of Reformed Theology, there are two types of covenant theology, not necessarily two contradictory types, but two types nonetheless. The first type is dogmatic covenant theology, and the second type is biblical covenant theology, which does not imply that it is any more biblical than dogmatic. Rather, biblical covenant theology means that it seeks to understand the unity of biblical revelation in terms of the historic biblical covenants (Adamic, Noahic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New) revealed in Scripture, not in terms of the theological constructions that are developed from Scripture, though such constructions may be just as biblical. As one might imagine, problems arise when the terminology of one type of covenant theology are confused with the other. Moreover, there are a variety of positions held by Reformed theologians in both types of covenant theology but especially with regards to dogmatic covenant theology. Thus, there needs to be some clarification, especially for the Christian who is a newcomer to Reformed covenantal theology, of the distinctions, the debates, and the positions within the various forms of covenant theology. Such clarification begins with the proper terminology.

First of all, in dogmatic covenant theology, there are two major covenants: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. In addition to this, most Reformed theologians add a covenant of redemption. Although generally comments can and should be made about each covenant, it is important to recognize that these general definitions will not hold true for every Reformed theologian, who engages in dogmatic and systematic covenant theology. In order to understand what an individual Reformed theologian means by "covenant of works," "covenant of grace," or "covenant of redemption," the reader must seek to understand how the specific theologian uses those phrases. For example, some Reformed theologians, like Jonathan Edwards, prefer to collapse the covenant of grace into the covenant of redemption, while others, like Charles Hodge, prefer to distinguish between the two covenants as separate covenants with separate promises, conditions, and so on. So then, with that being said, the reader could begin with the following definitions:

Covenant of Works: This is a covenant made by the triune God with Adam. It was a promise of life to Adam and his descendants upon condition of perfect obedience. As such, it is also called a covenant of life. When distinctions are blurred between dogmatic covenant theology and biblical covenant theology, it is called the Adamic covenant or the covenant of creation (cf. Hosea 6:7). However, it is usually best to reserve such terms for biblical covenant theology, as they have a slightly different nuance in such contexts. For example, the discussion of merit is treated differently in dogmatic covenant theology than in biblical covenant theology. Biblical covenant theologians have the tendency to deny that Adam would have merited life for himself and his posterity if he obeyed, but dogmatic covenant theologians certainly have a place for merit in their conception of the covenant of works on account of Romans 5:12-21. Of course, biblical covenant theologians resist the tendency of dogmatic theologians to read Romans 5:12-21 back into Genesis 1-2. So then, again, clarity is achieved by seeking to understand what an individual theologian means by his terminology. Most importantly, the reader should always avoid the inclination to assume that a theologians means X by term or phrase Y, when he may in fact mean Z.

Covenant of Grace: Broadly speaking, and remaining parallel with the covenant of works, the covenant of grace is made by the Father with his Son Jesus Christ and his descendants. In this covenant, the triune God promises life to those who believe in Jesus Christ, the Second Adam. More specifically, however, it becomes necessary to distinguish between the covenant of grace, which is a covenant between the triune God and his elect, and the covenant of redemption, which is an intertrinitarian covenant made between the Father and the Son (There is a debate about whether or not the Holy Spirit is included in the covenant of redemption. He is certainly included in the work of redemption, but Reformed theologians debate his inclusion in the covenant of redemption.).

The reason that this distinction is important is because in order for Christ to become our Second Adam, he had to fulfill the covenant of works. On account of our solidarity with Adam in the covenant of works, he sinned, and we die in him our covenant representative. The only way for us to be saved, then, is for God to (1) decide within himself to extend grace to those whom he chooses to save, and (2) send a new covenant representative who will fulfill the terms of the covenant of works for his people. So then, the distinction between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace must be maintained because our salvation was a covenant of works to Christ, our representative, while it remained a covenant of grace through Christ, our mediator. The Father covenanted with his Son to redeem his elect by sending his Son to fulfill the demands of the covenant of works so that he could offer to us the covenant of grace. In other words, the intertrinitarian covenant of redemption is the foundation of the covenant of grace.

Covenant of Redemption: Again, in terms of reading specific authors, the reader must seek to understand what the author intends. However, the covenant of redemption almost always refers to the eternal covenant made between the Father and the Son to save the elect from their sins. As such, it becomes the foundation of the covenant of grace, which is then administered in time under various dispensations, namely, law and gospel.