Modus operandi

Clearly, God’s promise to give the whole earth to Abraham and his descendants was based not on his obedience to God’s law, but on a right relationship with God that comes by faith. If God’s promise is only for those who obey the law, then faith is not necessary and the promise is pointless. For the law always brings punishment on those who try to obey it. (The only way to avoid breaking the law is to have no law to break!)

So the promise is received by faith. It is given as a free gift. And we are all certain to receive it, whether or not we live according to the law of Moses, if we have faith like Abraham’s. For Abraham is the father of all who believe. That is what the Scriptures mean when God told him, “I have made you the father of many nations.” This happened because Abraham believed in the God who brings the dead back to life and who creates new things out of nothing.

(Romans 4:13-17, NLT)

Paul writes here about two of the covenants, Abraham's and the Sinai, and his purpose is to show that God always works the same way. I like to say that God's modus operandi is grace.

God chose Abraham and made a covenant with him before Abraham did a thing. Even before God gave the rite of circumcision he considered Abraham righteous. What mattered was that Abraham trusted God to do all he promised. It was the same with the law of Moses, given as part of the Sinai covenant. All the law brings, says Paul, is punishment. The covenant's promised blessings are given freely to everyone who shares Abraham's faith.

God's MO is grace. He chooses to bless people just cause he feels like it. The only proper response is that we trust him to do just that. It's always been this way. And if it ever seems like someone earned God's favour then we must investigate more because that's also not how God works.

Covenant Theology is based on the concept of the Covenant of Grace. Although they mean much of the same, the use of covenant language is unhelpful and confusing. The Covenant of Grace is an ahistorical one, being made outside of time between God and the fuzzy group of all his people. I don't know if in the Ancient Near East's understanding that would be recognised as a covenant, but I suspect it would not. It's true that God always acts by grace, but I question what value there is in proposing an ahistorical "theological" covenant (ie, one not mentioned by the Bible explicitly.)

When God swore by himself

For example, there was God’s promise to Abraham. Since there was no one greater to swear by, God took an oath in his own name, saying “I will certainly bless you, and I will multiply your descendants beyond number.”

Then Abraham waited patiently, and he received what God had promised.

Now when people take an oath, they call on someone greater than themselves to hold them to it. And without any question that oath is binding. God also bound himself with an oath, so that those who received the promise could be perfectly sure that he would never change his mind. So God has given both his promise and his oath. These two things are unchangeable because it is impossible for God to lie. Therefore, we who have fled to him for refuge can have great confidence as we hold to the hope that lies before us. This hope is a strong and trustworthy anchor for our souls.

(Hebrews 6:13-19a, NLT)

This is one of the most fascinating parts of the Bible. In the midst of proving the incomparability of Christ the writer adds a few words about God's covenant with Abraham. Everything he says is really quite simple, and yet so profound!

We know, as Abraham did, that every word from God is true, every message reliable, every promise unbreakable. So why would God go so far beyond that and bind himself with an oath too? Well because people suck, and although just a single one of God's promises should be enough, it so very often isn't. With God's oaths, and covenants, there's no excuse to a lack of faith.

I believe that many Biblical teachers today do not give these covenants the prominence they deserve. All of us acknowledge they are important, but many put them second when explaining how we should understand the scriptures. Sure, they are only a small part of the full text and God's other promises far outnumber them, but well, when God binds himself we should take notice! I believe that the Biblical covenants should form the basis of our Biblical meta-narrative. Any framework or model formed around anything else is unhelpful and doing us a disservice, if not outright heretical. I suspect that two popular models, Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism, do this, with the former putting the Covenant of Grace ahead of the Biblical covenants, and the later with the dispensations.

I hope to put aside some time to study the Biblical covenants, and post my findings on this blog. I want to investigate what exactly the terms of the covenants were, and more generally, find out what "covenant" meant for those in the Ancient Near East. I want to study how the covenants interact together, and how they fit into the wider scriptures. And I'll try to find what is the most helpful and faithful meta-narrative, or hermeneutic, that we can develop.

Please join me! All comments, suggestions and ideas will be greatly appreciated.