This is a review I’ve been meaning to write for some time. My brother gave me this book, back when I was a fairly new convert to covenant theology (or better a new ex-dispensationalist), a couple years ago. With my poor reading habits, I started (and sometimes finished), a good many other books before I actually finished reading this one. Don’t get me wrong, I love books and I love reading. I just am not as disciplined a reader as I should be.
Anyways, this book is not a covenantal theology manual, as some might suspect. The Christ of the Covenants, by O. Palmer Robertson, is a book about the many Scriptural covenants: the covenant with Noah, Abraham, and David, to name a few. Robertson departs from many covenant theologians in refusing to call the pre-Creation Divine determination to redeem fallen man an actual covenant, even as he argues for the basic correctness of the covenantal position on Israel and the church.
What this book does best is show how the covenants (and not dispensations) truly structure Scripture. Indeed without understanding the covenants, one will inevitably fail to understand much of Scripture.
Being raised a dispensationalist, I had a somewhat vague understanding that there are several covenants mentioned in Scripture. But I never understood how important and influential they really are. Interestingly, in an excursus focusing on dispensationalism, Robertson compares the Old and New Scofield Bibles and shows that contemporary dispensationalism now also emphasizes the importance of the Biblical covenants.
Starting with the basics, Robertson defines the term “covenant” against the backdrop of ancient middle-eastern covenants. He concludes that in Scripture a covenant is “a bond in blood sovereignly administered.” Robertson delves into the technical discussions surrounding this concept, but at the same time manages to keep it somewhat simple. A relationship is established unilaterally, and loyalty is demanded on pain of death.
Robertson moves on to discuss the extent, the unity and the diversity of the Biblical covenants. He makes a good case for understanding the Gen. 1-2 in terms of a covenant of creation, citing Jeremiah 33 and Hosea 6:7 as proof. He contends that after the fall, the Biblical story is a progression of covenants each more specific and more glorious, culminating in the new covenant which was begun and inaugurated with the death of Christ. Yet he maintains that there are important differences worth noting between the covenants, and particularly between the Law and the new covenant.
Then he begins a discussion of all the important Biblical covenants, starting with the covenant of creation. He admits that the focus of that covenant is on the prohibition concerning eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but claims the covenant establishes a gracious relationship whereby man is called to rule God’s creation and given instruction concerning marriage and Sabbath observance (he contends that there is a binding Sabbath principle to be observed on Sundays still today). He rightly emphasizes that ignoring the foundational teaching of how man should relate with the rest of creation has negatively impacted how Christians relate with and think about culture today.
Then he takes up the covenant of redemption which he sees as started in Gen. 3:15, and progressively developed through the covenant with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and then the new covenant. He develops each covenant insightfully, focusing on the Scriptural passages which establish the covenant idea, and applying important truths in a fresh way for all of us today. His discussion of the new covenant, and particularly Jer. 31:3-34, is particularly rich and insightful.
That is Robertson’s book. Except I should note he stresses how the idea and promise of Christ is developed through each covenant. And he also has a great excursus chapter on dispensationalism. In that chapter he tries to show how dispensationalism has grown and changed. He finds contradictions within the system, however, and argues the point that dispensationalism depends on a false dualistic view that the physical and the spiritual must necessarily be distinguished. His chapter on dispensationalism (a mere 26 pages in length) alone is worth the price of the book. It would be well for those studying out the dispensational/covenant theology debate to listen to Robertson’s insights. Perhaps I will try to flesh out the arguments in that chapter in a later post.
In conclusion, I highly recommend Robertson’s book. After 300 pages one gets a thorough education in the Biblical covenants. At times it may be difficult reading, but the rewards gained are worth the effort spent. Mostly, Robertson has a gift for cutting to the heart of the matter. And a detailed study on the nature and teaching of the Biblical covenants demands the attention of any Biblical student. This book will help you understand Scripture better, and will increase your wonder at the glorious workings in God’s plan of redemption.
This book is available for purchase at the following sites: Westminster Bookstore, Amazon.com, or direct from P & R Publishing.
Bob,
I’d be curious to see your extended essay on Palmer’s critique of dispensationalism. Perhaps it would be better for me to obtain the book instead and read it for myself. After just having completed a seminary course in Dispensationalism (from a Dispensationalist IFB seminary), I was able to read some articles and books on Covenantalism, although not enough IMHO. I don’t have much of an appetite to debate Dispensationalism vs. Covenantalism, but I don’t think that it would be fair to characterize Dispensationalism as being dualistic, nor would it be a fair assessment to assume that Covenantalism has been static for the past three centuries. Covenantalism has also changed over the years as well, and there are essentially three schools of thought regarding the positions which one takes over the millennium. I think that it is probable or possible that your dispensationalist upbringing wasn’t taught or explained to you very well; I say this as one who also went through the typical IFB ‘understanding’ about dispensationalism (usually taught from the pulpit with the usual baseless rancor in the typical IFB church), which is sometimes poor in many fundamentalist churches. I am curious to know if you have read Ryrie’s “Dispensationalism” or Renald Showers’ book “There Really Is a Difference”? I’d recommend both to get a better understanding of Dispensationalism, and probably would explain a lot that wasn’t when you were still a ‘dispensationalist’.
In my journey out of dispensationalism, I recall noticing that each of the seven dispensations seemed to center around the covenants of Scripture. That of Law corresponded to the Mosaic Covenant, Human Gov’t to the Noahic Covenant, that of Grace to the New Covenant, etc.
I used to hear my dispensationalist former IFB pastor correct the DTS type of dispensationalism, and I packed those points away. Then, when I heard Covenant theology explained to me, I found that those very points were among the basis for covenant theology. Specifically, the fact that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ in all dispensations, that it’s wrong to emphasize that material in the Old Testament was for then and has no application to today. In other words, my dispensationalist former pastor helped lubricate my slide from dispensationalism to covenant theology!
I haven’t read Robertson yet, but I’ve been aware of the book since the beginning of my personal reformation, and will get to it “if the Lord tarries.”
Larry,
Sorry for taking so long to respond. One of these days we’ll get into a knock-em-down-drag-em-out debate over this issue! But we’ll be sure to not break fellowship over it. 🙂
The dualism charge stems from statements like this by Chafer:
“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”
It also is seen in the dissection of the promises made to Abraham. The “earthly” promises are relegated to a future Jewish fulfillment, and the “spiritual” promises are seen as applying to all Christians. But the Bible claims belivers are partakers of the promises and heirs of Abraham. It does not separate the promises but indicates all of them apply to believers.
I am familiar with those books you mentioned. I have looked at them, but not read them. I do grant that I was not taught about some of the more recent developments of progressive dispensationalism and etc. But from what I’ve seen in both of those books, I’m not likely to be convinced by them.
I agree that Covenantalism has developed too, but its basic premise remains the same and is at odds with the basic premise of dispensationalism. The church is not disconnected from Israel, it is the fulfillment and beneficiary of God’s promises to Israel.
Thanks for the interaction.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob
John,
I have a bunch of “if the Lord tarries” books too!
Good hearing from you.
Blessings,
Bob
All,
Notice the UPDATE, added to the above post.
Bob,
Well, keep in mind that Progressive Dispensationalists have their weaknesses in their arguments as well (from a ‘classical dispensationalist’ view) where their arguments rest on the idea of a ‘kingdom now’ where Christ is supposedly reigning in heaven currently. Classical dispensationalists assert that Christ’s role in heaven now is His preistly role, not his kingdom role. Despite this difference between progressive vs. classical, progressives do still hold a premillennial view and reject covenantalism. This seems to be emphasized among classical dispensationalists, although I’m not sure that the progressive views are gaining any further momentum in the last decade. Fred Zaspel’s “New Covenant Theology” seems to be gaining some adherents, and surprisingly it holds to a premillennial viewpoint while making itself to be somewhat Covenantalist. I believe that Fred is a ‘mid-tribulationist’ as far as the rapture is concerned, similar to Rosenthal’s view. I would have expected NCT to be more premillennial, but rejecting the view that the ‘rapture’ would occur.
As far as the ‘dualist’ view that dispensationalists assert (you cited Chafer) is concerned, I believe that Ryrie had addressed this in his 2nd edition, if my memory serves me right (I’ll look it up in Ryrie’s book). I’m not sure if you are actually quoting Chafer, or summarizing, but I’d be interested to see the context in which he makes this statement. I think that would be important since I think you might better understand that this ‘dualistic’ view isn’t as inconsistent as it seems on the surface.
As far as what you had learned when you were once a ‘dispensationalist’, I can understand the need to further your studies about dispensationalism. While in seminary, I did read books and articles by covenantalists (usually the Amillennialists or Covenantal Premillennialists) such as Poythress, Sproul, and Marlowe (and others). I’d urge you to consider reading the two books that I had mentioned above. As well, I will see to it to obtain Robertson’s book as well (although it is not an extensive theological handbook of Covenant Theology).
As far as arguing the quick and dirty points of dispensationalism versus covenantalism, I’m not one who is much engaged in the debate. It just doesn’t stir me as much as the cessationist vs. continuationist debate or the KJV-only debate. I can only say that when we are caught up in the rapture (if the Lord tarries), I’ll guarantee that I’ll konk you on the back of your newly created eternal body’s head and tell you “I TOLD YOU SO!”……
Larry,
You are right that I need to read those books sometime. It would be beneficial, in understanding dispensationalists more.
As far as the quotation is concerned, it was cited in Ryrie’s Dispensationalism Today (1965 edition), pg. 45. He gets the quote from Lewis Sperry Chafer’s Dispensationalism (Dallas: Seminary Press, 1936), pg. 107. Ryrie’s quote starts with the section I quoted, then after some ellipses, it adds another paragraph or so. Nothing in the context as quoted in Ryrie indicates this is wrested from the context.
In fact, Ryrie quotes it under his discussion of the threefold sine qua non of dispensationalism. The first being a separation of Israel and the church. He quotes Daniel Fuller (his doctoral dissertation: “The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism”, Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicago, 1957: pg. 25)on that point as follows, “the basic premise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout eternity”. Then a few sentences later he gives the Chafer quote. This is the essence of dispensationalism he claims (along with literal or plain hermeneutics and then the assertion that God’s single purpose in everything is His Glory not Salvation). That last point is very egregiously wrong in my book. If you read CT people they are the ones championing God’s Glory. How is the salvation of a redeemed people from all races antithetical to God’s Glory? But I won’t get into that here.
Oh, and forgive me for not having finished your paper that you did on this recently. I started it, and want to give it my full attention, so I put it off, and then forgot about it. I will pick it up soon.
Waiting for that “konk” on the head!!
Bob
Bob,
I found the citation given in Ryrie’s 3rd edition (2007) on pp. 46-47. Here Ryrie is demonstrating one of the three ‘sine qua non'(s) of Dispensationalists, namely this one being a separate distinction between God’s program for Israel and God’s program for the Church. There were additional comments by Chafer cited here, so it’s possible that you may have read him wrong here, but they don’t seem relevant. Here I would not see a problem of a dualism in Dispensationalism (previously, I was thinking that your charge of dualism in dispensationalism was referring to the gaffe that Scofield made about two ways of salvation that was charged against dispensationalism in years past– this was an old charge that has been answered years ago) as dispensationalism is doxological, rather than soteriological as I would see CT as being. This is very important, IMHO, as I think that you should read Ryrie (pp. 47 & 48) on the doxological aspects of dispensationalism and its focus on understanding God’s purpose in expressing His glory is not just the salvation of men through Christ. This seems reductive as it seems that CT relies on one aspect (salvation of men) as being the purpose of the whole glory of God.
Larry,
Ryrie’s charge that CT relies solely on soteriology for the display of God’s glory is a tired old argument that has never been substantiated, and is belied by the writings of any good, responsible Covenant Theologian. To wrest your words from their context, “this was an old charge that has been answered years ago” :).
Really, of Ryrie’s 3 “sine qua non,” the only one that I think is legitimately a distinctive of Dispensationalism is a separation of Church and true Israel. And I believe that a literal hermeneutic argues forcefully against this one sine qua non.
By the way, I have read both Ryrie’s and Showers’ books, and remain unconvinced. At any rate, whether you come to the light in this lifetime or not (I hope you know I’m somewhat tongue-in-cheek here), I appreciate many of your comments/observations, and I hope we can disagree with burning each other at the stake :).
In Christ,
Nathan
Oops! I meant to say “without burning each other at the stake” (Freudian slip?).
Nathan,
Oh, come on! You know you’d love to burn me at the stake! :^O Well, respectively, we have to part ways here as well. I’d have to strongly disagree that Covenantalism is consistent in its hermeneutic, nor is it doxological; Ryrie and others have substantial arguments on this. I won’t digress here, lest the argument gets unnecessarily rancorous, but I think your last comments were rather gratuitous (“At any rate, whether you come to the light in this lifetime or not”– your statement). I could be as equally as discourteous, but fail to see the point in pursuing an emotionally charged diatribe, nor would this be honoring to Christ as well.
Larry,
Sorry, I meant know offense, but was just kidding around. That’s why I labeled my comments there as “tongue-in-cheek”. But I do apologize, and I’ll keep my comments more serious in the future.
Nathan