Hello and welcome. In this article, we will examine a particular argument for Paedobaptism. This is the covenantal unity argument. This argument for Paedobaptism is most prominent in Reformed Presbyterian circles and is often argued for in tandem with the infant circumcision to baptism argument. We've covered the infant circumcision to baptism argument in this article here. The argument for covenantal unity is primarily derived from the hermeneutical framework of covenant theology. In this article, we won't be putting forth a comprehensive account of how the biblical covenants fit together and relate to each other. Instead, we'll be focused on examining and critiquing the distinctions of the covenantal unity argument for Paedobaptism.
WHAT IS A COVENANT?
Before getting into things, it's important to define what a covenant is.
Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
We first see the technical word "covenant" in Genesis 6:18.
“Covenant. A bond entered into voluntarily by two parties by which each pledges himself to do something for the other.” - Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 425
"a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action" - Merriam Webster, Definition 2.A
FRAMING THE COVENANTAL UNITY ARGUMENT WITH QUOTES FROM PAEDOBAPTISTS THROUGH THE CENTURIES
How many covenants are there in redemptive history?
“The covenant of all the fathers is so far from differing substantially from ours, that it is the very same. Only the administration varies.” - John Calvin, Institutes 2.10.2
“In the very substance, truly, you can find no diversity: the difference which is between them consists in the manner of administration.” - Johann Heinrich Bullinger, Quoted in Peter Golding, Covenant Theology (Glasgow, UK: Mentor, 2004), 23.
“One in substance, but two-fold in circumstances; or it is one as it respects the general conditions upon which God enters into an engagement with us, and we with him; and it is two as it respects the conditions which are less general, or as some say, as it respects the mode of its administration.” - The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 99
“There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.” - Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 7, Section 6
“The cumulative evidence of the Scriptures points definitely toward the unified character of the biblical covenants. God’s multiple bonds with his people ultimately unite into a single relationship. Particular details of the covenants may vary. A definite line of progress may be noted. Yet the covenants of God are one.” - O. Palmer Robertson, Christ of the Covenants, p. 28
“The history of God’s covenant people indicates that the covenants basically are one. The Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants do not supplant one another; they supplement one another. A basic unity binds them together.” - O. Palmer Robertson, Christ of the Covenants, p. 34
“There is but one covenant of grace and one administer of that covenant, the Lord Jesus Christ.” - Joseph Pipa, The Covenant and Our Children, p. 77
“The new covenant is but a new—though more glorious—administration of the same covenant of grace.” - Booth, Children of Promise, p. 9
“The old covenant with Israel is the necessary preparation for the new covenant in Christ. Though the covenant is one, there are two dispensations.” - Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 3, p.193-196
“The essence of the covenant of grace is the same throughout the Old and New Testaments—God saves sinners by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.” - Ligonier, What is the Covenant of Grace?
“The covenant made with Abraham was primarily a spiritual covenant, though it also had a national aspect, and of this spiritual covenant circumcision was a sign and seal…. This covenant is still in force and is essentially identical with the “new covenant” of the present dispensation. The unity and continuity of the covenant in both dispensations follows from the fact that the Mediator is the same; the condition is the same, namely, faith; and the blessings are the same, namely, justification, regeneration, spiritual gifts, and eternal life.” - Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 632-633
“The newness of the new covenant pertains to the external aspects, the outward administration, of the covenant of grace. The new covenant is not new in its nature of membership.” - Jeffrey Niell, the newness of the new covenant, the case for covenantal infant baptism, p. 155
“The Reformed paedobaptist position is, of course, based upon the unity of the covenant of grace and the oneness of the people of God in all ages.” - Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology for the Christian Faith, p. 937
“And so the Covenant made with Abraham, of which circumcision was a seal, (Gen. 17:7, 10), the Apostle clearly proves in Rom. 4:11. Now, the Covenant of Grace is an everlasting Covenant, (2 Sam. 23:5). It never was, nor ever will be repealed.” - Michael Harrison, Infant Baptism: God’s Ordinance, Chapter 3
“This one covenant of grace is administered in different ways during different periods in the Bible. It is important that we understand, however, that these are simply different methods of administering the same covenant of grace. The character of the covenant is not changed by these different methods of applying it.” - The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, The Covenant of Grace
“Thus, they are correct who insist upon the continuity of God’s covenant of grace from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses to David to Christ as to the terms of eternal blessedness in God’s covenant.” - Horton, Introducing Covenant Theology, p. 98
“The covenant of grace runs through the Old and New Testaments, and is the same in substance under both the law and gospel, though there is some difference in the administration.” - Wikipedia, Covenant theology
When was the Covenant of Grace instituted?
“Unfortunately as Genesis 3 reveals, Adam and Eve fell for the blandishments of Satan speaking through the serpent. With the fall of our first parents, God immediately instituted the covenant of grace in the midst of the pronouncement of curses upon the serpent, Eve, and Adam (Genesis 3:14-19).” - PlaceForTruth, The Covenant of Grace
“Scripture, however, sees our misery as sin, as an ethical violation of communion with God, who alone can restore it. This requires grace, which in biblical revelation assumes the form of a covenant. This covenant begins immediately after the fall as evidenced by Adam and Eve’s shame in their nakedness, a sign of lost innocence.” - Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 3, p.193-196
“This covenant of grace to Adam gives us but a bare outline of God’s plan of redemption.” - The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, The Covenant of Grace
"As we've already seen, the covenant of grace was instituted with Adam in Genesis 3:15, immediately after he fell into sin." - ThirdMill, The Covenant of Grace, Lesson 4
“Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein He freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.” - Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 7, Section 3
“Thus, they are correct who insist upon the continuity of God’s covenant of grace from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses to David to Christ as to the terms of eternal blessedness in God’s covenant.” - Horton, Introducing Covenant Theology, p. 98
Was the Mosaic Covenant the Covenant of Grace?
“It must clearly be borne in mind that the revelation of the Law at Mt. Sinai is to be regarded as an administration of the covenant of grace.” - Edward Young, Commentary on Daniel, p. 16
“The economy of Moses, whatever prominence it gave to the Law, was unquestionably a dispensation of the Covenant of Grace.” - James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification, p. 39
“It is the covenant of grace itself. This transaction is but a solemn renewal of that covenant of which all believers since Adam have been partakers. God renewed this covenant with Abraham and his seed, confirming it with the sacrament of circumcision.” - APuritansMind, Is the Mosaic Covenant the covenant of Grace?
“Since the Old Testament neither began at Horeb, but rather with Adam and neither consists in the inheritance of Canaan nor is an external covenant, it remains that the covenant made at Horeb is the covenant of grace itself.” - APuritansMind, Is the Mosaic Covenant the covenant of Grace?
“Secondly, the covenant established with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was the covenant of grace. The covenant at Horeb was, however, the same covenant as was established with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Thus, the covenant established at Horeb is the covenant of grace.” - APuritansMind, Is the Mosaic Covenant the covenant of Grace?
“The majority of Reformed theologians have rejected substantial republication and instead held that the Mosaic covenant is of the substance of the covenant of grace, not the covenant of works.” - KnowingScripture, Was the Mosaic Covenant a Republication of the Covenant of Works?
“Thus, they are correct who insist upon the continuity of God’s covenant of grace from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses to David to Christ as to the terms of eternal blessedness in God’s covenant.” - Horton, Introducing Covenant Theology, p. 98
The Covenantal Unity Argument for Paedobaptism:
“Throughout the covenant of grace, God has always dealt with believers and their children. Every covenant throughout the Scriptures is with both the person with whom God covenants and His descendants.” - Joseph Pipa, The Covenant and Our Children, p. 77
“There are also other evidences in the pages of Scripture that support the truth of infant baptism. Nevertheless, the foundation of the argument consists of the unified covenant of grace evident in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.” - Booth, Children of Promise, p. 10
“In covenant theology the argument for infant baptism falls into its place in the schematism which the organic unity and continuity of covenant revelation provided.” - John Murray, The Collected Writings, 4:240
“If the promise of the Covenant of Grace may be made to the infant seed of believers, then Christ owns them. The promise of the Covenant of Grace is to the infant seed of believers, as well as to their believing Parents. Genesis 17:7, “I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and thy seed after thee.”” - Michael Harrison, Infant Baptism: God’s Ordinance, Chapter 2
“Jehovah dealt primarily with the nation and through the nation with the individual, as even now in the covenant of grace He deals with believers and their children in the continuity of generations.” - Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, p. 128
“The covenant of grace under former dispensations comprehended within its limits the infants of parties interested in it, as well as the parties themselves. This is undeniable. And the covenant must be altered essentially as to its extent,—it must be a different covenant as to the parties with whom it is made,—if so large a portion of the members included in it formerly, as infants were, should appear under the New Testament Church to be excluded…Unless the covenant of grace, in short, under the New Testament Church is another covenant from what it was under the Old Testament, infants must have a place in it now as much as then.” - James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, Volume 2, p. 74
“If the sign of the covenant was freely given to the children of believing households in the Old Covenant, and if there is continuity between the Old and New Covenants, that is, if they are both expressions of the same Covenant of Grace, and if the New Testament sacraments don't happen within a bubble but rather, build upon what came before them, if the New Testament never gives us the command to stop giving the sign of that covenant to our children, and we all agree that we are to make disciples of our children, then on what grounds do we withhold the covenant sign from our children?” - Proclamation PCA, On Westminster Shorter Catechism #95, Para. 4
“If there is, indeed, one covenant and one people of God throughout redemptive history, children of NT believers are no less a part of that covenant than were the children of the OT believers, nor are they any less entitled to the sign of that covenant.” - Lyle Beirma, The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus, p. 33-34
“This covenant [of grace] was the sure scriptural, objective foundation upon which all the Reformers, together and without distinction, based the right to infant baptism. They had no other, deeper, or more solid ground.” - Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 4, p. 536
SUMMARIZING THE ARGUMENT
Before getting into our critique, let's summarize the Paedobaptist argument. This argument sees one singular covenant stretching through redemptive history beginning with Adam after the fall. This covenant is one in internal substance throughout history but has various external administrations. The Mosaic, Abrahamic, and New covenants are considered this singular covenant of grace. Because a sign and ordinance were always given to infants in the covenant of grace throughout history, and the new covenant is the covenant of grace, infants should be given the sign and ordinance of the new covenant Christian church. This means that infants should be baptized. If infants shouldn't be baptized, we would need an explicit command in the New Testament saying to not baptize them since they have always received the sign in the covenant.
The primary distinction of the covenantal argument for Paedobaptism is that all the biblical covenants are truly just one covenant under different external administrations. One cannot consistently acknowledge the validity of this argument without accepting that all of the covenants in redemptive history are but one covenant.
SUMMARIZING OVERARCHING THEMES OF COVENANT THEOLOGY
“Covenant theology (also called federal theology or Reformed theology) represents a theological system that emphasizes the unity and continuity of the Bible. Consequently, it contrasts with dispensationalism with respect to the relationship between the old covenant and the new covenant. For example, not only do covenant theologians speak of the one people of God in both Testaments, they also affirm that the church existed in the Old Testament. One key linchpin for seeing continuity between the covenants revolves around the centrality of the covenant of grace. Because God is working out his unified plan to redeem humanity through this covenant, all historical covenants fall under this larger covenant and thus are expressions of it.” - Discontinuity to Continuity, Chapter 6
“Covenant theology understands the whole of history after man’s fall into sin as unifying under the provisions of the covenant of [grace]. Beginning with the first promise to Adam-in-sin and continuing throughout history to the consummation of the ages, God orders all things in view of his singular purpose of redeeming a people to himself.” - O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, p. 206
“Second, the Word of God is not properly understood till it is viewed within a covenantal frame…The backbone of the Bible, to which all the expository, homiletical, moral, liturgical, and devotional material relates, is the unfolding in space and time of God's unchanging intention of having a people on earth to whom he would relate covenantally for his and their joy.” - Packer, An Introduction to Covenant Theology, Chapter III
“Thus, the Reformed reading of the Scriptures consists first of all in a first covenant in Adam, eventually called the covenant of works. Then, immediately after the fall, God made a second covenant called the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace was placed under a first administration, which we find in the Old Testament. This administration was elementary and temporary. Next came a second administration of the covenant of grace, which we find in the New Testament." - Denault, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, Brief Historical Overview of Covenant Theology
In covenant theology, there are two covenants administered to mankind. There's also an intra-trinitarian covenant called the covenant of redemption, but it's irrelevant to our purpose here. The first covenant administered to mankind is the covenant of works. This happened in the garden. After the fall, God made the covenant of grace. It's this covenant that is the singular covenant throughout redemptive history.
THE SYSTEM AND THE SCRIPTURE
One concern we have is forcing theological terms and concepts onto Scripture which oversimplifies and flattens the Biblical narrative and story. We need to be cautious of not letting a system override Scripture. While on the surface it does simplify things to say there's just one covenant in redemptive history, upon deeper investigation we believe this is in glaring contradiction to what we see in the Bible and it creates multiple problems. We don't believe any biblical author gives us the principle or is even aware of the principle for interpreting the covenants as just really being one covenant with multiple outward administrations. While there is an obvious law and gospel distinction in the Bible, we don't believe that is therefore the de-facto interpretive grid by which all covenants should be sorted.
Furthermore, we don't find the term "covenant of grace" as it's used by Paedobaptists to be particularly helpful in these discussions. It would be fine if all that is meant by the term is God's one redemptive plan for humanity or that God's grace has always been in effect with humanity. But in covenant theology, the covenant of grace functions and means more than just that. The distinction of covenant theology is that all covenants in redemptive history are the same covenant. This distinct point and premise is the vehicle for justifying various doctrines (like Paedobaptism) which we find to be unwarranted.
We want to affirm that while there is unity in God's redemptive plan through history; this does not mean that each step in unfolding and bringing this plan to completion is the same step. It doesn't mean that every agreement and covenant God makes with man is the same in substance.
THE CONFLATION OF SOTERIOLOGICAL UNITY WITH COVENANTAL UNITY
This concern arises when we examine the Westminster Confession of Faith's prooftexts for covenantal unity and oneness. We of course believe there's soteriological unity and continuity between the Old and New Testaments. This, however, doesn't equate to or validate the idea that all covenants in redemptive history are therefore ultimately the same covenant. That conclusion would require its own set of clear texts and arguments because we see the claim that everyone is saved the same way as different from the claim that all of God's covenants with men are the same covenantal arrangement.
“Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein He freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.” - Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 7, Section 3
“There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.” - Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 7, Section 6
Under Chapter 7, Section 6, the Confession lists prooftexts for the given quote above. They are Psa 32:1 with Rom 4:3; Acts 15:11; Rom 3:21-23, 30; 4:6, 16-17, 23-24; Gal 3:14, 16; Heb 13:8. Before we list out these texts, keep in mind that they're meant to prove this idea that through redemptive history there's only one covenant under various dispensations/administrations.
Psa 32:1 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Act 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Rom 3:21-23 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom 4:16-17 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
Rom 4:23-24 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
To us, these prooftexts seem woefully underwhelming for proving the idea that all covenants through redemptive history are substantially the same. The word covenant doesn't even appear in these verses. These texts just demonstrate unity in salvation between the Old and New Testaments which isn't a point of contention. We wholeheartedly affirm that.
“The Old and New Covenants are administrations of the covenant of grace. Acts 15:11 says, But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. 1 Corinthians 10:4 says, and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. These and other passages show that the substance of both the Old and New Covenants was and always is Christ.” - Purely Presbyterian, A Clear and Concise Case for Infant Baptism
This is not only a problem with the Westminster Confession but with covenantal unity argumentation in general. Our concern is that Paedobaptists are unnecessarily conflating and equating the substance of a covenant with the substance of the gospel. We can certainly say that within a party God covenants with, there can be elements and themes of God's grace and the gospel. However, that doesn't mean the essential parts and elements of the covenant are the exact same as the essential parts and elements of the gospel. It's shocking to see how many of the texts that are meant to prove a specific understanding of covenants and how they function don't speak to the points of contention at all. They don't speak about the substance, operation, or administration of biblical covenants.
If essentially equating covenant to the gospel is valid. Why not say the covenant of works is the gospel? Clearly, we must closely examine the substance of a particular covenant before equating it with other covenants.
LOOKING AT THE PROTOEVANGELIUM
Some Paedobaptists turn to the Protoevangelium in Genesis as the first manifestation of the one "covenant of grace".
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
While we certainly agree that this verse is a promise about the coming messiah, and certainly displays God's grace, we fail to see how this verse demonstrates that all covenants in redemptive history are really just the same covenant. We believe this is another instance of conflating soteriological unity with covenantal unity. Of course, there is unity in God's one redemptive plan in Christ. But as we've already said, why must this mean that all steps and agreements that God makes with man in the unfolding of that plan are essentially the same?
God is gracious. So it's no surprise to see this grace on display throughout the Bible beginning in Genesis. Covenant Theology does not have a monopoly on God's grace and the sameness of God's graciousness does not necessitate that every covenantal agreement God makes with mankind is essentially the same.
THE PAEDO SIGN GAP BETWEEN ADAM AND ABRAHAM
This point is relevant in light of the covenantal Paedobaptist understanding of infant involvement in covenant signs. In their zeal to prove covenantal continuity for infants, many Paedobaptists assert that God has always dealt with infants in the covenant of grace or that infants have always been given the sign of this covenant. We'll provide a few quotes that touch on this sentiment.
“If the sign of the covenant was freely given to the children of believing households in the Old Covenant, and if there is continuity between the Old and New Covenants, that is, if they are both expressions of the same Covenant of Grace, and if the New Testament sacraments don't happen within a bubble but rather, build upon what came before them, if the New Testament never gives us the command to stop giving the sign of that covenant to our children, and we all agree that we are to make disciples of our children, then on what grounds do we withhold the covenant sign from our children?” - Proclamation PCA, On Westminster Shorter Catechism #95, Para. 4
“Jehovah dealt primarily with the nation and through the nation with the individual, as even now in the covenant of grace He deals with believers and their children in the continuity of generations.” - Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, p. 128
“Throughout the covenant of grace, God has always dealt with believers and their children. Every covenant throughout the Scriptures is with both the person with whom God covenants and His descendants.” - Joseph Pipa, The Covenant and Our Children, p. 77
Pipa most clearly captures this sentiment when he says that God has always dealt with the children of believers in the covenant of grace. This claim, if true, certainly would provide extra strength to the Paedobaptist argument. The problem is, even if we grant the premises of this theological system, it's a plain biblical and historical fact that infants have not always been given a covenant sign in the "covenant of grace". How is this? Well, remember, in covenant theology, the covenant of grace began immediately after the fall of Adam.
Gen 17:11-12 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
But we don't see a token of a covenant explicitly given to infants until we get to Abraham.
Gen 9:12-15 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
We know from the fall to the flood is at least 1600 years. Additionally, in between the flood and Abraham is at least 400 years. So we're looking at at least 2000 years where the covenant of grace didn't include a token sign for infants. Now, some might argue that the token of the covenant with Noah included infants since, despite no explicit reference to this, we're told the rainbow is "for perpetual generations". Even if this is granted, we're still left with at least 1600 years of redemptive history under the covenant of grace where there was no token covenant sign for infants. It's simply an inaccurate oversimplification to say the covenant of grace has always included a sign for infant children of believers. When in reality, almost half of Old Testament history did not have this.
This fact undercuts the assumption that since infants have always been given a sign in the covenant of grace, there's no reason to think they wouldn't be given a sign in the New Testament administration of that covenant. The underlying premise of this thinking is simply false.
THE PLURALITY OF DISTINCT AND CONCURRENT COVENANTS IN THE BIBLE
Let's remember briefly how Presbyterian covenant theology understands the covenants through redemptive history.
“The covenant of all the fathers is so far from differing substantially from ours, that it is the very same. Only the administration varies.” - John Calvin, Institutes 2.10.2
“There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.” - Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 7, Section 6
Jer 31:31-33 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
In Jeremiah 31, we see a new covenant God will make contrasted with another covenant God made. The pre-existing and prior covenant being contrasted is the Mosaic covenant which was broken by the Israelites. The new covenant is not according to this other covenant; they are distinct.
Jer 33:17-21 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. And the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
Num 25:10-13 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.
In Jeremiah 33, four covenants are referenced and it's conveyed that they are concurrent and distinct. The day, night, Davidic, and Levitical covenants are mentioned. The Levitical priestly covenant was a distinct covenant made with the tribe of Levi. We see further evidence of distinct biblical covenants when we read more about this priestly covenant as the Old Testament unfolds.
Neh 13:29-30 Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood, and of the Levites. Thus cleansed I them from all strangers, and appointed the wards of the priests and the Levites, every one in his business;
Mal 2:4-9 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name. The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips: he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity. For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts. Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.
In Nehemiah and Malachi, we're told that this priestly Levitical covenant had been defiled and corrupted.
Example 3: Psalm 89:34-36, 103:17-18, 105:8-11, 106:45, 132:11-12
Psa 89:34-36 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.
Psa 132:11-12 The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore.
The Psalms are filled with covenantal language and are keenly aware of multiple biblical covenants. Psalms 89 and 132 speak of the Davidic covenant which finds its grounding in 2 Samuel 7.
Psa 103:17-18 But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children; To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them.
Psalm 103 speaks of the Mosaic covenant and pulls from the prior Scriptures concerning that covenant in Exodus 19, 20, and 34.
Psa 105:8-11 He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance:
Psalm 105 speaks of the Abrahamic covenant. Absent from the Psalms is the idea that there is just one covenant in redemptive history under various administrations.
Example 4: Romans 6:14-15
Rom 6:14-15 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
In Romans 6, we see a distinction between being under the law and under grace. If, according to the covenant theology schema, being "under grace" means being under the covenant of grace, it seems reasonable to conclude that being "under the law" would mean being under a separate distinct covenant. According to Paul, being "under the law" is a reference to the Mosaic covenant. Paul identifies the law as Mosaic in Romans 7:7. In Romans 9:4, Paul says the law pertains to the Israelites. In 1 Corinthians 9:9, the law is explicitly said to be of Moses. Lastly, Hebews 9:19 says that Moses spoke according to the law.
Example 5: Romans 9:3-5
Rom 9:3-5 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
In Romans 9, Paul explicitly says there are covenants (plural) that pertain to Israel. We already know what many of those covenants are through previous verses we've looked at. If Presbyterian covenant theology were true, this would be the perfect time for Paul to say that one covenant under various administrations pertains to Israel. However, Paul makes no such clarification.
Example 6: 2 Corinthians 3:6-11
2Co 3:6-11 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
The same underlying Greek word is used for testament and covenant. Paul contrasts this New Testament with the Mosaic covenant. The effects and results of each are polar opposites. The Mosaic covenant killed by the letter, is a ministration of death and condemnation. The New Testament exceeds in glory and is much more glorious because it gives life by the spirit and is a ministration of righteousness.
Example 7: Galatians 3:15-18
Gal 3:15-18 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
In Galatians 3, Paul compares the giving of the law (the Mosaic covenant) with the previous covenant hundreds of years before it (the Abrahamic covenant). For Paul, the Mosaic covenant did not nullify the prior Abrahamic covenant. These two covenants existed simultaneously and concurrently.
Example 8: Galatians 4:21-25
Gal 4:21-25 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
Building upon Galatians 3, Paul talks about "the two covenants". He does not say these are two administrations of a single covenant of grace. No, he says "these are the two covenants". Advocates of covenant theology might be tempted to say that these two covenants are the covenant of works made before the fall and the covenant of grace which was made immediately after the fall. However, the text does not allow for this. One of these two covenants is explicitly said to be the Sinaitic covenant which is what we commonly call the Mosaic covenant. This is in contextual agreement with Galatians 3:15-18, Paul's mentioning of "the law" in Galatians 4:4-5, and the major themes of law in chapter 5.
Example 9: Ephesians 2:12
Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
In Ephesians, Paul speaks of Gentile Christians as having been strangers from "the covenants" in the past. Paul is clear that there is not a singular covenant of promise. There are multiple covenants of promise. Paul does not make a clarifying point that there is one covenant of promise under various administrations.
Example 10: Hebrews 8:6-13
Heb 8:6-13 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
In Hebrews, we're told of a better covenant with better promises. A first covenant is contrasted with a second covenant. We aren't told that this is a better administration of the same covenant. That's not a clarifying point that's made. Rather, we're just simply told that one covenant wasn't faultless and is decaying and vanishing away to be replaced or substituted by a second new covenant. These are two distinct covenants. We can see further distinctions between these covenants in Hebrews.
Heb 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Moses' sprinkling of blood in the Old Covenant is compared to Jesus' sprinkling of blood as the mediator of the New Covenant.
These are ten examples throughout the Bible that show a plurality of distinct and concurrent covenants in redemptive history. In each of these examples, the author could have clarified that these are simply various administrations of the covenant of grace. This clarification, however, is never made.
How have covenant theologians dealt with this problem? For this, we will look at the words of Ulrich Zwingli. He was one of the earliest theologians during the protestant reformation to speak on this issue from a covenant theology perspective.
“God therefore made no other covenant with the miserable race of man than that he had already conceived before man was formed. One and the same testament has always been in force.” - Selected Works of Ulrich Zwingli, p. 234
“But two covenants are spoken of, not that they are two diverse covenants, for this would necessitate not only two diverse peoples, but also two gods. Since some ancients did not see this, they taught that two diverse gods existed, one of the Old, the other of the New Testament ; the one cruel, the other gentle and kind. So Paul indeed speaks of two testaments, but the one he calls a testament by a misuse of language, when he wishes them to be understood who, although they were under that one eternal covenant and testament, yet on account of the externals which they tenaciously retained betrayed the light and Christ himself.” - Selected Works of Ulrich Zwingli, p. 228
Zwingli asserts that one testament and covenant (and no other) have always been in force. For whatever reason, Zwingli is under the assumption that two covenants would mean that two gods exist. It seems that in Zwingli's mind, God is unable to make arrangements between multiple parties with various conditions, effects, goals, etc. This is essentially what a covenant is. He attributes "misuse of language" to Paul by saying there's more than one testament. This is woefully underwhelming and doesn't harmonize the various passages which explicitly speak of various covenants.
To conclude this section, to make the covenantal unity argument plausible, the burden of proof is on the Paedobaptists to show a clear biblical warrant for seeing the covenants in redemptive history as "one covenant under various administrations". We've already looked at the prooftexts for this understanding from the Westminster Confession. The word covenant doesn't even appear in any of the texts. Yet, we've looked at ten examples throughout both testaments which show various distinct and concurrent covenants in redemptive history. No biblical author takes the effort to clarify that these covenants are all truly one under various external administrations.
COMPARING COVENANTAL LANGUAGE IN THE BIBLE
At this point, we're going to take a deeper look at the parties, conditions, language, and effects of the covenants in the Bible to better understand if they are distinct covenants or just external administrations of the same covenant. First, let's revisit some terms and definitions.
What is a covenant?
“Covenant. A bond entered into voluntarily by two parties by which each pledges himself to do something for the other.” - Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 425
"a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action" - Merriam Webster, Definition 2. A
What is a substance?
"a fundamental or characteristic part or quality" - Merriam Webster, Definition 1. B
"the real or essential part or element of anything; essence, reality, or basic matter" - Collins Dictionary, Definition 1
In simplest terms, a covenant is an agreement. When we speak of the substance of a covenant, we're talking about the parts, elements, and characteristics of that covenant.
Do same parties equal same covenant?
Not necessarily. For example, you could have agreements (covenants) with a bank. In this scenario, the two parties are you and the bank. But, you can have a mortgage with the bank and an auto loan with the same bank. So while the parties are the same (you and the bank), the terms, conditions, and results are distinct. As a result of the terms, conditions, and results being distinct, the substance is distinct. If the substance is distinct, the covenants are distinct and you have two covenants despite the parties being the same. In this scenario, it's self-evident that your agreement with the bank for an auto loan is not the same agreement you have with them for your mortgage.
Do the same effects or results equal the same covenant?
Again, this is not necessarily the case. For example, let's say you and I made an agreement (covenant). The conditions are: If I do A, B, and C, the result and effect are you doing X. Let's say we made another agreement (covenant). This time the conditions are: If I do D, E, and F, the result and effect is you doing X. While the result and effect are the same in these two examples, the conditions and rules are not the same. As a result of this, the essential parts that make up these covenants are not the same. If the essential parts are not the same, the substance is distinct between the covenants. If the substance is distinct, they are different covenants.
How do Paedobaptists see the covenantal language as confirming their position?
“A critical theme in covenant theology, as articulated historically in the Reformed tradition, is the insistence on one covenant of grace throughout redemption history. To use John Calvin’s well-known language, the covenant of grace is one in substance, diverse in mode of administration. However diverse and particular the dispensations of the covenant of grace—so that we may even speak of “covenants” in the plural (Rom. 9:4)—they do not differ as to substance. There are a number of biblical arguments supporting this claim. First, the covenant promise of life and salvation is described in the same way throughout the Scriptures. When God first entered into an everlasting covenant with Abraham, he promised, “[I will] be God to you and to your offspring after you” (Gen. 17:7). This language is used of the covenant made at Sinai under Moses (Ex. 19:5; 20:2), of the covenant made on the Plains of Moab (Deut. 29:13), of the covenant with David (2 Sam. 7:14), and of the new covenant in Christ (Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10).” - Cornelius P. Venema, Christ and Covenant Theology, p. 464-465
"The summary expression of the covenant is the same throughout, both in the Old and New Testament: “I will be thy God.” It is the expression of the essential content of the covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17:7, of the Sinaitic covenant, Ex. 19:5; 20:1, of the covenant of the Plains of Moab, Deut. 29:13, of the Davidic covenant, II Sam. 7:14, and of the new covenant, Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10." - Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 307-308
From the Paedobaptist perspective, they see God describing his covenantal relationships in the same way as proof that the covenants themselves are really the same covenant.
“Fourth, the obligation of the covenant of grace is essentially the same throughout the course of its successive administrations. Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness. In so doing, he set an example of faith for all believers who receive the promise, not by works performed in obedience to the law, but by faith in Christ. Jews and Gentiles alike obtain salvation by faith alone, not by works (Rom. 4:9–25; Gal. 3:7–9, 17–18). The gracious promise of the covenant precedes the giving of the law, thereby teaching us that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, and not on account of the righteousness of works.” - Cornelius P. Venema, Christ and Covenant Theology, p. 466
Venema also asserts that the obligations of this singular covenant are the same through all of its administrations.
When we're talking about the "substance" of a covenant, we're talking about the fundamental and essential parts, elements, and characteristics of that covenant. So for two covenants to have the same "substance" and therefore be the same, they'd need to have the same fundamental and essential parts, elements, and characteristics. This would mean that we'd need to see the same commitments and conditions for the various parties. Additionally, we'd need to see the same promises or effects as a result of the commitments and conditions. We should be careful to not equate multiple covenants as one in substance just because there are commonalities and overlaps in some regards. As we went over in our examples earlier, commonalities in party and effect do not necessitate sameness in substance.
Like many others from the Paedobaptist perspective, our concern with these arguments is that this is a flattened-out oversimplification of the biblical texts.
The language of the Noahic covenant -
Gen 6:13-22 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it. And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them. Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.
Gen 9:8-17 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.
In the Noahic covenant, God says he will destroy the earth with a flood due to great wickedness. But Noah and his family are to build an ark so they will be spared. Noah is given multiple commands and he does them. At the end of the flood, the covenantal language appears again. The parties are God and the earth. This covenant extends beyond humans and includes "every beast of the earth." The token of this covenant is the rainbow. There are no actions, conditions, or commands given to humans for performing this token. Rather, it seems like it's God's action. The focus in Genesis 9 is on God remembering his commitments in the covenant. While there are obligations for Noah in Genesis 6 like building the ark, chapter 9 is largely focused on God's continual obligation for this covenant once the flood has subsided. It's also worth noting that there is no language in this covenant like "I will be a God to you" as Venema points out in his argument that the language is the same for all administrations of the covenant of grace.
The language of the Abrahamic covenant -
Gen 17:7-14 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
In God's covenantal dealings with Abraham, there are many things God says he will do. He will give them land (Gen 15:18), multiply Abraham exceedingly (Gen 17:2), and Abraham will be a father of many nations (Gen 17:4). The portion of Genesis 17 above gets into the obligations of the covenant. The token of this covenant is circumcision. This is a token that humans are obligated to perform. Failure to abide by this obligation and not keep the covenant results in breaking the covenant and being cut off from the people. We see this come up in Exodus 4:24-26 where Moses' son was not yet circumcised. As a result, Moses' own life was in danger of being cut off until his son was circumcised.
The language of the Mosaic covenant -
Exo 19:4-5 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
Deu 7:11-13 Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them. Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers: And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.
Deu 8:18-20 But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day. And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God.
Lev 26:14-17 But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant: I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it. And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you.
The Mosaic covenant was made at Sinai and the parties were God and the people of Israel. This covenant is replete with examples of conditions and curses. It's conveyed that even God's keeping of this covenant is contingent on the actions of the Israelites.
The language of the Priestly covenant -
Num 25:10-13 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.
There is not much said in the Bible about this covenant. We've briefly touched on it previously. This seems to be a covenant given to a people by God as a result of what they did. There are no clear conditions or obligations given. Neither is there any language like "I will be a God to you".
The language of the Davidic covenant -
2Sa 7:11-17 And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.
Psa 89:3-4 I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.
Jer 33:20-21 Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
In God's covenantal dealings with David, we see multiple promises. God will make a house, a seed, and a kingdom. When we get to Jeremiah, we're given an indication of the certainty and reliability of this covenant. It's compared with the fixed and reliable cycle of day and night.
Summary of covenantal language and the Paedobaptist error -
We've briefly looked at five covenants in the Old Testament and observed the parties, conditions, obligations, effects, results, and tokens of these covenants. We quickly see that they don't all have the same essential characteristics and parts. Some covenants explicitly have tokens tied to them and others don't. Some tokens are for humans to perform and other tokens are for God to perform. Some covenants are breakable from either one or both parties while other covenants are not breakable. Some covenants have fatherly language from God and others do not. Some covenants have obligations and others do not. Some covenants that have obligations do not have the exact same obligations.
All of these points indicate that the substances of these covenants are distinct because they do not have the same essential characteristics and parts. As a result, they are not the same covenant. Let's recall what Venema said.
“A critical theme in covenant theology, as articulated historically in the Reformed tradition, is the insistence on one covenant of grace throughout redemption history. To use John Calvin’s well-known language, the covenant of grace is one in substance, diverse in mode of administration. However diverse and particular the dispensations of the covenant of grace—so that we may even speak of “covenants” in the plural (Rom. 9:4)—they do not differ as to substance. There are a number of biblical arguments supporting this claim. First, the covenant promise of life and salvation is described in the same way throughout the Scriptures. When God first entered into an everlasting covenant with Abraham, he promised, “[I will] be God to you and to your offspring after you” (Gen. 17:7). This language is used of the covenant made at Sinai under Moses (Ex. 19:5; 20:2), of the covenant made on the Plains of Moab (Deut. 29:13), of the covenant with David (2 Sam. 7:14), and of the new covenant in Christ (Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10).” - Cornelius P. Venema, Christ and Covenant Theology, p. 464-465
Venema sees the language "I will be God to you" as justification for seeing various covenants in redemptive history as having the same substance. Even if we were to grant this reasoning, the covenantal unity argument still runs into problems. The problem is that we have multiple covenants that do not have this language after the fall. The Noahic and Priestly covenants are two examples. If the sameness of the "I will be God to you" language means sameness in substance, it follows that difference or absence of this language means difference in substance. As a result, with Venema's own principle, it seems that we end up with various distinct covenants in redemptive history. In this case, the covenantal unity argument for Paedobaptism collapses.
The Paedobaptist approach to the covenantal unity argument is overly simplistic and makes too much of any commonalities at the expense of clear distinctions and differences. The similar language used within covenants is as much proof for each covenant being the same as the similar language used within bank loan paperwork proving that each bank loan is the same loan. This is just evidence of how the respective parties typically make agreements (covenants). This is not evidence that each covenantal agreement is the same agreement. This is a similar error to assuming that the same effect or result equals the same covenant.
To conclude this section, we believe when the covenantal language of various biblical covenants are examined it becomes clear that they do not all have the same essential characteristics and parts. They have distinct substances if they do not all have the same essential characteristics and parts. If they have distinct substances, they are distinct covenants. This undermines the covenantal unity argument which says the covenants in redemptive history are one in substance but have various external administrations.
THE LANGUAGE OF "EVERLASTING COVENANT"
Some Paedobaptists look to the terminology of there being an "everlasting covenant" as evidence that there is a single covenant stretching across all of redemptive history. With this argument, "everlasting covenant" is basically taken to be shorthand for "everlasting covenant of grace". So any time we find this term it's supposedly talking about the same singular covenant.
Gen 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
We first see the term "everlasting covenant" in Genesis 9:16 and it occurs 15 times in the Bible. Before we go deeper into this language and find out if it supports the Paedobaptist argument, we want to make two points.
1. Paul's understanding of covenants seems to undermine this idea.
Gal 3:15-18 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
In Galatians 3, Paul compares the giving of the law (the Mosaic covenant) with the previous covenant hundreds of years before it (the Abrahamic covenant). For Paul, the Mosaic covenant did not nullify the prior Abrahamic covenant. These two covenants existed simultaneously and concurrently.
So how is this a problem for the everlasting covenant argument? There are two steps to this.
The first step is to ask the question of whether both of these concurrently existing covenants are the everlasting covenant. If they are, this seems self-defeating. How? Because this sounds like there are two everlasting covenants rather than just one that stretches across all of redemptive history. One might argue that this is fine because both covenants have the same substance, but this would need to be argued for and proven itself.
If two concurrent everlasting covenants don't work for the Paedobaptist, we then ask if only one of these concurrent covenants is the everlasting covenant. If only one is the everlasting covenant, this would bolster our position that there are various distinct covenants in redemptive history because one covenant is everlasting and another one isn't. This would indicate that the fundamental or characteristic part or quality of these covenants is distinct. If this is true, the substance of the covenants is distinct. If the substance is distinct, they are distinct covenants.
2. If you went to a mortgage lender, they would have an agreement (covenant) for different mortgage terms. One of them would be for a 30-year mortgage. Let's say over multiple years you buy a few real estate properties and use this lender for your mortgages. Let's say you do a 30-year mortgage for all of them. When you go through your documents for these mortgages, they would all be a 30-year mortgage with the same lender. You could say that the title or label of the agreements as well as the parties are the same. Does this mean all the agreements (covenants) you made with the lender are really just the same agreement? Well, not necessarily. The substance (a fundamental or characteristic part or quality) of these agreements might be distinct. One way they could be distinct is if the purchase price or down payment for properties were not the same. If the purchase price or down payment are distinct, the conditions of the agreement are different. If the conditions of the agreement are different, fundamental characteristics are different. If fundamental characteristics are different, the substance of the agreement is different. If the substance is different, it's a distinct covenant. Another way the agreements might be distinct is if the interest rate is different due to purchasing each property at a different time. This would also mean that fundamental characteristics are different and therefore the substance is distinct. All of this to say, we cannot so easily look at the title or label of an agreement and conclude it's the same agreement as another with the same name. We must look deeper at the fundamental characteristics of what makes that agreement (covenant) what it is.
What is everlasting about the everlasting covenant?
We believe when we actually look at what is said to be everlasting about an everlasting covenant, it undermines this argument that "everlasting covenant" means that there's one covenant stretching across all of redemptive history. We will list out various covenants that are said to have everlasting aspects and see what is said.
1. The Noahic Covenant
Gen 9:9-15 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
In the Noahic Covenant, one everlasting aspect is that the world would never be flooded again.
2. The Abrahamic Covenant
Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Gen 48:4 And said unto me, Behold, I will make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, and I will make of thee a multitude of people; and will give this land to thy seed after thee for an everlasting possession.
In the Abrahamic Covenant, one everlasting aspect is that there will be a land that is possessed everlastingly.
3. The Priestly Covenant
Num 25:10-13 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy. Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.
In the Priestly Covenant, one everlasting aspect is that there will be an everlasting priesthood.
4. The Davidic Covenant
2Sa 7:11-17 And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever. According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.
Psa 89:3-4 I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.
Jer 33:20-21 Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
In the Davidic Covenant, one everlasting aspect is that there will be a king from his loins that reigns forever.
5. An Everlasting Covenant
Jer 32:36-40 And now therefore thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning this city, whereof ye say, It shall be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence; Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely: And they shall be my people, and I will be their God: And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.
In this everlasting covenant, one everlasting aspect is that God will not turn away from them and they will not depart from God.
What do we see when we look at various everlasting covenants and what is said of them? We discover that the things which make the covenant everlasting are distinct and different. This would mean the fundamental or characteristic part or quality of each covenant is distinct. If this is distinct, the substance of these covenants is distinct. If the substance of the covenants are distinct, they are distinct covenants. This exercise of looking into the everlasting covenants actually undermines the Paedobaptist argument from covenantal unity because it further demonstrates distinctions between various covenants.
DOES AN UNCHANGING DIVINE NATURE
PROVE A SINGLE UNCHANGING COVENANT?
Another and less common way some Paedobaptists argue for a single covenant in redemptive history is through an appeal to God's nature.
"Unto you, and to your children" simply restates "between me and thee and thy seed after thee" (Gen. 17:7).These words assert the identity of the covenant of grace under all dispensations and the continuity of the covenant pattern in which promises made to believers are extended to their children. As God has always done, so he will continue to do in these last days. "I am the LORD, I change not" (Mal. 3:6).” - Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, p. 85
At its core, this argument argues that this singular covenant and its covenantal patterns are the same through all dispensations because God doesn't change. Sameness in God's nature equates to sameness in covenant. This is probably the underlying reasoning for why Zwingli made the comments we've cited previously.
“God therefore made no other covenant with the miserable race of man than that he had already conceived before man was formed. One and the same testament has always been in force.” - Selected Works of Ulrich Zwingli, p. 234
“But two covenants are spoken of, not that they are two diverse covenants, for this would necessitate not only two diverse peoples, but also two gods. Since some ancients did not see this, they taught that two diverse gods existed, one of the Old, the other of the New Testament ; the one cruel, the other gentle and kind. So Paul indeed speaks of two testaments, but the one he calls a testament by a misuse of language, when he wishes them to be understood who, although they were under that one eternal covenant and testament, yet on account of the externals which they tenaciously retained betrayed the light and Christ himself.” - Selected Works of Ulrich Zwingli, p. 228
Jer 31:31-33 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
This assumption becomes further unwarranted when we see God himself saying He makes covenants that aren't according to prior covenants. No reasonable person would conclude from this passage that this is actually two different gods or that this means God's own nature changes.
WHO MEDIATED THE OLD COVENANT?
In a similar vein to the unchanging nature argument, another point some Paedobaptists make to bolster their covenantal unity argument is the notion that the mediator of all covenants in redemptive history is the same. From this, it is argued that a sameness of the mediator means a sameness of covenantal substance.
“However diverse and particular may be the various dispensations or administrations of the covenant of grace-so that we may even speak of "covenants" in the plural (Rom. 9:4)-they do not differ as to substance. There are a number of biblical arguments that support this claim… Second, the Mediator of the covenant is the same in every dispensation or administration of the covenant of grace. Jesus Christ, according to the writer of Hebrews, is "the same yesterday and today and forever" (13:8)... He is the only mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5),” - Gregg Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, p. 287-288
In essence, this argument is that there is one covenant in redemptive history and that the mediator has always been the same in all external administrations of this covenant. The mediator is Jesus. The prooftexts of this argument are Hebrews 13:8 and 1 Timothy 2:5.
Right off the bat, it must be said that even if this premise of Jesus being the only mediator was granted, it would not in any way prove the conclusion that there is one covenant in redemptive history. This conclusion would require further evidence to prove its validity. For example, if there were one loan agent, travel agent, or representative of some kind mediating between clients and a company; would it logically follow that all agreements (covenants) the agent/representative mediates between clients and the company are the same agreement? No, of course not. This doesn't mean the costs, conditions, benefits, or results are the same across all agreements. If these aspects vary, the substance of the agreement (covenant) varies. If the substance varies, they are distinct covenants. We see this point in and of itself lacking in relevance to the issue.
1Ti 2:5-6 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Heb 4:14-16 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
Heb 7:17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
We also find the prooftext of 1 Timothy 2:5-6 to be lacking. We don't believe this verse is saying Jesus is the only mediator in all of redemptive history. Jesus' mediatorial and intercessory role is grounded in his incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. He is a high priest who was tempted in all points like the rest of humanity, yet he didn't sin. He is a priest forever in this regard.
The fact that 1 Timothy 2:5-6 is speaking of Jesus as the "one mediator" in the context of the incarnation is proven by the obvious truth that Jesus didn't always have a human nature. He wasn't always "the man" Christ Jesus. Yes, Jesus preexisted the incarnation; but before this point, he did not have a human nature matching the details of Hebrews 4:14-15. Jesus was not always "touched with the feeling of our infirmities". This is connected to the incarnation. In the context of the Christ event, Jesus is the one mediator because no other priest is immortal and wholly without sin. All priests in the Old Testament were sinners themselves and died. But Jesus, in his glorified human nature is physically immortal, without sin, and with the Father in heaven. This is why we can come boldly to the throne as Hebrews 4:16 says. This boldness is grounded in Christ, our high priest who has a glorified and immortal human nature without sin.
Also, the use of 1 Timothy 2:5-6 to argue for sameness in mediation logically entails the idea that Jesus eternally had a human nature before the incarnation. This creates clear Christological problems that we won't delve into extensively here. So not only are there contextual problems with the use of this prooftext, but there are also problems with what this argument logically entails.
And what of Hebrews 13:8? It too is underwhelming and succumbs to the same problems that we mentioned earlier about unchanging divine nature.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Rev 1:17-18 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Hebrews 13:8 utilizes similar language as Revelation 1:8 and 1:17-18. These verses are not speaking of a sameness in action or dealing with humanity. But, that's what the mediatorial argument requires to arrive at the conclusion that there's one covenant throughout redemptive history with one mediator. This verse doesn't say anything about a covenant. Rather than speaking of sameness in action, these verses are speaking of sameness in nature and Christ's reliability as our immortally glorified high priest and redeemer. Why must we conclude that sameness in personhood or nature equates to sameness in action throughout redemptive history?
Covenantal Mediation According to Hebrews:
As we've seen, the two prooftexts for eternal sameness in covenantal mediation are not compelling. So what does the Bible say? Let's turn our attention to Hebrews.
Heb 3:1-6 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.
Heb 8:5-6 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 9:19-20 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Hebrews repeatedly compares Moses and Jesus as covenant mediators. Moses is assigned to the old covenant and Jesus is assigned to the new and better covenant.
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Christ's mediation is never explicitly tied to anything other than the new covenant. In Hebrews 9:15, we see a further indication that this mediation is connected to his incarnation because it's "by means of death" that those under a previous testament/covenant were redeemed. In the same book which contains Hebrews 13:8, a prooftext of eternal sameness in mediation, we see clear evidence to the contrary. Mediation is better and more excellent in the new covenant precisely because of who the mediator is.
In an attempt to harmonize all the texts, some Paedobaptists might be tempted to say that Moses and anyone else was a mediator only as a type and Jesus was still the mediator. To this, we ask what verses clearly point to Christ as the mediator of all biblical covenants labeled "covenant of grace"? Hebrews 13:8 and 1 Timothy 2:5-6 say nothing of the sort. There are certainly types and shadows of Christ in the OT, but where are we told this applies specifically to covenantal mediation in such a way that is favorable to the Paedobaptist argument?
SUMMARIZING OUR FINDINGS & FINAL CONCLUSIONS
In this article, we have examined a particular argument for Paedobaptism; the covenantal unity argument. Let's revisit some quotes we provided at the beginning which summarize the argument.
“There are also other evidences in the pages of Scripture that support the truth of infant baptism. Nevertheless, the foundation of the argument consists of the unified covenant of grace evident in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.” - Booth, Children of Promise, p. 10
“If there is, indeed, one covenant and one people of God throughout redemptive history, children of NT believers are no less a part of that covenant than were the children of the OT believers, nor are they any less entitled to the sign of that covenant.” - Lyle Beirma, The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus, p. 33-34
“This covenant [of grace] was the sure scriptural, objective foundation upon which all the Reformers, together and without distinction, based the right to infant baptism. They had no other, deeper, or more solid ground.” - Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 4, p. 536
The crux and foundation of this argument as stated by various Paedobaptist theologians is the idea that there is a singular covenant throughout redemptive history after the fall that has various external administrations. It's upon this premise that the Reformers "based the right to infant baptism" as Bavinck says.
It's this premise that we've devoted much attention to in this article. It's our perspective that there are many problems with the premise itself and the underlying arguments used to formulate it. Let's summarize a few of the specific problems we have found.
1. There is no explicit passage of scripture that articulates the idea of there being one covenant in redemptive history with various external administrations.
2. In fact, the biblical authors frequently speak about covenants in a way that isn't compatible with this idea. They seem oblivious to this notion of covenantal oneness. We're told about multiple distinct and concurrent covenants throughout redemptive history.
3. Because there's no explicit passage of scripture that articulates this idea, Paedobaptists resort to forcing a critical mass of sameness and continuity between all biblical covenants to conclude that they're all the same in substance and override what we're explicitly told about the biblical covenants.
4. The first step of this attempt is usually to assert that there's a sameness in the gospel between the Old and New Testaments. But how does sameness in the gospel mean that every agreement or covenant God makes with mankind must be the same in substance? Why must covenant and gospel be conflated as the same? We can certainly say that within a party God covenants with, there can be elements and themes of God's grace and the gospel. However, that doesn't mean the essential parts and elements of the covenant are the exact same as the essential parts and elements of the gospel. Also, sameness in the gospel isn't even a distinct unique point of Paedobaptist covenant theology in the first place.
5. After resorting to sameness in the gospel, Paedobaptists appeal to sameness in covenantal language, divine nature, and mediation among other things to reach a critical mass of sameness and conclude that all covenants in redemptive history are substantially the same. As we've gone over, these appeals are unimpressive, erroneous, and over-simplifications of the biblical data.
Due to all of these reasons and more, we do not find the covenantal unity argument for Paedobaptism to be a valid argument.
Thanks for reading. That concludes this article.
Excellent Work! I hope many reformed loyalists will take the time to work through all that biblical and historical evidence with an open heart and mind!
ReplyDelete