As with all book reviews, this one has to be selective. With some books that is not a problem since they tend to be thin on argumentation. Or at least their main points can be summarized quite easily. This book by Perkins is not like that. He builds his concepts carefully from systematic and biblical theology as well as from the confessions. He has read the Bible and Reformed authors and has produced a work that discusses Covenant Theology not just from its major tenets, but with a consideration of its purpose as a holistic explanation of the biblical material. What this means for me is that I cannot provide a filled-out picture of his reasoning. I hope, however, to provide an accurate appraisal of it.
On page 82 Perkins asserts that “The garden narrative about Adam’s covenant revolves around the two trees.” CT’s believe that not only is the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil a token of covenant law, but that the Tree of Life also served as a prohibited promise tree (87), available only once perfect obedience to the covenant of works had been given (82-85). I find Perkins argument from Genesis 3:22 unsatisfying to say the least. He claims the Tree of Life was a sacramental tree (84); a physical marker of the promise of eternal life post-obedience.
But the sense of what Genesis 2 and 3 say about the Tree of Life requires none of this. It is not that Adam would have automatically gotten eternal life on his first bite from its fruit. Rather, the fruit of this tree sustained Adam and Eve and would have done so forever. Therefore, the necessity of barring the way to it (Gen. 3:24). This matches the use of the same tree in Revelation 22 on a plain-sense reading. But Perkins’ theology will turn that chapter into a set of non-literal symbols (85). The author says that Adam chose to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (84), but he did this because the serpent tempted Eve at that very tree! In view of what CT’s believe about the Tree of Life it must be said that Satan made a gross miscalculation in tempting our first parents to eat from the wrong tree. If Adam had eaten from the “forbidden” Tree of Life, not only would he have fallen, he would have lived forever in his fallen condition! Thus, Perkins’ argument for the covenant of works results in portraying Satan as a bungling strategist.
What Adam should have done according to modern CT’s is to have killed the serpent and continued obeying (88). To me that is preposterous. Revelation 12:7-9 depicts Michael the archangel fighting with the serpent (who is Satan). Are we supposed to believe that Adam in the garden was more powerful than Michael? Where is that in the Bible?
The author then writes in support of the covenant of works as the means by which we can understand the covenant of grace (93-94). To me this reveals not the necessity revealed in the Scriptures, but the logical relation of one non-biblical deduction with another non-biblical deduction. But more of that further on. Perkins now begins to describe the “covenant of redemption.”
The Covenant of Redemption
In teaching about the covenant of works before the covenant of redemption Perkins is demonstrating a good systematicians awareness, since the covenant of grace is the instantiation of the covenant of redemption (102). The covenant of redemption in CT is wrought by Christ’s obedience so that we can be recipients of God’s grace. In order to posit a rational argument for the covenant of redemption several hurdles must be jumped. Perkins is aware that this “covenant” has sustained attacks from scholars both outside the Reformed tradition and within it. So he writes a chapter (“The Trinity and Their Covenant”) which addresses these head on. The issues involved are the nature of God’s single will, and the perichoretic nature of God’s inseparable operations. If the three Persons share one will, how can there be a covenant between them? And if all three Persons are involved in the Divine operations how can they take up positions relative to each other which are required of a covenant? (See 104-109).
In answer to the first quandary Perkins observes,
“The one Triune God commonly decrees the plan of salvation that then includes differing contributions from the Father, Son, and Spirit in that plan – in that economy of redemption.” (111 italics in original).
Hence, it is within the tri-purposed decree to see through the mission of salvation that the covenant rests, not in the Divine essence (112-113). This also explains how the Son can become subservient to the Father in His redemptive work without violating the essential attributes He shares with the Father (114-116). Perkins asserts, with the help of some Reformed heavyweights, that because the covenant of redemption and Christ’s role is based in God’s decree, there is a real sense in which Christ has always been the mediator of the elect (117, 119). Hence, in this scheme the Father addresses the Son in His role as the future Redeemer of the elect before He has begun the work of Redeemer. This requires that the Father related to the Son both as equal and as inferior in eternity (120). This makes me very uncomfortable. It is all being proposed on the basis of inferred “covenants” and a certain way of reading the OT in light of the cross. If we come to the Bible without the baggage of CT, then we see that covenants are not needed unless one of the parties is potentially unreliable. Hence, there is no need to deduce a covenant prior to human sin. But, of course, the definition of covenant (simply as “agreement”) suffers from imprecision as a result of forcing a pactum back into eternity.
The author cites Isaiah 49:8-9 to show that Christ “would be a covenant to His people” (123). No argument from me on that score. But CT demands that the passage be interpreted not as a prophecy of the work of Christ in the New covenant in the future, but as the decree of the covenant of redemption (124). But a glance at the context of Isaiah 49 shows clearly that the Servant’s redemptive work is on behalf of both national Israel and of the Gentiles (Isa. 49:5-7). CT’s misread the text because they have already concocted a “covenant” in eternity which needs a proof-text.
And it gets worse. as anyone familiar with CT knows, a prime text for the covenant of redemption is Zechariah 6:13 (124). But again, in context the passage is a prophecy about the coming “Branch” (Zech 6:12), who is Messiah, who will unite the priesthood and the crown in a “counsel of peace” in Himself, and will build the temple in Jerusalem. Perkins claims that “Reformed interpreters have understood Zechariah’s “counsel of peace” to be about the covenant between Father and Son in the plan of salvation” (124). But this is nowhere signified by the text. Hence, these “interpretations” of these passage show very well how the demands of a deduced “covenant” system imposes its will upon the inspired text.
