When did the First 'Berith' Take Place?

Kingdom through Covenant by Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum proposes to cut a middle path between dispensationalism and covenant theology. I am skeptical of such a project, but what I want to highlight is a fascinating argument which they make for the covenant of works between God and Adam. Frequently, dispensationalists will argue that covenant theologians have no textual basis for their belief in a covenant of works between Adam and God. They argue that the basis for this belief is systematics rather than an examination of the Biblical text. After all, they say - Genesis 1-3 does not contain the word 'berith' (covenant).

Gentry and Wellum point out that this is true. The word does not appear until Gen. 6:18. It then reoccurs in 9:8, 11, and 17. The argument which they make deals somewhat with the language used in Hebrew covenants. I quote now from chapter 5 of Kingdom through Covenant:

There is a conventional language for initiating covenants or treaties which is standard in the Old Testament. The standard expression for initiating a covenant is “to cut a covenant” (kārat bĕrît; 21:27, 32)...Animals are slaughtered and sacrificed. Each animal is cut in two and the halves are laid facing or opposite each other. Then the parties of the treaty walk between the halves of the dead animal(s). This action is symbolic. What is being expressed is this: each party is saying, “If I fail to keep my obligation or my promise, may I be cut in two like this dead animal.” The oath or promise, then, involves bringing a curse upon oneself for violating the treaty. This is why the expression “to cut a covenant” is the conventional language for initiating a covenant in the Old Testament.

Although I don't want to spend the post getting into the arguments behind the next assertion, I will summarize it by mentioning that the word used in Genesis 6:18; 9:9, 11, 17 is not kārat bĕrît; rather, the phrase used is in reference to the covenant with Noah is different: "hēqîm bĕrît." With Noah, God is not cutting a covenant, but rather, upholding a covenant.

...the expression “to establish a covenant” (hēqîm bĕrît) refers to a covenant partner fulfilling an obligation or upholding a promise in a covenant initiated previously...

The implications are a pretty big deal. It means that when God "establishes" his covenant with Noah, he is really simply upholding a pre-existing covenant. What covenant could this possibly be referring to? Well, of course, it is the covenant of cration, began with Adam. Noah was not the first person whom God made a berith with but rather, it was Adam. Wellum/Gentry offer a summary:

...based on the expression hēqîm bĕrît, linguistic usage alone demonstrates that when God says that he is confirming or establishing his covenant with Noah, he is saying that his commitment initiated previously at creation to care for and preserve, provide for and rule over all that he has made, including the blessings and ordinances that he gave to Adam and Eve and their family, are now to be with Noah and his descendants. This can be substantiated and further supported by noting the parallels between Noah and Adam, and between the covenant terms given to Noah and the ordinances given to Adam and his family.

Wellum/Gentry summarize the parallels between the covenant with Adam and the covenant with Noah:

Covenant with Noah: be fruitful and increase in number

Covenant with Creation: be fruitful... (Gen. 1:28)

Covenant with Noah: Fear of you 

Covenant with Creation: Rule over fish, birds, animals (Gen. 1:28) 

Covenant with Noah: Animals given for food 

Covenant with Creation: Plants given for food (Gen. 1:29) 

Covenant with Noah: Don't eat meat with blood

Covenant with Creation: 

Covenant with Noah: Your blood... his brother's life

Covenant with Creation: See Gen. 4:8-24 

Covenant with Noah: In the image of God 

Covenant with Creation: Gen. 1:27; in his own image

Wellum/Gentry devote an entire chapter in Kingdom through Covenant to this argument, and at this point the book appears to be worth the price simply for this chapter alone. The book went on sale on Friday. You can find it at Westminster Books.

[Edit (7/4): Upon reading the comments, I realized that I had misrepresented Gentry and Wellum's argument.  I changed two words in the post in order to correct this.  I had originally said that G/W believe that the Noahic covenant is an upholding of the covenant of works.  I had meant to say that they believe the Noahic covenant to be an upholding of the covenant of grace.  That would have been a pretty huge error.]

Ridderbos on "Israel" in Romans 11:25-32

The perennial question for interpreters of Romans 11:25-32 is, what does Paul mean when he says, "and in this way, all Israel shall be saved"?  More specifically, the question is, what is meant by "all Israel"?  Doug Moo helpfully narrows the possibilities down to three:

(1) the community of the elect, including both Jews and Gentiles;
(2) the nation of Israel;
or (3) the elect within Israel.

The first view is actually Calvin's view, and it is a tempting view, primarily because it does justice to Paul's spiritualization of Israel ("Not all Israel is of Israel").  It strikes me as being a knee-jerk reaction to the dispensational tendency to make every reference to "Israel" in the Bible a reference to ethnic Israel.  However, there are problems with this view - namely, it redefines Israel from the way Paul has been using it up until this point (for Paul up to this point, "Israel" has an obviously ethnic flavor to it) through Romans.  Herman Ridderbos proposes to defend the third view - one which most interpreters of Romans 11 do not give much consideration.  Before I get into this any further, I wish to list a few defenders of the view Ridderbos is about to enunciate: Berkhof, Bavinck, Volbeda, Hendricksen, O. Palmer Robertson, and Gaffin.

A few years ago, Richard Gaffin did an informal translation of Ridderbos on this subject.  Until I came to RTS I did not have access to it because the RTS Jackson library is the only place where this translation of Ridderbos is available to read.  In his discussion of this question, Ridderbos argues that "Israel" in Romans 11:25-32 refers to the whole number of the elect out of Israel.  He offers several reasons:

1)  "It must be considered exceedingly strange that the apostle here discloses a major eschatological event in five words without going into it further with a single word or ever alluding to it elsewhere."

2) "The complete conversion of Israel at the end of days...is in an eschatological respect entirely incomprehensible, does not fit any one eschatological scheme, and also is not at all made clear by a single exegete..."  Recall that for Paul in 11:25, the mystery which Paul refers to is that the fulness of the Gentiles must first come in before the fulness of the Jews.  In other words, Ridderbos does not know of a eschatological view which allows for an "interim between the entrance of one-half of mankind into the kingdom of God and the final end of the world".

3) "Not one word is said about the conversion of all Israel after the fulness of the gentiles has entered.  Paul does not say: afterward all Israel will be converted, but: and so in this way, all Israel will be saved...So then, it is not a matter of a national conversion still to take place at some time in the future; no, then when the fulness of the gentiles enters, then all Israel also will be saved."

4) "In Romans 9-11 Paul undoubtedly speaks again and again of Israel's conversion as the condition of Israel's salvation.  By that he has in view exclusively a conversion of Israel in history, not in post-history.  Israel must be provoked to jealousy now...All this zeal, this intense longing to save even if it were only a few through his work is difficult to understand if at the same time the apostle expected over the short or long term the conversion of all Israel as the fruit of one great eschatological event.  Rather it appears that the apostle sees no other way for Israel's conversion than through the preaching of the gospel in history."

5) "The whole notion of a national conversion of Israel in the end time makes the overall thrust of Romans 9-11 nonsensical and completely strange."  Ridderbos goes on to ask whether those Jews who lived prior to the mass-conversion were not also Israel.  Unless one becomes a universalist, he observes, "one is placed before the necessity in maintaining the national conception of 'all Israel' to limit this national restoration to that part of the Jewish nation that will still be found to exist at the end of the days.  But then on this basis can Paul or anyone else maintain that God is keeping his promise to (national) Israel?"

6) "The national conception of 'all Israel"...is in conflict with what Paul has just demonstrated in Romans 9, namely, that not all are Israel who are descended from Israel.  Paul thus challenges just such a national conception of Israel as God's elect people.  His entire argument is directed toward demonstrating that the true Israel is hidden in the national Israel as the kernal in the shell...It would certainly be very strange if the apostle would subsequently reconsider this view and would present the matter as if God's promise to Israel will only be fulfilled, when what is left of the nation at the end of the days will repent and be saved in its entirety."

In summary, Ridderbos says, "The expression 'all Israel' comprises the same thing quantitatively as what already in verse 12 is called 'the fulness' of Israel, just as 'the fulness' of the gentiles spoken of in verse 25 can also be expressed, in the light of verse 32, by all gentiles or the whole of heathendom."

King and Servant Show 18

Jonathan teaches Covenant Theology from a credo-baptist perspective; affirming unity of the Covenant of Grace over redemptive history as the means of man's only way of salvation, but yet seeing a maturing of the covenant community over time through the various covenant administrations, culminating in the New Covenant.

King and Servant Show 4

Covenant Blessings and Covenant Curses

Listen to Show 4 (Click here)

Jonathan and Bryan discuss what it means to be covenantally blessed or cursed, and how modern definitions of such terms are inadequate.

Others shows can now be found at kingandservant.com

Covenant Theology Part 6

Davidic Covenant Summary listen here

1. Interenational Reputation “I will make you a great name” 2 Sam 7:9b
2. Land Inheritance “I will also appoint a place for my people” 2 Sam 7:10a
3. Descendants “I will raise up your descendants after you” 2 Sam 7:12b
4. Sonship “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me” 7:14a
5. Intimate Relationship “My people” 7:7-8,10-11

Of the New Covenant listen here

The New Covenant is in Christ blood and is the final administration of the Covenant of Grace. The establishing the New Covenant abrogated the old and ushered in the age of the Spirit which began at Pentecost and will continue to the end of the age. Consequently the Covenant of Grace only now consists of elect person with the arrival of the eschatological Spirit promised in Joel. The Spirit now abides with God’s people to empower them to fulfill the great commission and the Law of Christ.

Covenant Theology Part 5

Mosaic Covenant summary listen here

1. Preamble
Deuteronomy 1:1-5
2. Historical Prologue
Deuteronomy 1:6 – 4: 49
3. Ethical Stipulations
Deuteronomy 5:1 – 26:19
4. Sanctions
Deuteronomy 27:1 -1 30:20
5. Succession Arrangements
Deuteronomy 31:1 – 34:12


Of the Davidic Covenant listen here

The Davidic Covenant is the final Old Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace. It promised that David seed would sit on the throne of Israel and fulfill the Covenant of works on behalf of the people. The covenant promised that upon full obedience to God the King would enter into the Melchizedek priesthood and intercede not only for the Jew but also for the Gentile.

Thoughts on the Mosaic Law: Part One

First Principles for Discussing the Mosaic Covenant and its Relationship to the Law and Gospel Issues

1. God’s law is perpetual, because it’s based on the holiness of God. This is the right understanding of the relationship between section 1 and section 2 of chapter 19 in the WCF. Thus the reference to “this law” in section 2 is referring to the moral law established by God’s holiness as principle/rule not as the covenant of works reduplicated in the Mosaic Law.

2. Man has always been obligated to obey God’s law in its fullness; whether in the Garden of Eden or in the heavenly Jerusalem. Thus, both believers and unbelievers are called to be holy as God is holy (see point 1).

3. Without this perfect holiness no man will see God. Thus, anyone who can be perfect as God is perfect can be in the presence of God. Alternatively, anyone who is not perfect will not be able to be in God’s presence.

4. Consequently, there is always a sense of the covenant of works principle operating in all dispensations of redemptive history. That is, if man can be perfect they would inherit for themselves eternal life. In this sense, one can argue that there is a covenant of works principle in the Mosaic Law, although this is no different in the Abrahamic or New Covenant.

5. Man is unable, because of his sin, to obtain eternal life by fulfilling the law’s demands. Thus the covenant of works principle was only able to be filled by Adam in the garden and the Son of God, Jesus. This is why some have called it a “hypothetical” principle.

Covenant Theology Part 4

Abrahamic summary listen here

Covenant call (Gen 12)
Covenant ratification (Gen 15)
Covenant administration (Gen 17)

Covenant confirmation (Gen 22)

Of the Mosaic Covenant listen here

The Mosaic Covenant was made 430 after the promise to Abraham after the exodus of the Hebrews from the land of Egypt. This covenant although was a further administration of the Covenant of Grace and was it self a re-administration of the Covenant of Works to Israel as a Nation under God. The Covenant had sanctions and stipulations that allowed the Jews to remain in the land and to be a blessing to the gentile nations of the world as long as they were obedient to the commands of the covenant. Israel was the son of God like Adam and therefore received the blessings and responsibilities of keeping the covenant of works as a nation. During this epoch of redemptive history the individual Israelite was saved by believing the Covenant promise that was given to their forefather Abraham.

Covenant Theology Part 3

Of the Noahic Covenant listen Here

Noah received the covenant promise as a descendent of Seth. He served as a priest, as a Son of God, in the days of great apostasy. Noah was a preacher of righteousness, but only him and his family was spared.
The Noahic Covenant established after the flood is a further administration of the Covenant of Grace to Noah and his descendants that God would never destroy the world with a flood again. The sign of the covenant was the rainbow, the command was to be fruitful and multiply. Human Government is also instituted with the introduction of capital punishment.

Of the Abrahamic Covenant listen Here

Covenant calling (Gen 12)

Covenant ratification (Gen 15)

Covenant administration (Gen 17)

Covenant confirmation (Gen 22)

Abraham was the 1oth generation Shemite in an apostate age when the Shemites had began to worship the gods of the Hamites, and the Japethites. Abraham was called by God to leave the land of his nativity and to sojourn in to the land of Canaan so that he could posses it and become a great nation, through which the nations of the world would be blessed. The covenant promises were given to Abraham, and in Gen 15 and he believed God. The covenant sign of circumcision was given to him and his sons. It was to be a sign and seal that Abraham’s descendants would posses the land of Canaan and await the coming of the promise seed.

Covenant Theology Part 2: Pactum Salutis

Of the Covenant of Redemption (pactum salutis) part 1 listen here

Introduction to Covenant of Redemption

The Covenant of Redemption is defined as “The Father gives the Son to be Head and Redeemer of the elect; and the Son presents himself as a Sponsor or Surety for them.” This covenant is between God and the Mediator, not the elect and God. The elect simply reap the benefits of this agreement between God and the Mediator. John 17:3, Luke 22:28, Rom 5:12-24.

The Covenant between the Father and the Son more fully explained.

The Covenant of Redemption was made in eternity past before creation (1 Pet. 1:20; Prov. 8:23,; Eph. 1:4; John 17:6; Rev. 13:8). This was a voluntary covenant. The Son did not have to agree to the covenant. This is foundation for the Covenant of Grace. It had to be voluntary in order to make redemption a legal transaction.

Of the Person of the Surety.

The Person of the surety had to be a sinless man born of virgin (to avoid original sin) in order to fulfill the demands of the Law Gal 4:4 Matt 5:17 and to propitiate man’s sins Rom 3:25,5:6-11 Gal 3:13. The Surety had to be God in order to enter in to the covenant voluntarily and to be the Sponsor of the Covenant of Works.

Of the Suretyship and Satisfaction of Christ

In order for Christ to expiate and propitiate the sins of the elect there needed to a vicarious substitution atonement. This involved the sins of the elect been imputed to Christ and then in turn having the wrath of God dues those sins placed on Him Isa 53:6-10, 1 Peter 2:23-24. He knew no sin became sin on our behalf 2Cor 5:21(Isa. 53:10; Matt. 20:18; John 10:15; 1 Pet. 3:18; Col. 1:21-22; Rom. 5:10; Heb. 9:15; Rom. 8:34).

What Sufferings of Christ are Satisfactory.

Christ active and passive obedience fully satisfies the demands of Law and to redeem the elect. He active obedience consisting of his sinless life and perfect love for the father, Matt 3:15, 5:17. His passive obedience consisting of the sufferings Christ, which include Gethsename, the floggings, and the Cross.


Of the Efficacy of Christ's Satisfaction

The efficacy of Christ's satisfaction is twofold. First, Christ obtained for himself, as Mediator, a right to all of the elect (Ps. 2:8; Isa. 53:10). Christ obtained for the elect immunity from all misery and a right to eternal life to be applied to them (Matt. 26:28; Gal. 1:4; Tit. 2:14). Christ did not achieve a bare possibility of salvation but actual salvation for His elect. The idea of redemption, ransom and price of redemption infers the reality and not possibility of salvation. Scripture declares that the proximate effect of redemption is actual salvation (Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; Heb. 9:12; 1 Cor. 6:20; Acts 20:28; Gal. 4:4-5). .

Of the Necessity of Christ's Satisfaction.

The following may be set forth as real and true arguments in favor of the necessity of Christ's satisfaction. First, an unnecessary satisfaction is contrary to the goodness, wisdom and holiness of God. Second, an unnecessary satisfaction mitigates against the Scripture's stress on the great love of God as demonstrated in the giving of his Son. Third, Christ's satisfaction was a declaration of the righteousness of God which cannot be overthrown (Rom. 3:25). Fourth, animal sacrifices could not atone for sin (Heb. 10:1,4,11) only the sacrifice of Christ could atone for sin. Fifth, Hebrews 10:26 infers that sacrifice is necessary for pardon. Sixth, the necessary satisfaction of Christ exalts the attributes of God. Seventh, the necessary satisfaction of Christ promotes Christian piety. Eighth, the necessary satisfaction of Christ does not detract from any of God's attributes.

Of the Persons for whom Christ Engaged and Satisfied.

There is ample Scriptural support for the doctrine of particular atonement. The "all" of 2 Cor. 5:15, Heb. 2:9, Col. 1:20, and 1 Tim. 2:6 is restricted to the elect, which means exegetical work is needful in order to understand the passages in question. The term "world" in such passages as 1 John 2:2 refers to "the collective body of believers or of the elect." Specifically, the Scripture says that Christ died for his sheep, his church, his people, and his peculiar people (cf. John 10:15; Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25; Tit. 2:14).

After what manner Christ used the Sacraments

For Christ, the sacraments were signs and seals of the covenant between God the Father and God the Son. It demonstrated the benefits of salvation for His church and that they were promised to Christ. As a result of these promises, Christ promised to faithfully redeem the elect.


The Covenant of Grace (fodues gratiae) part 2 listen here

Of the Adamic Covenant

The Adamic Covenant was the first administration of the Covenant of Grace beginning in Gen 3:15 also know as the protoevangelicum. This Covenant promised that the seed of the women (The Messiah) would destroy the work of the Serpent (the Devil). The covenant community began with Adam and his sons Cain and Abel who were priest as ministers to the first family in Eden. After the Death of Abel Seth became heir of the promise. His descendants became known as the sons of God and served as priests for the family of Seth.

Covenant Theology Part 1

Of Covenants in General listen here

Major Theme of Scripture: The Kingdom of God offered to man by way of covenant.

Definition:
Covenant is from the Hebrew [ber-eeth] meaning to cut, and by extension means a promise or pledge to do something. "It is an agreement upon the promises concerning the relationship between two or more parties. In Biblical terms the covenant is the prime agency of God's self-revelation in history. God reveals Himself to be the covenant God. The essence of the covenant between God and man is "I will be your God, and you will be My people."

Covenant makeup:
Historical prologue
New order
Stipulations
Sanctions
Administrations

Treaty Between Equals - PARITY COVENANT (bi-lateral)

A. Partners in the covenant are called brothers.
B. Stipulations:
1. Acknowledgment of mutual boundaries.
2. Return of each others run away slaves.
C. Biblical Examples:
1. Midianite Treaty - Exodus 18
2. Between King David and King Hiram - 1 Kings 5:1ff
3. Genesis 21:27; 26:31; 31: 44-54; 1 Kings 15:19; 20:32-34.

Treaty Between a Great King and a Minor King - SUZERAIN or VASSAL COVENANT

1. Preamble - This included the titles and attributes of the Great King and serves to introduce the document.
2. Historical Prologue - Summary of the relationship between the two kings and their ancestors. Actual historical events are cited, especially those that were benevolent on the part of the Great King.
3. Stipulations:

A. Exclusive relationship between the two kings
B. Hostility prohibited against other vassals of the Great King
C. Help in time of war - both ways
D. Slander against the Great King reported
E. Return runaway slaves
F. Vassal to appear yearly to renew the covenant and pay his taxes
G. The covenant is to be written down and placed in the temple of the vassal
H. Covenant to be read periodically

4. Blessings and Curses

A. List of gods called to witness the document
B. Sometimes natural phenomena are also called as witnesses to the document
C. Curses go into effect if the covenant is broken and the Blessings if it is kept
D. One of the blessings was usually a guarantee of the perpetual reign of the descendants of the vassal king
B. Biblical Examples:

1. Gibeonite Treaty - Joshua 9-10
2. Covenant at Mt. Sinai - Exodus 20, Deuteronomy
3. Davidic Covenant - 2 Samuel 7
4. Genesis 17:1ff; Ezekiel 17:13-18; Hosea 12:1.
2 Kings 24:1, 1 Kings 17:3

Treaty Between a King and a loyal servant - ROYAL GRANT COVENANT

A. Royal Land Grants were given to a servant or subordinate for faithful or exceptional service to the king
1. This type of covenant was usually perpetual with no specific conditions. It was, however, understood that the behavior of the heirs would continue to follow the original recipient's loyal example.
2. Most covenants of this type contained the same kind of blessings and curses found in the Vassal Covenant with gods being called on as witnesses.
B. Biblical Examples:
1. Noahic Covenant - Genesis 9:8-17
2. Abrahamic Covenant - Genesis 15: 9-12
3. New Covenant - Jeremiah 31:31-44
4. Numbers 25:10-31; 1 Samuel 8:14; 22:7; 27:6; 2 Samuel 7:5-16; Esther 8:1.

Of the Covenant of Works (fodeus operum) listen here

Of the Contracting Parties in the Covenant of Works:
God as the Suzerain King makes covenant with Adam the vassals servant. This covenant not only is non-negotiable on the part of Man (as represented by Adam) but it is essential to being the Image bearer of God. God enthroned Himself over creation and entered into His eternal Sabbath. The image bearer is to designed to obtain the same blessedness by the same means, that is work. Gen 1-2

Of the Law or Condition of the Covenant of Works:
The covenant was conditional Hos 6:7 The conditioned contained Adam keeping the law of the conscience Rom 2:15, not eating of the tree of Knowledge and taken dominion Gen 1:26-28

Of the Promises of the Covenant of Works:
The promise of eternal life was offered Man if he was to fulfill all the terms of the covenant. Eternal life is glorification. Glorification is abiding where God is enthroned over creation. This was represented by the tree life which served as a pledge of that future inheritance.

Of the Penal Sanction:
God threatens Adam with the curse of being under the wrath of God if he does not keep the terms of the Covenant Gen 2:15-17. This is represent with the tree of Knowledge.

Of the Sacraments of the Covenant of Works:
The Tree of Life is sacramental of eternal life. Access to this tree would have be granted to Adam upon confirmation of justification Rev 22:2,19. The Tree of Knowledge is sacramental of eternal damnation. Adam ate of this tree as and violates the Covenant of works.

Of the First Sabbath:
The first Sabbath is sacramental of the eternal Sabbath rest that man could one day enjoy if he had kept the Covenant of Works. It served as a reminder of that future inheritance.

Of the Violation of the Covenant of Works on the part of Man:
Adam by partaking of the Tree of Knowledge violated the Covenant Works; consequently placing himself and his posterity under the curse of God, resulting in amenity between man and God.

Of the Abrogation of the Covenant of Works on the part of God:
Although man, because of the transgression Adam, is now incapable of keeping the demands of the Covenant man is still obligated to keep the Covenant. The Covenant is a reflection of God’s immutable character therefore it is irrevocable.