A Review of Harrison Perkins, “Reformed Covenant Theology” (Pt. 4)

PART THREE

As I complete this review one of the things that stands out to me is how much the author leans upon Reformed Confessions and writers from the past. While he does interact with Scripture a lot, one notices that men like Irenaeus, Augustine, Calvin, and a host of Puritans are brought in to direct the arguments. This is not to say these great men shouldn’t be referenced; it is the supporting role these authorities are given that is of note. They often do not merely corroborate an assertion; they reinforce and develop it.

I say this in passing because I think it is a strategy employed by certain theological traditions (e.g., Reformed, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox) to almost reassure readers that “this is the right way.” One can feel intimidated by these voices. But often these voices are asserting things with which I have to disagree. I don’t know if I’ve said that as well as it needs to be said, but there it is.

Getting back to the book. Let me begin with a quote:

“The covenant of grace has not always looked the same as it unfolded across history, but communion with God has always been based on the same foundation. God’s people have always been in communion with him be grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. That substance has been constant throughout the covenant of grace in every era. On the other hand, Christ has not always been offered explicitly or clearly, like he is in the new covenant. Each administration of the covenant of grace has, however, always pointed to Christ and taught about our communion with God because of Christ in some way.” (382 cf. 387).

This statement sums up well the central concerns of Covenant Theology. There are several things in this paragraph to dispute. Let me itemize them:

1. The covenant of grace, despite Perkins’ efforts to persuade otherwise, is not a biblical covenant. Therefore, it has not unfolded across history.
2. He says “communion with God” has been the same through the ages by faith in Christ alone. But this is not true. Galatians 4:6 says that God has sent His Spirit into our hearts, crying out ‘Abba, Father.’ Try as I might, I cannot find anywhere prior to the descent of the Spirit in Acts 2 where anyone had communion with God in this way. Moreover, Perkins needs to construct a variety of types and shadows in the OT through which faith in Christ is mediated (e.g., 370-372).
3. Whilst we can agree that Christ “communicated the virtue, efficacy, and benefits” of His work to believers in all ages (373), it is harder to agree that faith was “in Christ.” Rather, Abraham believed what God said to him about his seed (Rom. 4:2-3).
4. There are no administrations of the covenant of grace in the Bible. There are the specific Divine covenants found very plainly on the pages of Scripture. These covenants are not necessarily connected to soul salvation or communion with God. Each has the right to be examined in its own right and not under the dominance of a made-up covenant.

So we move on to eschatology and we find this:

“God’s Israel is no longer a geopolitical nation but the church” (391).

“For Peter, the church fulfilled Israel.” (394).

This perspective stems from the requirements of the “covenant of grace,” under the umbrella of which all saints are incorporated (388-390). It is encouraged by superficial readings of passages like Ephesians 2:11-13 and 1 Peter 2:4-9, plus a heavy dose of questionable typology (e.g., 380-381). As a brief response, Ephesians 2 refers to Gentiles being brought into union with believing Jews in the Church. It does not abrogate God’s promises to national ethnic Israel one bit. 1 Peter 2 is actually written to Jewish Christians (see 1 Pet. 1:1, 18), and so his use of OT imagery is entirely appropriate.

The book ends with a very helpful summary of six “Theses on Covenant Theology” (443-447) and an appendix on Romans 2:13. I wish to highlight just two of the theses.

The third thesis says “God’s covenants with us are the historically conditioned hermeneutical tool for relating the Old and New Testaments.” (Emphasis his). By “historically conditioned” Perkins means that their “appeal to the covenants for soteriology and ecclesiology…[are] in continuity with patristic theology” (445). This makes them “hard to dissuade” when other readings of Scripture are proposed. But the problem here is that one has to pick and choose when reading the Church Fathers. Some of their teachings imply things like subordinationism, baptismal regeneration, and errant hierarchical structures. Besides, they did not refer to the theological covenants of Covenant Theology, although some of them did contrast the “old covenant” (i.e. Testament) with the “new covenant” (Testament). Further, before Origen, and especially before Augustine, the majority of these men were premillennial (See now Michael J. Svigel, The Fathers on the Future). Anyone can cherry-pick. One thing that stands out to me about CT generally is that it’s hermeneutics are carefully fashioned to produce – CT!

The fourth thesis is “God’s covenants with us center his revelation and our relationship with him in Jesus Christ.” Here Perkins admits that it is the “three doctrinal covenants” of redemption, works and (especially) grace that set up their whole understanding of the Bible. It’s basically all about law and grace and the elect people of God (446). But, of course, these covenants are found nowhere in Scripture, and the effect of their imposition on the reading of Scripture subsumes the real covenants of the Bible beneath their accrued weight and demands. Bible readers ought to acknowledge what God Himself has sworn to do and never superimpose extraneous frameworks over God’s oaths. It is telling indeed that the book cites Jeremiah 31:31-34 and 38-39 but skips over God’s pledge to the nation of Israel in Jeremiah 31:35-37! More examples could be supplied.

But it deserves notice that Covenant Theology is very Christocentric. This is something that Dispensationalism, with its focus on “administrations” fails at. Hence, Dispensationalists ought to study more the covenants within the Bible and their relationship to Jesus Christ. If they do that they will discover that God’s covenants converge upon Christ and emerge from Christ. We too can have a Christological theology!

Reformed Covenant Theology demands attention as a skillful and pious volume on the subject. While I do not think the author proves his approach to be that of the Bible, he does strive to be biblical, and he furnishes much important information for Reformed believers and Dispensational students alike.