An Argument against Theologically Constructed Covenants

Abstract

"During the last hundred years a historically unique way of doing covenant theology has developed. That way understands and works with the biblical covenants between God and people. But it goes beyond those covenants, which the Bible identifies as such, and postulates larger covenant entities: overarching covenants that assimilate the biblical covenants. John H. Walton, himself a practitioner of this approach, distinguishes the operative concepts of covenant as follows: “Covenants may be identified as ‘biblical’ covenants, articulated as covenant in the Bible, or ‘theological’ covenants constructed by theologians, often composites of several biblical covenants.”1 A concept that often goes hand in hand with such an approach is that of the “unity of the covenants.” Those who understand the biblical covenants within the framework of an overarching, theologically constructed covenant generally do so with a desire to be able to maintain the unity of the covenants. Laudable as that desire may be, however, it has produced a way of dealing with covenants, and with the Bible as a whole, that contributes more confusion than clarity. The reason for that lies in the concept of a “theologically constructed covenant.” I hope in this paper to show the inadequacy of that concept and to propose a better alternative. A survey and critique of some major theologically constructed covenants is in order before an alternative is presented"