Alastair's Adversaria - Covenant Overload

Episode Date: December 11, 2025

The following was first published on the Anchored Argosy: https://argosy.substack.com/i/167226845/covenant-overload. Follow my Substack, the Anchored Argosy at https://argosy.substack.com/. See my latest podcasts at https://adversariapodcast.com/. If you have enjoyed my videos and podcasts, please tell your friends. If you are interested in supporting my videos and podcasts and my research more generally, please consider supporting my work on Patreon (www.patreon.com/zugzwanged), using my PayPal account (bit.ly/2RLaUcB), or by buying books for my research on Amazon (www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/3…3O?ref_=wl_share). You can also listen to the audio of these episodes on iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/alastairs-adversaria/id1416351035.

The following reflection is entitled Covenant Overload. It was first published on the Anchored Argosy. There are few terms with greater currency among reformed theologians than covenant. The term principally names the gracious relationship that God established with humanity, the substance of which is seen in Christ, unified across the entire history of salvation, yet variously administered in different periods of history. filling out this concept of covenant in much reformed theology

one may find reference to concepts such as the covenant of works and the covenant of redemption the covenant of works as defined by chapter 7 of the Westminster Confession of Faith is a covenant wherein life was promised to Adam and in him to his posterity upon condition of perfect and personal obedience this covenant of works was broken in the fall yet the covenant of grace, which is generally what is referred to when covenant theologians speak of the covenant, is founded upon Christ's fulfillment of the requirements of the covenant of works as the second man and the last Adam.

Often referred to as his act of obedience, Christ's perfect keeping of the law, the covenant of works being seen in the moral requirements of the Ten Commandments, whether or not the Mosaic covenant is seen as a republication of the covenant of works, is imputed to his people, granting them righteous standing with God and eternal life. Some go further, speaking of a covenant of redemption that grounds God's work of salvation in history. The covenant of redemption is understood as the eternal intra-Trinitarian agreemental plan that provides the basis for the covenant of grace. As such, it presents the covenant of grace, which some would identify with the covenant of redemption

under a different aspect, as resting on the surest and firmest of grounds, God's own eternal purpose within himself, determined before time began. God's purpose is not contingent in its establishment upon created or historical events, circumstances or persons. This offers the utmost assurance of the reliability of divine grace. Besides speaking of the covenant, in the senses above, covenant theologians can speak of various historical covenant, the Noahic covenant of Genesis 9, the Mosaic covenant established at Sinai, the Davidic covenant of 2 Samuel 7, etc, foregrounding these in their account of the history of redemption.

These are commonly understood as different administrations or dispensations of the one covenant of grace, although there are debates about whether the Mosaic covenant is a republication of the covenant of works in some circles, for example. Prior to the advent of the gospel, these dispensations foreshadowed and administered the grace of Christ. Treating Covenant as a principle with which we have purchase upon the biblical witness is not peculiar to Covenant theology. The very terms Old Testament and New Testament, pervasively used by Christians of all stripes, use the principle of covenant to frame the material of Holy Scripture itself. Covenant theologians tend to take the concept. further, privileging and foregrounding covenants more broadly, not just old and new, as a

structuring device for their narration of the history of God's dealings with humanity, developing the concept of the covenant of grace as a sort of meta-covenant administered within various other covenants, and sometimes further concepts such as the covenant of works and the covenant of redemption, and extensively deploying the concept and vocabulary of covenant to refer to the economy of grace within their lives and communities. Beyond the architectonic importance that the concept it names enjoys in Covenant theology, Covenant is among the most popular terms in many reformed or Presbyterian circles. If you have ever seen Covenant in the name of a church or institution or attached to some theory, publication or movement, there is a considerable likelihood

that the entity in question is reformed or Presbyterian. In Reform theology, the concept of covenant also implies an emphasis upon the continuity and unity of God's gracious dealings with humanity across various historical dispensations. Especially in an American context, covenant theology contrasts with dispensationalism, a position that has been widely held among evangelical and fundamentalist Baptists. Dispensationalism holds to sharper divisions between eras of God's dealings and history, and between the people or peoples of God, under these different administrations. In addition, the term covenant can be liberally deployed as a qualifier, covenant children, covenant home, covenant family, covenant community, etc, to refer to the intergenerational,

communal and ecclesial form of the economy of grace. In contrast to most evangelicals, reformed Christians tend to emphasize the way God's grace is typically given through natural channels of communities and families. Reform Christians will typically appear, to both these things, the continuity of God's gracious dealings through history and the economy of that grace in the more communal context of faithful families and churches, to justify the baptism of the infants and young children of believing parents. The term covenant has been variously defined and used among covenant theologians. For instance, O'Pama Robertson in his influential treatment of the subject, the Christ of the Covenants, defines covenant as a bond-immonent

blood, sovereignly administered. Such a definition does not cover all things referred to as covenants, whether theological notions such as the covenant of redemption or more secular uses of the term in scripture and elsewhere, other biblical theologians have given attention to the parallels between ancient near eastern suzerain treaty forms and things such as God's covenant with Israel at Sinai. In our current Theopolis podcast series on the book of Hebrews, we got into a discussion of the concept in the context of the use of the term in that epistle. Peter Lighthart subsequently shared some thoughts on the subject, remarking on the fact that the term covenant is fairly uncommon in the New Testament, with most occurrences being in the book of Hebrews, and there

largely in chapters 8 to 10. Without simply dismissing later theological uses of the term, Lightheart encourages us to reflect upon the fact that New Testament teaching largely operates without explicit reference to the covenant, suggesting that covenant may not be quite the all-encompassing concept that reform folk think it is. The use of the term covenant in Hebrews largely relates to the contrast between two covenants, the old covenant that was broken, and the better covenant brought in by Christ. It arguably does not speak of the covenant of grace as such, but of a historical shift between two specific covenant orders. Of course, it is important to bear in mind here, as my friend John Barich notes, that theologians will often develop stipulated meanings for terms adopted

from scripture, which serve important purposes within their theological frameworks, but whose meanings diverge from their scriptural uses. In such instances, it is important to register the divergence, but we do not need to jettison the stipulated theological senses on account of differing biblical usage, that scripture does not use the term covenant in the way that covenant theologians do, does not render covenant theologians' use of the terminology illegitimate. Nonetheless, it is often healthy to take such familiar terms, compare them to biblical usage, and consider whether they have limitations. In the case of the term covenant, we might perform the experiment of substituting it with the term relationship, when grounded by specific

reference, the relationship established at Sinai, the new relationship brought in by Christ, etc. Such a term would be quite meaningful. Likewise, one of the strengths of covenant theology is its recognition that God's dealings with humanity across history are part of a unified relationship. However, as covenant theology has leaned into the latter sense of the continuity of a single covenant of grace as the covenant, it has been tempted, not least on a account of the spatializing tendencies of systematic theology in the modern period to veer in the direction of less grounded and historical accounts. A theological emphasis upon the unity of the covenant across history has functioned theologically to dampen expressions of its historical development.

Yes, such approaches suggest there are different dispensations of the covenant in history, but there is one underlying covenant of grace, and while redemption is accomplished in history, behind its varying administrations, the underlying covenant is unchanging. Concern for a sort of enduring meta-covenant can obscure a historical narrative for which covenant is arguably not present during certain critical periods, for instance, from creation until Noah, and where much narrative development does not seem to be an outworking of it as a theme. While many reformed biblical theologians have done sterling work in recovering the importance of the continuity of God's dealings with humanity as that of a developing reality through time, rather than of a single

unchanging reality above time, even when trying to do justice to the history of redemption, the master concept of covenant has often encouraged a drift in the latter direction. Seeing the various covenants of history in terms of the one covenant of grace, which in turn is understood largely in terms of the principle of redemption, also tends to obscure different thematic through lines. As James Jordan has observed, the entirety of scripture could be read with the theme of maturation being dominant, or perhaps holy war, moving from the rebellion of the serpent to the defeat of the dragon. Considering covenants individually, one could argue, for instance, that some of them represent movement into fuller sonship, more than they do redemption. Even if the work

of redemption is presupposed by, a prerequisite for, or advanced in some manner, by them. I have increasingly tended towards accounts of the development of God's acts in history that foreground the movement of creation towards glorious consummation as humanity created in the image of God is raised to its full stature in Christ. Hugely important though and integral though it is. Redemption is not the most dominant note here. The dominant note is the word taking flesh in the fullness of its Christological, anthropological, ecclesial and cosmic import. Thinking of the covenant as such has encouraged thinner and narrower understandings, substituting the term relationship for covenant, and speaking about the relationship in the way that

covenant theology often speaks of the covenant as a single trans-historical reality, it would be clear that while perhaps a useful term with which to gesture towards the whole, it is far too vague to be load-bearing. It either needs to be concretized in a narrative, for instance, or alternatively, it needs to be more specified as a meta-concept. The load-bearing capacity of the concept, the covenant, can be sought in different ways. The more general concept could be theologically narrowed. For instance, one could say that covenant is not merely a relationship, but a vowed bond sovereignly and unilaterally established by God, with the covenant finding its substance in Christ. While not altogether misguided, the practical effect of this is to thin

out the concept considerably. The narrowing of the concept comes at the expense of the fuller reality encountered in the biblical narrative. Alternatively, the covenant could serve as convenient shorthand for the story of God's dealings with humanity across the entirety of history, from its origin in his eternal purpose, until the consummation of this in the new heavens and new earth. such an approach, the Covenant is doing considerably less load-bearing as a master concept, mostly serving as a convenient blanket term to cover various other concepts and narrative realities that are doing the bulk of the heavy lifting. Illustrating the difference, a son could meaningfully talk about his relationship with his father in a way that comprehended everything

from the period of his early infancy to that of his adulthood, where he acted as the recognized representative of his father. That relationship is appropriately considered as a single and unified thing. However, were one to lean heavily upon an underlying meta-relationship that is variously expressed in different periods of life, the significance of the growth could easily be underplayed. The single unified relationship between the son and his father is better considered in terms of a unity through time, as the unity of a narrative, as we might speak of a person. identity, rather than of a sort of core metapro-relational reality that is unchanged through history. Covenant terminology is concentrated in places in scripture where God is either establishing or

promising a new form of relationship with his people, or in places where the people are being condemned for breach of that relationship. As a concept, it tends to foreground the formal and legal dimensions of God's relationship with his people, the forensic concerns of much historic reform theology have naturally made such a framework attractive. However, where covenant is highly privileged as a conceptual framework, it will subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, pull our understanding of our relationship with God in directions that over-emphasise legal dimensions. Scott Swain helpfully observes the presence of so-called covenant formulae at critical junctures within the New Testament. For this is the covenant that I will make with the House of Israel,

after those days, declares the Lord. I will put my laws into their minds and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be my people. Hebrews 8, verse 10, citing Jeremiah 31, verse 33. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, Behold the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.

Revelation chapter 21 verse 3. The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be His God and He will be my son. Revelation chapter 21 verse 7. Such statements are not inappropriately called covenant formulate, not least as they generally illustrate God's self-binding vowed commitment to his people in a formal and defined relationship. However, it is important to notice the way that such statements can gesture

towards thicker and more prominent motifs such as sonship, divine indwelling, marriage, communion, kingship and the like. To illustrate some of my concerns here, it might be helpful to consider marriage, which is, by many definitions, a form of covenant. A marriage is a legal and formal union typically entered into through a covenant ceremony, with witness vows and official binding documents. This reality of marriage is most prominently experienced in a wedding and the other formalities surrounding the official registering of the marriage.

It might also come to the foreground in a situation where the marriage has broken down and the couple are divorcing. The entire reality of a marriage can be viewed from the vantage point of this understanding. A wedding is not merely the first episode in a marriage, but a perspective from which the whole marriage can be seen. Every day and in every act one relates to one's spouse, one could see oneself as living out one's marriage vows. However, while such a perspective may be important, if it were accented or prioritised to the exclusion of others,

it would prove quite limiting and distorting. The relationship between a husband and wife typically both proceeds and greatly exceeds its formal and legal character as a marriage. Were the formal and legal character always foregrounded, one can imagine that something might have gone awry. The actual living out of married life mostly does not have the felt character of fulfilling mutual vows but of enjoying and growing in a shared life.

The vows may ground and adambrate this but vow keeping does not best characterize its content and animating reality. Marital vows must be kept but most of the time they are kept indirectly simply as one devotes oneself to one's spouse rather than as one tries to keep one's vows. were a couple frequently to appeal to their wedding vows in their marriage,

one might wonder whether there was a lurking insecurity or failure of love. Even though one could argue that the wedding vows are foundational, much of the reality is found in the superstructure that is confidently built upon them. One does not always have to unearth the foundations to find a secure base to rest upon. One should generally be confident in both the strengths of the foundations and that which has already been built upon them. Just as the formal legal and vowed character of a marriage can offer a perspective upon the whole reality,

while narrowing our sense of the reality, if not routinely accompanied by other perspectives, so Covenant is most valuable when employed as one highly revelatory vantage point among others. The problems arise when it is treated as the controlling perspective upon everything. Returning to the Covenant formulae, When God declares, I will be His God and he will be my son, for instance, the recipient of this word can appropriately be assured that their standing with God and adopted

sonship ultimately rests upon something truly secure, upon covenant. However important though the continued assurance of legal standing with God is, the reality of sonship will mostly be known more directly in things such as fellowship and communion, blessing, inheritance, and empowerment, without the constant conceptual intermediation of covenant. We should also consider the way that the biblical narrative presents God's gracious relationship with people as something that can proceed and exceed covenant. God calls and makes great promises to Abraham before he ever establishes his covenant with him. One could argue that much as the story of a couple's love and life together

typically precedes their entrance into the covenant bond of marriage, with marriage serving to ground, give form to, and extend their existing love and commitment. So covenant arises from and serves a deeper divine purpose of love, a purpose that may not itself be best described as covenantal in character. Further, although Gentiles were formerly strangers to the covenants, as we see in Ephesians chapter 2 verse 12, this does not mean that God had no gracious dealings with them and did not already love them. Indeed, it was precisely because God so loved them that he did what was necessary to bring them into his new covenant.

Reform theology's preoccupation with forensic categories and desire for clear assurance of standing with God represent concerns to which covenant legitimately and powerfully answers. However, were we to consider the relationship God has found, formed with us more expansively, many other blessings might come into view, and we might also be less susceptible to various distortions of understanding. Reducing the load-bearing of the category of covenant may be helpful for many reformed people in doing this. Thank you very much for listening. This and many other posts are available on the Anchored Argosy. If you would like to support my work here, there, and in other places, you can do so using the Patreon or PayPal link.

your support is really appreciated it makes a great difference god bless